On Tue, 2024-12-10 at 10:59 -0300, juan via agora-official wrote: > Edward Murphy via agora-discussion [2024-12-08 09:15]: > > Janet wrote: > > > > > On 12/2/24 09:21, juan via agora-official wrote: > > > > Selected commits > > > > > > > > dad9620 Remove ■■■■■■■■■'s deadname from record > > > > > > > > This will be reflected in the next monthly report. I only publicize > > > > this because I want to make it clear that other players may request > > > > similar things. > > > > > > > > > This was talked about on Discord, but I'd like to raise it to list. > > > > > > Knowing all names that a person has played under is important for > > > understanding history. I understand the desire to want to remove it, and > > > I definitely sympathize. I know that others have different feelings > > > about deadnames than I do, and I want to be respectful of that, but > > > it... troubles me to lose information about history in this game that > > > cares so much about it. > > Indeed, I thought so too, but after researching the topic a bit I got > the impression that even in Real Life™ the people I'd like to listen to > would advocate for the records to be erased. Of course, what's happening > here is not even that. The records are there on the archives, it's just > that I'm not particularly using a deadname to refer to a person every > single month. > > My understanding now is the following: deadnaming is refering to a person > by a deadname, or, given the sorry current status-quo regarding trans > rights, even propagating that name and giving biggots a chance to do so. > > Technically, I don't think publishing historical records containing > a deadname is deadnaming in the first conception, but it is in the > second. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be a problem, but the world > isn't ideal. > > > > nix suggested on Discord that we could consider a document published > > > less frequently than the Registrar's monthly that properly distinguishes > > > between deadnames and aliases, and I think I agree that might be a > > > decent compromise. > > > > I also suggested keeping deadnames behind rot13 in this document. > > Given these suggestions, I'm OFFcially opening this thread up for public > consult, aiming at creating specific regulations for the office. > > Current suggestions are: > > * Create another, less-frequently published document distinguishing deadnames > and aliases. > * Hide deadnames behind rot13. > > I'd add another: > > * Remove deadnames from monthly report, but add a note specifying the > last report that contains that deadname. > > I welcome suggestions and comments. If you are not confortable speaking > publically, send a message to me in private. >
Janet and I had a conversation about this earlier (without either of us really coming to a firm conclusion) and I thought it might be good to forward the salient points to the list. It feels largely pointless to try to redact deadnames completely when they require only a modicum of detective work to recover from the list archives, which are publicly available and indexed by search engines. Having public archives is pretty universally agreed upon to be a good thing. This doesn't, of course, mean they necessarily have to be propagated further. There is an argument to be made that absolutely all relevant historical information should be repeatedly posted to list so that it's not necessary to consult archives, and the game could theoretically be played with an ephemeral public forum. This is arguably why the Rulekeepor's, Registrar's and Herald's monthly reports exist in the first place. But in practice this is not how the game is played; we regularly consult the archives, and judicial precedent is codified as one of the R217 four factors. Names have generally as a matter of tradition not been regulated by the rules, so to some extent it feels weird and against the spirit of the game that we're reporting on them or keeping persistent records of them at all. It's useful to be able to see the list of all public messages a player has sent, or otherwise filter messages by their sender. This comes much closer to being possible if we have a list of the names/handles and email addresses a person has used. But even with one, it will still never be totally reliable because of edge cases like R478 public messages; historical messages predating the current lists; and active attempts at obfuscation (CFJ 4099 and cites). Personally, and speaking as someone with a stake in this matter, I remain undecided. ~qenya
