* David Gerard wrote:
This appears to be putting the cart before the horse,
i.e. making
detection of violations easier at the expense of causing violations.
The only way that statement makes any kind of sense to me would be if you
were assuming that checkuser logs would be made public. That's obviously a
bad idea. However, there would obviously be no breach of privacy in
allowing users to see checkuser requests run on THEMSELVES. That would
make 'detection of violations easier' without 'causing violations'.
If it's no shame to show up in a CheckUser log,
why are people
shitting themselves at the idea?
Strawman. I know for certain that there have been checkuser requests run
on my account and I'm not 'shitting myself' about it. I've been posting to
online forums under my real name for decades and have a list of IP
addresses I've used in the past right on my user page... so there aren't
exactly alot of 'privacy' matters which anyone could 'reveal' about me
which aren't publicly accessible in the first place.
However, as a matter of general principle - humans are both fallible and
suspicious. Any power which is entrusted to humans is guaranteed to be
abused from time to time... and any power which is wielded in secret is
guaranteed to arose suspicion. IMO those are immutable facts of human
nature. So why have a system which serves to perpetuate both?
I'm unaware of the kerfuffle you're speaking
of. Details?
Best not to drag old conflicts back out into the present. I'll send you
the details privately.