Reply

Cast Your Vote:

    • Yes, BG secret posters should be protected -- Votes: 351
    • NO, You use the account, you take the risk of being exposed -- Votes: 59
    • ...does not compute -- Votes: 5
let it be California 41018 posts
16th Aug '12

Crystal Mom of 4 4 kids; New York 6309 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Legendary Amanda:" I voted not to ban, simply because it's too hard to put in place. You can't really determine that they've ... [snip!] ... a bg secrets post about it, if someone were to bring it up, who's to say I (or someone else in the ptot) didn't tell them?"


This is all a very good and well thought out point.

taking a look at life Palm beach gardens, FL, United States 49006 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Barney Stinson [Epic]:" some guy with glasses frowning at you."


no it was :shock:



But i was on my ipad

CatLady Texas 1244 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting ...CeCe...:" I think if someone is using the info from the bg secrets account to maliciously hurt someone then yes they should be banned."


Completely agree!

Mara Due September 27; 2 kids; San Francisco, California 38964 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Legendary Amanda:" I voted not to ban, simply because it's too hard to put in place. You can't really determine that they've ... [snip!] ... a bg secrets post about it, if someone were to bring it up, who's to say I (or someone else in the ptot) didn't tell them?"


when the member is clearly connected to their post in that situation or elsewhere publicly it's irrelevant HOW you came by the information, rather that you're pinning their post to them.



if you make a statement that could be a clue to who it is, that's not the same. for example: "but what about how your daughter feels about all of this?" ... it's clear you know more than others (or at least think you do), but it doesn't remotely identify the poster. anonymity is preserved.



if you - on the other hand, were to say, "but you're gay, we all know it. you even posted it in BG secrets, which we thought was ridiculous considering how un-secret this fact it", you should be banned.



if you go into their BG secrets topic and attempt to identify them in a way that is clearly malicious -- and even if you're wrong, you would be banned for being an a*****e of the first degree.



certain behaviors aren't tolerable, this is one of 'em.

Legendary Due September 3; 1 child; Beverly Hills, California 54252 posts
16th Aug '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mara:</b>" when the member is clearly connected to their post in that situation or elsewhere publicly it's irrelevant ... [snip!] ... wrong, you would be banned for being an a*****e of the first degree. certain behaviors aren't tolerable, this is one of 'em. "</blockquote>




Okay, what if you said something about them being gay without saying "you even said on the bg secrets account".



It's easy to attack a secret without saying where you heard it.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
16th Aug '12

What was the point of the secrets account if it isn't meant to be completely protected? Gossiping about it and trying to match who asked for the account info with what threads posted is also disturbing. I know why it was wanted to be controlled so badly now, so people can have info on others to "use" when the time is right. It's bullshit, plain and simple. Not to mention, someone may ask for it who chickens out before they actually use it or they may wait a few days. So not only are you attempting to "out" someone, you are outing the wrong person. And outing in a roundabout way is still outing them, IMO.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting [wtf] i'm heather.:" So like if I was reading something I knew someone's kids were G, J & H. They posted a secret about cheating ... [snip!] ... on her husband and everything else. I'm not sure that's grounds for a ban on my part. Why were they a little more cautious."


You shouldn't be pondering who they could be anyway. It should be respected that they posted on the secrets account.

JΔS Georgia 70894 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Moses.:" What was the point of the secrets account if it isn't meant to be completely protected? Gossiping about ... [snip!] ... are you attempting to "out" someone, you are outing the wrong person. And outing in a roundabout way is still outing them, IMO."


I agree with all of this actually.

Mara Due September 27; 2 kids; San Francisco, California 38964 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Legendary Amanda:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Mara:</b>" when the member is clearly connected to their post ... [snip!] ... gay without saying "you even said on the bg secrets account". It's easy to attack a secret without saying where you heard it."


if it doesn't connect them to their posting, it's not even part of the issue, then.



if you say something that undeniably connects them to their secrets post, you're being a huge dick -- regardless of how you came by that information.



telling someone they're gay w/out connecting it to the account has nothing to do w/ the account, unless when you're identifying it you make it clear that they're the person who posted about being gay on the BG secrets account.

Mara Due September 27; 2 kids; San Francisco, California 38964 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Moses.:" What was the point of the secrets account if it isn't meant to be completely protected? Gossiping about ... [snip!] ... are you attempting to "out" someone, you are outing the wrong person. And outing in a roundabout way is still outing them, IMO."


what does that mean exactly?



i agree w/ your first statement. i voted to ban -- so this is just a poll to make sure we're all on the same page.

Legendary Due September 3; 1 child; Beverly Hills, California 54252 posts
16th Aug '12

<blockquote><b>Quoting Mara:</b>" if it doesn't connect them to their posting, it's not even part of the issue, then. if you say something ... [snip!] ... when you're identifying it you make it clear that they're the person who posted about being gay on the BG secrets account. "</blockquote>



Okay, in that case for sure, I just don't like "grey" rules that are hard to prove. Like the name posting, it caused a lot of headaches trying to determine when it's a clear cut violation and if it's just a*****e-ish enough to ban. KWIM?




How about a mod who has the password saying in a pm, a ptot, or in public that so and so asked for the password?

The Great Mustachio Suck It, PO, Uzbekistan 9383 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Moses.:" What was the point of the secrets account if it isn't meant to be completely protected? Gossiping about ... [snip!] ... are you attempting to "out" someone, you are outing the wrong person. And outing in a roundabout way is still outing them, IMO."


I have to roll with this.

Moses. Due October 27; 3 kids; Texas 16003 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Legendary Amanda:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Mara:</b>" when the member is clearly connected to their post ... [snip!] ... gay without saying "you even said on the bg secrets account". It's easy to attack a secret without saying where you heard it."


Attacking a secret shouldn't be outed, period. Even if you "protect" yourself by saying you didn't hear about it on the secret's account.

The Great Mustachio Suck It, PO, Uzbekistan 9383 posts
16th Aug '12
Quoting Legendary Amanda:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Mara:</b>" if it doesn't connect them to their posting, it's ... [snip!] ... ban. KWIM? How about a mod who has the password saying in a pm, a ptot, or in public that so and so asked for the password?"


Why would a mod even volunteer that to anyone outside of an emergency o.O



Are people really that crazy on here?