What it isn't 

Frontier and Law 

Pushing past the Paper Problem 

discuss

Thank you for your insight. It may sound simple, but to me, I think before I type. I try to remember the old addage, do unto others...

I do hope that this whole thing gets worked out and people can realize that we can rise above such things. We saw, we argue, people place blame, make judgments, and hopefully move on, wiser, and more educated.

I hope that I can learn more from you in the future.

Take Care. Rebecca

discuss

Here's my take:

1. It seems real and credible that Kathy was threatened by some of the postings on "meankids" "unclebob" and via anonymous e-mails.

2. It seems real and credible to me that the people she called out (Chris Locke, Alan Herrell, Jeneane Sessum, etc.) find these threats, etc. as repugnant as everyone else.

3. There seems to be a whole lot of accusation flying around based on rumor, innuendo and half-truths.

It's a shame for *all* of the parties involved. Kathy should never have to feel threatened for her words. The "mean kids" should be allowed to speak their minds without fear of baseless accusations. The problem, as I see it, is that the "Mean Kids" were, perhaps, a little too vehement in their name calling against people in the past... it appears to have brought some bad karma back on them when it comes to their credibility; people are all too ready to believe the worst about them. There appears to be some logic behind it, too, unsubstaniated or not. Perhaps it's time for "mean kids" to have some personal reflection?

But in their defense, I think it's also time everyone who is taking up arms against them had some personal reflection before jumping to conclusions as well. Most of the people who seem to be lighting the torches don't seem to have any greater access to the facts than I do, which is very frightening.

With what's known there seems to be only one reasonable way to view the situation:

1. Support Kathy against people who make anonymous threats. 2. Give the "mean kids" the benefit of the doubt that none of them are the perpatrator of the horrible threatening e-mails. 3. Try to be a little kinder--but not to the point of holding back *legitimate* criticisms. 4. Sit back and wait for some actual, substantiated facts come to light before rushing to pass judgement.

Anyway, I have real work to do. Interesting drama, nonetheless. I hope, in the end, the reactionary crowd doesn't burn the village down in the process.

discuss

"It may have been Joey, or Chris Locke, or perhaps Allen Herrel... the same Herrel (or someone pretending to be Herrel)..."

My reaction to her post was to find a way to excuse every person named from being at the heart of this, and her words gave me a way to do it, which was why the post I wrote on it left out the names but linked their own statements denying any part in this on my blog post about this.

Sierra was also pretty clear (at least to me), that her issue was with the fostering of such a negative culture by creating a site like meankids.org. If I were to be critical of her post, my main criticism would be that she didn't qualify Chris Locke the same way she did Herrel.

A battle-scarred veteran of message boards myself in the arena of politics and criminal cases (as an onlooker), I'm no stranger to flame wars and trolls. Still, I don't subscribe to the idea that it has to be this way, which was what I saw as Sierra's larger message. In some respects, I wish she had written two separate posts -- one dealing with her own fears and one dealing with her rejection of a culture that turns away and shrugs, saying "It's always been that way and we just have to live with it."

Surely there must be a way NOT to live with it that allows for responsible free speech! Responsible free speech may be objectionable, but it's impersonal. I don't think it was especially smart to create a space for others to belittle or make fun of people, particularly without retaining some control over the content posted on it, which is apparently what happened with MeanKids.org. Frank Paynter owned the site but couldn't delete comments attributable to trolls? WTF?

I do believe a hack and identity theft probably are at the heart of this. Based on the Flickr hacks that have gone on over the past couple of months, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that something similar happened to people who have a high profile on the Internet and among bloggers. But if posts like the ones on MeanKids had shown up on these folks' regular blogs, I expect there would have been far less outrage over it, because readers would have known the blogger and known they couldn't possibly have written it.

As soon as a group started blogging anonymously and under the radar on a site intended (by its very name, even) to be negative the fields were ripe for the harvest.

On the subject of anonymity -- I was pressured for months to use my real name if I wanted to be granted any legitimacy when I commented on blogs or had an opinion. And so I have 'come out', at least partly. The jury is still out on whether or not that's a good thing, and I can tell you that I'd feel a lot better about it if there were a way to 'thumbprint' myself so that my identity could not be taken and used the way others' have seen theirs taken.

discuss

(By the way, I'm registered as a resident of Alabama on your site, because oddly, District of Columbia isn't an option. Has that always been the case in Manila? If so, Manila has existed for nearly a decade with a pulldown that excludes the nation's capital?)

discuss

While his absence from the conversation (both before and after the email I published) raises suspicions, I believe he is innocent until proven guilty.

And that's where I'll stand until we know otherwise.

As for Manila, we're lucky at this point that there is some interest in maintaining or improving it. (Dave has been writing about this.) If I were a programmer who knew the code, I'd try to fix it, but I'm not.

But thanks for calling attention to the problem.

discuss

discuss

http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/2007/03/26/not-just-death-threats

What these guys permitted to go on, and their refusal to speak up, reflects on them personally. Let's not be like that.

http://www.netcrucible.com/blog/2007/03/30/a-clue-for-chris-locke/

discuss

I didn't say it was the only ride. I didn't say trolling was all that happened. I made a conditional statement about a claim of impersonation and trolling.

Up until the point I published Alan's email, the trolling possibility (much less impersonation) had hardly come up, if at all.

And up until this point, darn few people blogging about this whole matter have hesitated about rushing to judgment in the absence of hard facts about who did what and when.

Right now Chris Locke and Kathy Sierra are talking to each other -- something that didn't happen before Kathy's post about Chris and Chris's post about Kathy.

I'm looking forward to what both have to say next. And I don't want to say any more about this case until that happens.

discuss

But there is absolutely no need to withold judgment on stalking and intimidating behavior. Chris fully admits that he didn't censor, discourage, or condemn the intimidation. There is no need to have an inquest into the particulars to know that the post crossed a line and was unacceptable. It should have been removed and condemned immediately -- that's bottom line. The fact that he didn't remove or condemn it until forced to, and acts like a victim, reflects on him personally. Same goes for the a-listers who acted like civil rights heroes for reposting the Anshe Chung attack on their blogs.

(I support the French happy-slapping ban, too, FWIW. I think the children of the 60's have turned their free-speech ideals into idols, and have become ossified and hardened like statues. Will we see a-listers selling adsense on snuff video blogs and screaming "free speech" while they collect the lucre?)

discuss