- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Teacher who had phone stolen and nudes stolen may face criminal charges
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:10 pm to NoHoTiger
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:10 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:I mean, i'm not trying to be an a-hole, but I've said the line "inappropriate materail probably 10, 20 or more times in the past 2 days, and you've replied and/or read most if not all of those posts. What more can I do to specifically state what policy I'm referencing for you to know it?
All we're saying is that you can't state this "would violate a policy, most likely" you have to be sepcific about what policies are violated.
quote:Based on your words, why are you taking a side, then? Shouldn't your stance be nothing more than a wait and see what the policy is approach? Seems odd that you'd be knighting for her unrelentlessly after making that post. I can easily say that You cannot assume she did NOT violate a policy if you haven't seen the school's policies, and yet here you are seemingly taking a definitive stance on this one, not saying "let's wait and see"
You cannot assume the violation of a policy that may or may not exist regardless of how logical the policy may seem. If the policy does not exist, it cannot be violated
quote:You ever worked at a large ish organization and read their policies? Many are that vague, and done so intentionally.
If a policy exists, it must be specific (within reason). "No inappropriate material" is not a specific policy. Inappropriate material is subjective.
I'm at work, just peeking through our policies, don't want to quote one and get fired, but anything regarding harassment, and the stuff we're talking about, all filed under very, very generic things like, "any incidents deeemed harassing will be reviewed and appropriate action taken." type verbiage.
1
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:11 pm to shel311
quote:
Something along the lines of teachers/students not having pornographic material or more likely a more generic term of inappropriate material at school. I've said it 1000 times and no one has replied yet to tell me that is a terrible assumption, so I think it's a rather fair one to make, right?
Yes, this is absolutely a terrible assumption to make. A school banning pornographic material is a good thing. A school banning inappropriate material is a bad thing. However, pornographic material must be defined. Inappropriate material is too vague and too open to being subjective.
quote:
point about changing clothes in a bathroom
This point was not made about changing clothes, it was made about the ease of accessability when failing to lock a door (or a phone). No one actually thinks the teacher would be in violation of a policy of changing clothes. We were furthering your argument of culpability based on the lack of difficulty in accessing the image.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:12 pm to upgrayedd
quote:They weren't given to anyone.
Because that's distribution of pornography to minors.
But I'll play, what if there's 5 polaroids under a couple of blank pieces of paper on her desk? Is she covered then under this mythical no policy?
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:15 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:1. What? Schools should allow inappropriate material?
A school banning pornographic material is a good thing. A school banning inappropriate material is a bad thing
2. Pornograhic material is also inappropriate, no?
quote:But some people, myself included, think she, logically speaking, is violating a policy by having inappropriate, pornographic material in the workplace. Hence, not a good comparison.
No one actually thinks the teacher would be in violation of a policy of changing clothes
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:17 pm to shel311
quote:
You ever worked at a large ish organization and read their policies?
I work for a global company with 10,000+ employees at my location. I have read our policies and procedures. My company also makes it very clear when things are aboslutely unacceptable.
quote:
Shouldn't your stance be nothing more than a wait and see what the policy is approach?
My stance was based solely on the lack of cell phone policy. That's it. If she in violation of another policy, then fine. But as far as the nude on her private phone, she is not in violation.
quote:
"any incidents deeemed harassing will be reviewed and appropriate action taken." type verbiage.
The optimal word is "deemed". Just because one person thinks it's harrassment doesn't make it so. That's why companies perform investigations when someone alleges harrassment. It is not deemed to be harrassment or not harrassment until after the investigation is complete.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:19 pm to shel311
quote:
1. What? Schools should allow inappropriate material?
No, schools should be more specific than the term inappropriate material. Anything that generic is too subjective.
quote:
But some people, myself included, think she, logically speaking, is violating a policy by having inappropriate, pornographic material in the workplace.
And unless and until that policy is specified, she is not in violation of anything.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:20 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:So, you haven't been saying she didn't violate the cell phone policy, which hasn't been confirmed btw, but I'm going withhold judgment to see if she violated any others. Why not?
My stance was based solely on the lack of cell phone policy. That's it. If she in violation of another policy, then fine. But as far as the nude on her private phone, she is not in violation.
quote:That's a pretty vague policy i just stated though, no?
The optimal word is "deemed". Just because one person thinks it's harrassment doesn't make it so. That's why companies perform investigations when someone alleges harrassment. It is not deemed to be harrassment or not harrassment until after the investigation is complete.
quote:I've worked for 2 large but not global companies, both policies and procedures mostly mirror each other. And when it comes to stuff like this, it is intentionally extremely vague.
My company also makes it very clear when things are aboslutely unacceptable.
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 6:20 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:20 pm to shel311
quote:
Hence, not a good comparison
The comparison was not about the clothing...the comparison was failing to employ a lock.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:21 pm to shel311
quote:
They weren't given to anyone.
They don't need to be
quote:
But I'll play, what if there's 5 polaroids under a couple of blank pieces of paper on her desk? Is she covered then under this mythical no policy?
No
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:21 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:YOu can't have 1(violating policy) without the other(not), so i still don't get the comparison?
The comparison was not about the clothing...the comparison was failing to employ a lock.
quote:And again, since you don't know the policy, why are you taking a side that she should not be responsible?
And unless and until that policy is specified, she is not in violation of anything.
This post was edited on 3/2/16 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:22 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Why not?
No
What policy did she violate?
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:24 pm to shel311
Laying out nude photos on a desk in a classroom full of kids then placing a piece of paper over them is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, not to mention a silly analogy.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:25 pm to shel311
quote:
So, you haven't been saying she didn't violate the cell phone policy,
WTF are you talking about? I said she did not violate the cell phone policy. And I will add as has been reported so far so as not to confuse you.
quote:
That's a pretty vague policy i just stated though, no?
It's a very vague policy which cannot be taken solely on it's face. That's why there are investigations. What one person thinks is harrassing another may not. The vaguer the policy, the more likely it cannot be enforced.
quote:
And when it comes to stuff like this, it is intentionally extremely vague.
Then it is also intentionally extremely poorly written.
I have reviewed, written, and revised policies for companies. Typically after something like this comes to light and they realize how vague and poorly written their policies are.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:25 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:
NoHoTiger
Do you have nudes of yourself on your phone?????
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:25 pm to dukke v
dukke v coming in hot again!
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:27 pm to shel311
quote:
YOu can't have 1(violating policy) without the other(not), so i still don't get the comparison?
I think you just don't get it. This isn't about any policy, this about employing a lock and level of culpability.
quote:
And again, since you don't know the policy, why are you taking a side that she should not be responsible?
Why are you taking the side that the should? And I tend to err on the side of caution and not assume that someone has done something wrong (innocent until proven guilty).
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:28 pm to dukke v
quote:
Do you have nudes of yourself on your phone?????
No. I have nudes of others 
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:28 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Which policy?
Laying out nude photos on a desk in a classroom full of kids then placing a piece of paper over them is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, not to mention a silly analogy.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:30 pm to shel311
Attempting to distribute pornography to a minor.
Posted on 3/2/16 at 6:31 pm to NoHoTiger
quote:Read the rest of the statement...
WTF are you talking about? I said she did not violate the cell phone policy
quote:but policies are most certainly made that are vague and it always specific.
It's a very vague policy which cannot be taken solely on it's face. That's why there are investigations. What one person thinks is harrassing another may not. The vaguer the policy, the more likely it cannot be enforced
Those policies are still used and exist at both companies I worked for.
Page 11 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News