[Discussion] DEATing for "Doxing"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I think that, perhaps, tempers are going haywire from unrelated issues regarding internal moderation and the like and these have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever has happened between DLN and the rest of the mods and admins is irrelevant to the whole situation. I don't think the harsh words were needed.

Like Ethel said, sure, you're allowed to dislike people, but that dislike shouldn't be used to push a punishment when there is nothing to punish as DLN didn't doxx anyone or break any rules in sharing the FB info she did.

I'm sticking to Nathicana's ruling for the most part.

While, like I said, I am not going to ethically defend Nathicana's linking of information, because the ethics of said move are a separate matter, I still think that, if we're going to go "by the book" of what doxxing is, and the rule pertaining as to what Nathicana was striked on her record, this doesn't smell like doxxing to me, given Reppy had a penchant of releasing her personal information here in Nationstates as far as I am aware.

Like I said in my post on the previous page, if we are going to strike people for posting personal information on such ambiguous grounds like this case is, then Max should implement a moratorium on personal information being shared on this site, and any infractions caught, even of people sharing their own personal information, to be penalized accordingly.

[The Serbian Empire]

I understand how this must look. It was done because previously, it was only in the Terms and Conditions of Use. Most players likely gloss over this - how many of us can honestly say we've read this or any other TOS? Having this written in the rules makes the rule accessible for all players, since moderation does refer players to this ruleset.

Yes, but this thing about privacy violations wasn't there until yesterday. And to be honest, if you want us to remember these things, and you're going to expect us to abide by rules in the Terms and Conditions of Use, you might as well add the Terms and Conditions to the OSRS.

Also, let me add, that this is a finely grey retroactive line you are walking here as a team. Mostly because Reppy, as many of us have mentioned, have already shared her profile. This profile wasn't a secret. So to expect people to read what is in the OSRS and assume this applies in this situation is rather disingenuous, whoever thought this was a good idea. And if it is clarified to fill this particular situation with Nathi, then you can't punish her retroactively for something none of us would know even then, nor future users would know from such a clause in the OSRS. Furthermore, if you are going to punish Nathicana over sharing Reppy's profile retroactively, as well as the release of personal information at all, you should strike Reppy as well, since it would be only fair given she shared it -- as Nathicana mentioned -- in one way or other over 6 years, and nobody did anything about it.

If you are going to punish players for sharing any links to personal information whatsoever, you might as well, from now on, make it a point that nobody can share any offsite Facebook/Twitter/etc. profiles, not even their own, at the risk of being penalized. I will personally heed my own advice, and go ahead and tighten my own posting and the information I release from now on, because apparently you guys are deciding to go hard on personal information, and while I understand it, I think you guys (as a team, I am not pointing any fingers but at the team overall, nor am I going to, so don't take this personal, as it may not be you, but the collective group of people known as Moderation are held to a collective responsibility as representatives of the group and you just happen to be part of the Moderation group even if you have nothing to do with this, so I hope you understand that) are being rather unfair, not to mention unprofessional, in your treatment towards Nathicana's ruling.

Not to mention I want to point this aspect as making this punishable actually should lead to both Nathicana and Reploid facing the same punishment along with demotion if enacted. If the victim didn't make it available to the public in the first place, it would have never happened and thus blame should be on both.

[Idzequitch]

I think that, perhaps, tempers are going haywire from unrelated issues regarding internal moderation and the like and these have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Whatever has happened between DLN and the rest of the mods and admins is irrelevant to the whole situation. I don't think the harsh words were needed.

Like Ethel said, sure, you're allowed to dislike people, but that dislike shouldn't be used to push a punishment when there is nothing to punish as DLN didn't doxx anyone or break any rules in sharing the FB info she did.

I'm sticking to Nathicana's ruling for the most part.

While, like I said, I am not going to ethically defend Nathicana's linking of information, because the ethics of said move are a separate matter, I still think that, if we're going to go "by the book" of what doxxing is, and the rule pertaining as to what Nathicana was striked on her record, this doesn't smell like doxxing to me, given Reppy had a penchant of releasing her personal information here in Nationstates as far as I am aware.

Like I said in my post above, if we are going to strike people for posting personal information on such ambiguous grounds like this case is, then Max should implement a moratorium on personal information being shared on this site, and any infractions caught, even of people sharing their own personal information, to be penalized accordingly.

I hate to bring up bad memories, but compare this with Winnopolis awhile back.
With Winn, there was a very purposeful revealing of someone else's personal details. It was done maliciously, for revenge, with the intent of creating a free for all with the details of their personal life. There was no barrier, there was no consent from the person being doxxed, and they certainly hadn't posted those details on NS. That's doxxing. Worth noting, she didn't get DEAT'ed or even banned IIRC. Maybe she was warned? I'm fuzzy on the details.

What happened with Nathi and Reppy is nowhere near that. It was unfortunate, and I'm not going to pass moral judgment, but it was not on the scale of the most recent doxxing, and that was barely punished as far as I remember.

[Mushet]

Damn, drama over here lately huh?

[Grenartia]

So, I've been doing some pondering here. If simply linking to an FB profile is doxxing, then this leads to some clearly absurd cases of "doxxing":

Look at that. I've just doxxed the President of the United States. Sorry, Obama!

Oh. My. God!

Shit, I doxxed Max Barry, too!*

*Note that this is Max's Official page. A quick FB search reveals an unofficial page that some quick checking reveals a very low likelihood that its a fake page. After all, it has the same posts by Max's Official Page, posted literally at the same minute as the official page (and the likelihood of somebody being able to consistently shadow Max's FB posting schedule with that level of exactness is slim to none). The only real thing that seems to be missing is a blue check mark. Hell, he's even commented in the NSG FB group I created (but pretty much left the running to some friends from here, and Max has since left) (actually, as memory serves, Reppy used to be in that group, with what I can only imagine to be her actual account, given that the name for it does not match her NS name). Which raises the obvious question: would linking to that unofficial Max Barry account (which is publicly viewable, I should add) be doxxing?

[The Alexanderians]

So, I've been doing some pondering here. If simply linking to an FB profile is doxxing, then this leads to some clearly absurd cases of "doxxing":

Look at that. I've just doxxed the President of the United States. Sorry, Obama!

Oh. My. God!

Shit, I doxxed Max Barry, too!*

*Note that this is Max's Official page. A quick FB search reveals an unofficial page that some quick checking reveals a very low likelihood that its a fake page. After all, it has the same posts by Max's Official Page, posted literally at the same minute as the official page (and the likelihood of somebody being able to consistently shadow Max's FB posting schedule with that level of exactness is slim to none). The only real thing that seems to be missing is a blue check mark. Hell, he's even commented in the NSG FB group I created (but pretty much left the running to some friends from here, and Max has since left) (actually, as memory serves, Reppy used to be in that group, with what I can only imagine to be her actual account, given that the name for it does not match her NS name). Which raises the obvious question: would linking to that unofficial Max Barry account (which is publicly viewable, I should add) be doxxing?

This is the best passive aggressive sarcasm I've ever seen XD

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

So, I've been doing some pondering here. If simply linking to an FB profile is doxxing, then this leads to some clearly absurd cases of "doxxing":

Look at that. I've just doxxed the President of the United States. Sorry, Obama!

Oh. My. God!

Shit, I doxxed Max Barry, too!*

*Note that this is Max's Official page. A quick FB search reveals an unofficial page that some quick checking reveals a very low likelihood that its a fake page. After all, it has the same posts by Max's Official Page, posted literally at the same minute as the official page (and the likelihood of somebody being able to consistently shadow Max's FB posting schedule with that level of exactness is slim to none). The only real thing that seems to be missing is a blue check mark. Hell, he's even commented in the NSG FB group I created (but pretty much left the running to some friends from here, and Max has since left) (actually, as memory serves, Reppy used to be in that group, with what I can only imagine to be her actual account, given that the name for it does not match her NS name). Which raises the obvious question: would linking to that unofficial Max Barry account (which is publicly viewable, I should add) be doxxing?

That's bull. You're not connecting someone's screen name to either a real name or a less strict screen name intentionally not shared with the community in question. You're just linking people by the names we all know them by. You're doxxing about as much as someone linking http://imgur.com/user/EWSouls is doxxing me. You're working on the same terms, not revealing new ones.

[Lockdownn]

Here's my take on this situation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure someone's information out if they've slipped up or unknowingly posted an image that could lead to an image hosting account.

Which is precisely what I found to be possible. So don't give me any of that bullshit that that information was "private" because it clearly was not.

I will not tell you how, with what image(s), or to whom I accomplished access to, but I will say it is indeed possible and I will be submitting my evidence via GHR to be reviewed and compiled by the official staff.

Accompanied with the fact that an image that was shared on this account referenced a name that I was able to search with the Facebook search feature.

That's how you can fuck up with images. Make sure that you have your "private" images hidden from public view if you plan on using an image hosting site with an associated account. Url manipulation isn't that hard folks.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Here's my take on this situation.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure someone's information out if they've slipped up or unknowingly posted an image that could lead to an image hosting account.

Which is precisely what I found to be possible. So don't give me any of that bullshit that that information was "private" because it clearly was not.

I will not tell you how, with what image(s), or to whom I accomplished access to, but I will say it is indeed possible and I will be submitting my evidence via GHR to be reviewed and compiled by the official staff.

Accompanied with the fact that an image that was shared on this account referenced a name that I was able to search with the Facebook search feature.

That's how you can fuck up with images. Make sure that you have your "private" images hidden from public view if you plan on using an image hosting site with an associated account. Url manipulation isn't that hard folks.

Thank you for the update posted here, Lockdownn. I'm glad you found this out so I can take note in the future on my own releases of info.

[Cogitation]

This thread was originally started to discuss (1) what the punishment should be for DOXXing someone, but has since been conflated with (2) a discussion on the incident that spawned the rule.

Discussion (1) is a good discussion to have, but it needs to be kept separate from (2), so this thread needs to be split. It's a 7-page thread, and we're all volunteers, so splitting it correctly will take a day or two.

I'm temporarily halting Discussion (2), as we are preparing a statement on this matter for publication in the coming days. We cannot publish said statement currently for reasons that will become clear WHEN the statement IS published.

Thus, for both of the above reasons, iLock. This is temporary, and each discussion will be unlocked at its' appropriate time.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Game Moderator