Doxxing, or who deserves anonymity

Topher Grace was in 'The Dark Knight.'

 

Depends on the circumstances. If you are talking strictly about here on SJ, you can expose a bullshitter all you want to as long as doing so does not involve putting their RL name out there or exposing a previous screen name. The rules are pretty clear. You COULD do it, but anything that happened afterward is on your own head, be it the banhammer or other posters giving you hell and then sniping at you about it forevermore.

LOL and now I'm curious about who got your nose out of joint.

 

What if you plagiarize here?

 

If you're going to fight another poster at NY subway station, SJ.com tradition dictates that real names be exchanged right before the ensuing fisticuffs.

 

Nothing. I just find it interesting, especially the thread I read last night about the person who was stealing valor. The thread has been deleted, because the twitter user bas banned/suspended, but that one did piss me off some.

They were using their "experience in the military" to paint actual service members in a bad light.

 

That's where this discussion gets tricky. When it comes to SJ.com, the rule against outing comes first. We all agreed to that rule by signing up here. If you don't like it, don't be here.

 

I'd think that would be the kind of "high crime" among journalists.

 

Yeah, i'm not speaking specifically of SJ.com.

It's more theoretical. It's against the rules here, so when I ask if someone -- even myself -- would deserve to be outed, I'm not specifically calling for it.

Just trying to "localize" a broader discussion.

And, I mean, it's technically against the rules on twitter too. The "Amy Mek" reporter was temporarily banned, but was reinstated. I think their argument was that the poster wasn't truely anonymous, but I don't remember the specifics.

 

True.

But, I think we'd take a different angle on it, if we experienced something like what @Neutral Corner mentioned.

It hasn't happened here, but other forums have experience fake claims of cancer, stolen valor, and even faked deaths.

 

Kinda Sorta. Nothing here is being written for pay for the larger audience. This is an internet message board.

Bad form? Sure. Deserving of getting slapped around some? Yeah, probably.

It's still not the essay section of the SAT, or plagiarized paragraphs in a WaPo story.

Most here are no longer journalists, I think. I'm not one, so YMMV.

 

You have a right to be pissed, but if it's on this board, you don't have a right to out the person because it is against the rules here.

I know you don't care for that rule. You've been open about who you are for a long time and there is nothing wrong with that decision, but not everyone here makes that decision. Sure, a determined person can probably figure out the real identities of the members of SJ.com. But every time someone makes even a subtle reference to a poster's identity that might out them, it creates greater exposure for that person. Again, it goes back to my earlier point. People who don't want to respect that particular SJ.com rule should leave.

Regarding lies to establish authority, I have always put very limited stock in the expertise posters claim to bring here. It also isn't that difficult to pose as someone you're not here if you really wanted to do it. I just don't see the point. If you want to argue a point, show that expertise through the information you post. Don't expect people to defer just because you claim to have a certain job or degree.

In the case of leading someone on romantically, I can certainly understand someone outing the perpetrator. Again, it depends on the rules of the community.

 

Sure, but it's sort of the "stolen valor" of the journalism world.

If you're trying to win an argument, by using someone else's words, and don't make it clear that you're quoting someone, that's pretty bad.

In that case though, I suppose you could out the poster as a plagiarist, without exposing the identity of the poster who used the stolen words.