"Mr. Chairman, a Question of privilege, A Ruling "from the 'Chair', please" ...

[proximity1]

from the thread: Politicas/ "Is metadata private?" topic/75732-is-metadata-private/page-2

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75732-is-metadata-private/#entry749657

 

@ 21 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75732-is-metadata-private/page-2#entry749762 :

 

"That's not what I'm wanting to discuss. ... "A government abusing its power is a completely separate issue." (my emphasis added)

 

& @ 28 (addressed to "overtone" @ 27) : "If you're not interested in discussing the OP within the parameters I've outlined, please start a new thread for your discussion."

 

As a matter of general principle, I'd like to know what officialdom's formal opinion is concerning an original poster's power to determine what is and isn't germaine to the topic of a thread he or she starts.

 

In my own experience here, I haven't seen the slightest indication that my view of what is in or out of bounds in a thread I've started (or, in any thread I participate(d) in, for that matter) has had any influence on what others participating think and write about the topic.

 

In "Is metadata private?", given the posts cited just above, it appears that the OP, Swansont, is insisting that discussion of what official government authorities can or should be lawfully allowed to do or not do concerning search and seizure of data is not within the scope of the discussion of "Is metadata private?" as he sees it. Interesting! I never "knew" I enjoyed such power over what another could raise and discuss as a matter related to a topic I've launched. Instead, I've found that in my case and others, our opinions about that aren't determinative at all.

 

It appears that "Is metadata private?" doesn't mean or include, "...private from the government", but means, rather, in some existential, Platonically ethereal sense, "just 'private' ", period. If so, then, indeed, I didn't and haven't understood this to be the case and, indeed, we do need to "start a new thread for [such a] discussion", I think.

 

What, please, is the current situation on this question?

[imatfaal]

This is unofficial - but as I have already moved your two posts (before reading this post) - I felt I should reply.

 

In all questions of a judicial nature there are two facets that must be covered. The procedural and legal questions and the substantive matters of the actual case; the more theoretical side will discuss the law and protocol in general without reference to the facts of a case whereas the more specific argument will discuss how the agreed law should apply to the facts of this individual case. The OP you refer to was, IMO, clearly asking a theoretical question regarding the privacy of metadata absent a discussion of the Edward Snowden case. As there is a healthy thread already discussing the Edward Snowden revelations I decided that thread was a more suitable home for your posts.

 

Regarding the question of whether the OP is able to determine the fitness of an argument to a thread; in general I would say no, however they have every right to challenge the fitness. The right to determine rather than challenge lies with the staff (which is why staff do not moderate threads they have participated within) and we tend to err on the side of keeping threads tight and single-topic rather than loose and diverse. When an OP is fairly specific and a counter-argument comes from the same general area but introduces new and wider concepts I see that as being potentially off-topic. I would prefer to see a proliferation of short and tightly argued threads covering a multiplicity of topics rather than a smaller number of long and meandering threads each taking in many topics.

 

Some threads on the forum have been allowed to wander far too much from the OP. A few (but non-exhaustive) reasons this happens: the OP was loose to start with and the participants are happy to widen and continue to debate (thus it might seem churlish to interfere too rapidly); the staff are only human and we missed the initial branch and it would be impossible to unpick the thread; and the OP can be answered (especially in the science sub-fora) to everyone's satisfaction and follow up questions are asked that make much more sense when appended to the original thread.

 

I cannot comment on your individual experiences of finding your thread moving away from the original debating point - but would ask you and other members, in future, to report thread branches straight away and a staff member will take a look.

 

On the current situation - I hope from my above vague comments you can ascertain my personal perspective - other moderators will feel differently; but more importantly I would ask you to remember that the staff are a loose voluntary collective of science-lovers who act in a manner that they calculate best serves the interests of this science forum rather than a paid staff following exact rules.

[proximity1]

@ 2

 

I appreciate your trying to offer a reply. It seems to me both from your comments and from simple observation that the issues involved aren't clearly delineated. Instead, things are taken up and, if a determination is made, it's done in an ad hoc manner. This of course allows a good deal of ambiguity to develop in the practice of both moderation and in the way that some approach their own threads---as there isn't any clear, consistent principle--that is evident, at any rate, to those who are not privy to the moderator/staff discussions & decisions---which permits the general participant to understand in advance what comes within a thread's purview and how that is decided.

 

E.G., you write:

 

"The OP you refer to was, IMO, clearly asking a theoretical question
regarding the privacy of metadata absent a discussion of the Edward
Snowden case." (emphasis added)

 

and,

 

@ 30 ( in "Is metadata private?") : "This thread is very much aimed at an almost procedural debate on the privacy of metadata." (my emphasis added)

 

Neither of these was clear to me and I cannot help but wonder how, for example, you actually arrived at the view you state in post 30, cited above. Where and what in the thread itself makes (and made) that clear? ETA: Was it in directly asking for clarification from Swansont himself, off-thread, that you gained this view of his thread's point and purpose? It seems to me that "Overtone" hadn't discerned that (as you see and as you saw it) any more than I had.

 

There's something else: "The OP you refer to was, IMO, clearly asking a theoretical question
regarding the privacy of metadata absent a discussion of the Edward Snowden case"

 

what is it that is supposed to tip us off to the fact that, here, whether the topic is on "theory" or "practice" or both, we're supposed to have appreciated that practical examples, bearing on the issue's theoretical considerations, aren't welcome or germaine? Are we to suppose that in general here, when a topic addresses what seems to be a "theoretical matter", that practical aspects drawn from life and current experience are automatically to be deemed not proper in the discussion?

 

You offer a start in answering my questions, but you leave the crux of them in a state of limbo, without any clear guidance. Consequently, I don't think that I'm now any more likely to correctly interpret what's permissable and when and where and why it is so than I was before I read your reply.

Edited June 16, 2013 by proximity1