Further reflections on Don's Dilemma:
Our first reaction has been to find someone to blame, and the second reaction has been to try to punish someone. When you think about the incident, its difficult to find anyone behaving other than human.
1. Don is justifiably excited about finding a 5-speed diesel truck with a "California body" and posts about it on the forum. I can't blame him for that, even though he blames himself.
2. Somebody on the web is also searching for a truck with at least some of the same attributes as Don is telling us all about. I can't blame him for being resourceful and checking Don's info in his profile, tracking out a radius within the driving distance Don mentions and "finding" the truck.
3. The owner of the truck asks for more than a personal check. I can't really blame him, either.
Yet we all agree that what happened to Don is a tragedy.
Possible Actions to could be taken to prevent the tragedy:
1. Don doesn't post about prospective purchases again, EVER --problem solved.
2a. Members Only section created, casual surfers can't return the information posted; if Don or others post similar information again, the field of culprits is narrowed to members of the forum, whether they post or not (members who don't post are classified as "lurkers" and the activity of picking other's posts as "lurking").
2b. Alternatively, the forum becomes anonymous with everyone using "handles" and user information, while shared with the forum moderator(s), is not posted. This action breaks the link between posts and the actual "facts on the ground."
3. I don't know what can be done about the actions of the seller or the other buyer.
Reflecting on the appropriateness of proposed actions:
Action 1 --Not posting info to begin with-- Probably the best and easiest in practical terms;
Benefit: No possibility of info being picked, preserves the complete freedom of posting, the responsibility devolves solely upon the person doing the posting, no one else's freedom is affected.
Loss: Some of the spontaneity and "fellowship" of the site
Action 2a --Members Only Forum or Section-- Must be implemented by moderators not sure how hard it would be to implement, likely to be controversial --that is, not everyone will be happy.
Benefit: Keeps all or portions of the forum "out-of-view" of the public --thus affecting their freedom of access to "our" information
Loss: A subtle distinction between "just us" and "them" is introduced; similar to the "more equal than others" distinction in George Orwell's novel, "1984."
Action 2b --Anonymous or Disguised Users--
Benefit: Everyone can post as before, information can be shared, but the critical link to the "facts on the ground" is severed.
Loss: The nature of the forum is definitely altered. It would not be the same experience, I am sure.
Personal Reflections: I'm reminded of what one of the founding fathers told the Congress when he voted against a bill that legislated aid for a group of French immigrants, he didn't think the government should get into the charity business; he didn't feel that was a proper role of government. Likewise, it can be argued that it is not the proper role of the forum to protect people from themselves. No offence to Don, but as Charlie says, "Ya can't fix stupid."
I don't like the idea of anonymous/disguised users because having to post your REAL name requires making a commitment, it is the price of posting. Yet, I don't feel that paying that price necessarily "buys" anything other than the opportunity to find a solution to an urgent problem that needs requires immediate posting. I feel that a "reward" of a member's only section is appropriate and I would like to give it a try.
I empathize deeply with Don; I feel vulnerable and part of me wants protection.
Freedom isn't free. Isn't that what they say?