[Discussion] Punishment for DoS Shielders

[Aksun]

The below announcement was posted in TET [the Eternal Thread] in General.

Bralia pointed out that it might be useful to post it here in Moderation as well just in case it was missed by the parties involved in TET.

If you are in contact with any of the three nations involved, do please feel free to let them know that their deletions have been retracted on appeal.

This is not a discussion thread. Please do not post in this thread to comment on the below announcement - it's been posted here primarily to try and increase the chances that the nations involved are aware of the retractions of the deletions.

If you want to start a discussion on moderation policy on potential action against individuals shielding the identity of a DOS player - something currently under discussion by the moderation team - please start a separate discussion thread.

Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien have been restored following a formal appeal.

If you are in touch with the three individuals concerned, I would be grateful if you could let them know (there's little point in TG'ing them since they wouldn't necessarily know their nations have been reactivated).


Note that these restorations shouldn't be taken as in any way condoning the shielding the identity of a DOS player; we take such cases very seriously indeed, and are currently closely studying whether to make knowingly shielding a DOS player's identity an actionable deletion-worthy offence formally listed as such in the site's OSRS.

However, we accept that site policy on this issue hasn't previously been clear, and given the lack of clarity we have decided to grant the appeal.

After reading that long quote I believe that shielding a DoS user should NOT be a deletion worthy offense. The people who do it should get one chance. The second time warrants deletion, but not the first. I say this, because on the forum side people are usually warned first, then banned, then deleted it DoSed. There is a step by step process and it gives time for someone to change their behavior. The first warning before deletion gives that person a chance to go "oh crap maybe I shouldn't do this."

[Idzequitch]

It seems to me that there are different levels of shielding DoS users.

Active participation in rulebreaking with a DoS should, I think, result in a DEAT.

For actively attempting to hide the identity of a DoS with a new nation, a 7 day ban seems like a reasonable standard. It's a serious offense, but the first time, I don't think it warrants deletion.

If it's simply a matter of a telegram informing a user "Hey, I'm your old DoS friend!" and no action is taken, it should still be warnable, or perhaps warrant a one day ban.

These are simply the suggestions of a fairly experienced user trying to be helpful. I realize it's always a case by case basis, but as a typical standard, this seems fair to me.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This has far too much potential for unknowing users to be caught up.

Purely from a self-protecting standpoint, I host a network of proxy servers, so if their's a DoS nation still using NS, their's a good chance I'm unknowingly shielding them. However, since I don't keep logs (and don't plan on doing, ever), I wouldn't know. Where would the line be drawn?

[Lockdownn]

This has far too much potential for unknowing users to be caught up.

Purely from a self-protecting standpoint, I host a network of proxy servers, so if their's a DoS nation still using NS, their's a good chance I'm unknowingly shielding them. However, since I don't keep logs (and don't plan on doing, ever), I wouldn't know. Where would the line be drawn?

It all depends on if you knew someone was.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This has far too much potential for unknowing users to be caught up.

Purely from a self-protecting standpoint, I host a network of proxy servers, so if their's a DoS nation still using NS, their's a good chance I'm unknowingly shielding them. However, since I don't keep logs (and don't plan on doing, ever), I wouldn't know. Where would the line be drawn?

It all depends on if you knew someone was.

No, the only way I'd know would be to take logs, which I won't be doing for privacy reasons. However, is not taking logs shielding a DoS?

[Idzequitch]

This has far too much potential for unknowing users to be caught up.

Purely from a self-protecting standpoint, I host a network of proxy servers, so if their's a DoS nation still using NS, their's a good chance I'm unknowingly shielding them. However, since I don't keep logs (and don't plan on doing, ever), I wouldn't know. Where would the line be drawn?

They've already made it clear that they take this very seriously, and want to get this right. I'm sure that unknowingly debating/RPing with a DoS is not actionable.
It's a fair point though. If there is not some very damning evidence (which admittedly, DLN says they have in the case of Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien) there should be no action taken. It's too big an offense to pin on someone without very convincing proof.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This has far too much potential for unknowing users to be caught up.

Purely from a self-protecting standpoint, I host a network of proxy servers, so if their's a DoS nation still using NS, their's a good chance I'm unknowingly shielding them. However, since I don't keep logs (and don't plan on doing, ever), I wouldn't know. Where would the line be drawn?

They've already made it clear that they take this very seriously, and want to get this right. I'm sure that unknowingly debating/RPing with a DoS is not actionable.
It's a fair point though. If there is not some very damning evidence (which admittedly, DLN says they have in the case of Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien) there should be no action taken. It's too big an offense to pin on someone without very convincing proof.

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

[Idzequitch]

They've already made it clear that they take this very seriously, and want to get this right. I'm sure that unknowingly debating/RPing with a DoS is not actionable.
It's a fair point though. If there is not some very damning evidence (which admittedly, DLN says they have in the case of Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien) there should be no action taken. It's too big an offense to pin on someone without very convincing proof.

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

I think (Mod confirmation needed) that shielding a DoS would be impossible without knowing the player is DoS.

[Aksun]

They've already made it clear that they take this very seriously, and want to get this right. I'm sure that unknowingly debating/RPing with a DoS is not actionable.
It's a fair point though. If there is not some very damning evidence (which admittedly, DLN says they have in the case of Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien) there should be no action taken. It's too big an offense to pin on someone without very convincing proof.

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

I believe that is what we are here to discuss. We are discussing whether or not someone should be punished for shielding and to what extent based on person x's participation in shielding the user. I for one believe that you shouldn't be punished for something like that. With a service you accept risks, but you don't know who uses your service.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

I think (Mod confirmation needed) that shielding a DoS would be impossible without knowing the player is DoS.

Even if they send me a message, for example saying 'Hey, I'm (insert nation here), and I'm DoS and using your (insert whichever server here)' it would be against my own terms of service to openly say to the mods that this person is DoS. I've not had this sort of message before, but It's something that concerned me a while ago and continues to concern me.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

I believe that is what we are here to discuss. We are discussing whether or not someone should be punished for shielding and to what extent based on person x's participation in shielding the user. I for one believe that you shouldn't be punished for something like that. With a service you accept risks, but you don't know who uses your service.

I think a person should only be punished for this if they take part in rulebreaking alongside the DoS.

[Lockdownn]

They've already made it clear that they take this very seriously, and want to get this right. I'm sure that unknowingly debating/RPing with a DoS is not actionable.
It's a fair point though. If there is not some very damning evidence (which admittedly, DLN says they have in the case of Kannap, Hladgos, and Liberonscien) there should be no action taken. It's too big an offense to pin on someone without very convincing proof.

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

If you don't know that there is a DOS, then no. There's been cases where people unknowingly converse with DOS's or interact with them and they weren't touched.

Like myself, literally two days before being deated, I telegrammed him because of his sig. I'm still here, still haunts me though.....

.-.

[Lockdownn]

I think (Mod confirmation needed) that shielding a DoS would be impossible without knowing the player is DoS.

Even if they send me a message, for example saying 'Hey, I'm (insert nation here), and I'm DoS and using your (insert whichever server here)' it would be against my own terms of service to openly say to the mods that this person is DoS. I've not had this sort of message before, but It's something that concerned me a while ago and continues to concern me.

You'd still have an obligation to inform NS staff, or risk punishment.

[Idzequitch]

I believe that is what we are here to discuss. We are discussing whether or not someone should be punished for shielding and to what extent based on person x's participation in shielding the user. I for one believe that you shouldn't be punished for something like that. With a service you accept risks, but you don't know who uses your service.

I think a person should only be punished for this if they take part in rulebreaking alongside the DoS.

But the DoS user is rulebreaking just by being here. If a user actively tries to hide the DoS's identity, then he/she is actively helping them break the rules.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Even if they send me a message, for example saying 'Hey, I'm (insert nation here), and I'm DoS and using your (insert whichever server here)' it would be against my own terms of service to openly say to the mods that this person is DoS. I've not had this sort of message before, but It's something that concerned me a while ago and continues to concern me.

You'd still have an obligation to inform NS staff, or risk punishment.

Even if doing so would break a legally binding contract?

[Lockdownn]

You'd still have an obligation to inform NS staff, or risk punishment.

Even if doing so would break a legally binding contract?

Either that or risk being punished here. I don't know. You could find a loophole or something. Like "accidentally" sending a screen shot through GHR.

[edit] Though, don't take my word for it.

[The Blaatschapen]

That's not what I'm saying.

If a DoS user uses my proxy servers, they have an encrypted link to the internet, bounced through 2 random locations. That would, therefore, make it far more difficult for NS staff to see who they were. Is the fact that I've made this available to anyone mean that I'm shielding DoS users if they use my service?

If you don't know that there is a DOS, then no. There's been cases where people unknowingly converse with DOS's or interact with them and they weren't touched.

Like myself, literally two days before being deated, I telegrammed him because of his sig. I'm still here, still haunts me though.....

.-.

This is one of the concerns. Since we(mods) do not make public everyone who is DOS, it makes it hard to say "X was shielding a DOS" when X perhaps did not even know that they were conversing with a DOS player.

So, and this is a more personal take, it boils down to:

1. Does the player know that they're playing with a DOS
2. Are they helping out the DOS with circumventing their DOS,
3. or engaging in rulebreaking together with the DOS?

If the first question is 'yes' and question #2 and/or #3 is also answered with yes, then I believe further punitive action against the player is warranted.

^^^ above is personal opinion/musings and not an official moderator stance.

[The Blaatschapen]

You'd still have an obligation to inform NS staff, or risk punishment.

Even if doing so would break a legally binding contract?

Just a quick note, your proxies are a special case. Let's not threadjack this thread into that particular case, but rather keep this thread for the generic user that communicates with a DOS and the policies that should be applied to that.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Even if doing so would break a legally binding contract?

Just a quick note, your proxies are a special case. Let's not threadjack this thread into that particular case, but rather keep this thread for the generic user that communicates with a DOS and the policies that should be applied to that.

OK; could I get an answer on this case off thread please?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

If you don't know that there is a DOS, then no. There's been cases where people unknowingly converse with DOS's or interact with them and they weren't touched.

Like myself, literally two days before being deated, I telegrammed him because of his sig. I'm still here, still haunts me though.....

.-.

This is one of the concerns. Since we(mods) do not make public everyone who is DOS, it makes it hard to say "X was shielding a DOS" when X perhaps did not even know that they were conversing with a DOS player.

So, and this is a more personal take, it boils down to:

1. Does the player know that they're playing with a DOS
2. Are they helping out the DOS with circumventing their DOS,
3. or engaging in rulebreaking together with the DOS?

If the first question is 'yes' and question #2 and/or #3 is also answered with yes, then I believe further punitive action against the player is warranted.

^^^ above is personal opinion/musings and not an official moderator stance.

I only think it should be punishable if they're engaging in rulebreaking. Anything else would make things like puppet sharing even more risky than they need to be.

[Lockdownn]

This is one of the concerns. Since we(mods) do not make public everyone who is DOS, it makes it hard to say "X was shielding a DOS" when X perhaps did not even know that they were conversing with a DOS player.

So, and this is a more personal take, it boils down to:

1. Does the player know that they're playing with a DOS
2. Are they helping out the DOS with circumventing their DOS,
3. or engaging in rulebreaking together with the DOS?

If the first question is 'yes' and question #2 and/or #3 is also answered with yes, then I believe further punitive action against the player is warranted.

^^^ above is personal opinion/musings and not an official moderator stance.

I only think it should be punishable if they're engaging in rulebreaking. Anything else would make things like puppet sharing even more risky than they need to be.

If they're knowingly conversing with DOS's then it should be punishable.

[The Blaatschapen]

Just a quick note, your proxies are a special case. Let's not threadjack this thread into that particular case, but rather keep this thread for the generic user that communicates with a DOS and the policies that should be applied to that.

OK; could I get an answer on this case off thread please?

File a GHR. It will take a while to answer. It also depends on the outcomes of this discussion I'd wager

Please be exhaustive in the GHR, what kind of proxies, etc. Basically anything you can think of that is relevant and that you can freely tell us without breaking your other obligations.

I'll repeat though, this might take a bit of time. Don't expect an answer tomorrow

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I only think it should be punishable if they're engaging in rulebreaking. Anything else would make things like puppet sharing even more risky than they need to be.

If they're knowingly conversing with DOS's then it should be punishable.

Why? If they're not doing anything wrong, punish the DOS, you don't need to punish his friends.

[Idzequitch]

If they're knowingly conversing with DOS's then it should be punishable.

Why? If they're not doing anything wrong, punish the DOS, you don't need to punish his friends.

I think a person should only be punished for this if they take part in rulebreaking alongside the DoS.

But the DoS user is rulebreaking just by being here. If a user actively tries to hide the DoS's identity, then he/she is actively helping them break the rules.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Why? If they're not doing anything wrong, punish the DOS, you don't need to punish his friends.

But the DoS user is rulebreaking just by being here. If a user actively tries to hide the DoS's identity, then he/she is actively helping them break the rules.

Do the rules actually apply to a DoS user?