Why, prior to any confirmation that they are the same poster, should people be banned for posting Zek's PI when 'Equan' has already strongly implied she isn't Zek?
Then I guess there's nothing to worry about if she isn't Zek.
You haven't answered my question. I'll rephrase it: would you retrospectively ban Poster A for posting PI of Poster B, when Poster B has previously denied (explicitly or otherwise) being the owner of said PI, only to later claim they are the owner of the PI?
In this case Equanimity implied she was not Zek, Zek's PI was then posted, the PI poster was then threatened with a ban if Equanimity changed her story and claimed she was Zek. In essence a ban would have been handed out to a member as a consequence of you being trolled by one of your own mods.
Is this how the scenario would have played out, Arnox?
My understanding is that anyone choosing to post known PI is assuming the risk for doing so. Just because I'm insisting I'm not Zek doesn't mean she's not posting on another account, and that risk has been there from the start. If she comes forward and is verified on any account this will be considered PI.
You are raising a different issue, that notwithstanding:
Members are currently freely allowed by Arnox to post 'known PI' of non-members. He, and by extension every member of his staff, is therefore complicite in the non-member-PI poster's actions. The PI, if complained about by the PI-owner after the fact, should be removed and any
further attempt to post it should be met with punishment.
The alternative is banning people for someone that the staff have tacitly sanctioned,
by allowing it to remain on the board in the first place. Such a 'post at the risk of us banning you for something we let slide as little as a few minutes ago' policy will cause Arnox considerable drama in the long run.
...
In contrast the scenario I described is not one were someone comes forward 'out of the blue' to claim their PI, but where a member of staff has changed their story in order, it could potentially seem, to get another member banned by the Admin. That would lead to more drama than a production by the Royal Shakespeare Company.
EDIT: I typed the above before seeing Arnox's response.
Still, he did say I needed to 'post moar'. Maybe he'll soon think I need to post less.
You haven't answered my question. I'll rephrase it: would you retrospectively ban Poster A for posting PI of Poster B, when Poster B has previously denied (explicitly or otherwise) being the owner of said PI, only to later claim they are the owner of the PI?
In this case Equanimity implied she was not Zek, Zek's PI was then posted, the PI poster was then threatened with a ban if Equanimity changed her story and claimed she was Zek. In essence a ban would have been handed out to a member as a consequence of you being trolled by one of your own mods.
Is this how the scenario would have played out, Arnox?
No. If a poster says something is not PI and then later turns around and says it is, the person posting it will still not be banned. HOWEVER, wherever the person's PI is found, it will now be deleted. And any more future posting of PI of that person will be punished from then on.
That is reassuringly sensible. Thank you for responding to and clarifying that point, Arnox.
