[Discussion] DEATing for "Doxing" - The Reboot

[Parhe]

One of the things that we want to make clear in this rule is that posting someone else's personally-identifiable information (PII) is always unacceptable. Even if Mr. Nation posts his own PII somewhere on the NationStates forums, that does NOT grant YOU license to then repost that same PII yourself. The most that YOU may do is link (NOT quote) the NationStates forum post in question so that, Mr. Nation later deems it necessary, Mr. Nation can then edit or delete. Every user needs to remain in control of their own privacy; that user sharing something does NOT make it open season for it to be spread around beyond that user's control.

This sort of comes as worrying. I had to look up PII to see what counts. On Wiki, I know, not the best source, the list includes things like face (the How Do You Look thread), date of birth ("Today is X's birthday, so z"), and screen name/login (Would it then be against the rules for players to say x is a puppet of y or that z maintains a deviantart page about his/her nation called k?). It also stated some things that may potentially count, such as age, occupation, education, gender, race, and state/city/country of residence, things that many players know about and come up often (ex. "x is an archaeologist," "yes, but you are from Finland," or "q doesn't have much time for NS during the week because he has uni.").

All those things seem reasonable and accepted in these cases (not to say all examples of PII are, just the ones mentioned), so it concerns me that those may become punishable. Or perhaps I only think they are acceptable because they are so common currently on the NS forums.

EDIT: I know (assume?) these would only he considered mild if made against the rules, but a concern is that these build up and some players never see the unofficial warnings (I cannot remember if you receive a TG for those).

[Araraukar]

"yes, but you are from Finland,"

That would still make you "one out of 5.5 million people", so I don't think that's very personal info.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

"yes, but you are from Finland,"

That would still make you "one out of 5.5 million people", so I don't think that's very personal info.

The point is that collectively, it's that stuff that allows you to be tracked down. You've just narrowed 8 billion down to 5.5 million, then you make that one gender, then you throw in a job and a birthday, and maybe they've posted in WDYLL.... It's the collective cross search that kill privacy.

That said, I'm of the opinion that is people have chosen to make that public or allowed you to share it, that's their burden to allow. I.e, using the above -if you know someone someone is traveling and they've old you where and such, but just said "hey if anyone asks I'm on vacation," tell people "oh, x is away for a week traveling" but maybe not "oh, X is in Italy this week" (unless of course they've said you can say that too).

Of course, this is all very sketchy and situational - which is why my opinion is that "privacy violations" short of a blatant doxx (name, address, etc) should only be punished on report by the player in question, as they're the best one to judge whether information was something they didn't want displayed, and then punishment figured largely by intent....I.e. If you said more about x's trip then they'd like, but for some reason are refusing to edit it out yourself, X would report it and mods would say "knock it off" and delete it, whereas if you're purposefully saying, say "X can't be impartial here because he's a member of the WBC," which is not something X made public, that might be judged with a bit more malicious intent....with the high end being the aforementioned obvious doxx, obviously malicious, in which case treat it like porn spam and nuke no questions asked.

The only major gap I can see this leaving is if player X tells player y they can say something, and then reports it to try and get player y in trouble....but hey, that's why we have a team, not an AI, right? right guys?

[The Corparation]

The only major gap I can see this leaving is if player X tells player y they can say something, and then reports it to try and get player y in trouble....but hey, that's why we have a team, not an AI, right? right guys?

Are you sure that's a major gap? I might be being naive here but I don't think that such a scenario is likely to happen.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

The only major gap I can see this leaving is if player X tells player y they can say something, and then reports it to try and get player y in trouble....but hey, that's why we have a team, not an AI, right? right guys?

Are you sure that's a major gap? I might be being naive here but I don't think that such a scenario is likely to happen.

It's the biggest fault I can see in what I'm talking about, in that it leaves the opportunity for a X-said y-said case to develop.

You'd be surprised what some people will do to try and get others in trouble.

[Cogitation]

May I make a suggestion that the OSRS be changed to make it more clear that posting this sort of information is banned. While it does currently states that posting personal identifying information is banned here, at the top under the table of contents for the rules, the link to that section is labeled merely as "IP addresses". I think that changing the wording of the link in the overview from the current "IP addresses" to "Privacy violations" would be help make the section easier to find. Expanding the section itself would also be nice, but I'm not sue if that's strictly necessary.

When I updated the body of the OSRS, I neglected to update the index. I'll try to fix that now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That would still make you "one out of 5.5 million people", so I don't think that's very personal info.

The point is that collectively, it's that stuff that allows you to be tracked down. You've just narrowed 8 billion down to 5.5 million, then you make that one gender, then you throw in a job and a birthday, and maybe they've posted in WDYLL.... It's the collective cross search that kill privacy.

That said, I'm of the opinion that is people have chosen to make that public or allowed you to share it, that's their burden to allow. I.e, using the above -if you know someone someone is traveling and they've old you where and such, but just said "hey if anyone asks I'm on vacation," tell people "oh, x is away for a week traveling" but maybe not "oh, X is in Italy this week" (unless of course they've said you can say that too).

Of course, this is all very sketchy and situational - which is why my opinion is that "privacy violations" short of a blatant doxx (name, address, etc) should only be punished on report by the player in question, as they're the best one to judge whether information was something they didn't want displayed, and then punishment figured largely by intent....I.e. If you said more about x's trip then they'd like, but for some reason are refusing to edit it out yourself, X would report it and mods would say "knock it off" and delete it, whereas if you're purposefully saying, say "X can't be impartial here because he's a member of the WBC," which is not something X made public, that might be judged with a bit more malicious intent....with the high end being the aforementioned obvious doxx, obviously malicious, in which case treat it like porn spam and nuke no questions asked.

The only major gap I can see this leaving is if player X tells player y they can say something, and then reports it to try and get player y in trouble....but hey, that's why we have a team, not an AI, right? right guys?

I guess this is, again, a case by case situation. Was the info revealed done so in a malicious way? If the answer is no, I'm sure a different protocol will apply. Maybe. Someone tried to doxx me, maliciously, in TET and the mod team acted accordingly. They removed all info that was posted and talked to the poster who did it.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I guess this is, again, a case by case situation. Was the info revealed done so in a malicious way? If the answer is no, I'm sure a different protocol will apply. Maybe. Someone tried to doxx me, maliciously, in TET and the mod team acted accordingly. They removed all info that was posted and talked to the poster who did it.

In this case, I think the overall unknowns, the lack of set 'this is allowed and this is not' firm statements, and the ambiguity involving all the information that has been willingly shared over NS, between NS players, for the enrichment, education of, or information to the NS community at large. If all of it is arbitrary, where are the controls to separate intended maliciousness and misunderstandings or assumptions? In addition, would it matter where the info is shared? What circumstance it was shared in? The purpose of said sharing? Is there going to be a point by point list to go through, where A is fine under the terms of B but only if C is not also involved?

Before, it seemed clear enough that posting information that one would not have any way of knowing on NS would be a no-no. We've seen similar issues crop up - even seen varying mod actions result from them, depending on the situation. If we're going to open up a whole new barrel of monkeys with a fairly broad-reaching statement, I would hope there would be a fairly detailed ruleset to go with it, since the assumptions operated on before appear to be in error - and from the points others have brought up, perhaps knowingly allowed by the mod team over the years because of the community-based support. It creates some questions, and players are clearly laying them out.

It will be interesting to see the answers, and potential fallout of the decisions made going forward. I hope it doesn't result in the loss of some of the threads and sharing people have enjoyed for a very long time on the forums. It'd be a damn shame to depersonalize it more and potentially drive players off from the socializing that's helped create some of the communities here.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I guess this is, again, a case by case situation. Was the info revealed done so in a malicious way? If the answer is no, I'm sure a different protocol will apply. Maybe. Someone tried to doxx me, maliciously, in TET and the mod team acted accordingly. They removed all info that was posted and talked to the poster who did it.

In this case, I think the overall unknowns, the lack of set 'this is allowed and this is not' firm statements, and the ambiguity involving all the information that has been willingly shared over NS, between NS players, for the enrichment, education of, or information to the NS community at large. If all of it is arbitrary, where are the controls to separate intended maliciousness and misunderstandings or assumptions? In addition, would it matter where the info is shared? What circumstance it was shared in? The purpose of said sharing? Is there going to be a point by point list to go through, where A is fine under the terms of B but only if C is not also involved?

Before, it seemed clear enough that posting information that one would not have any way of knowing on NS would be a no-no. We've seen similar issues crop up - even seen varying mod actions result from them, depending on the situation. If we're going to open up a whole new barrel of monkeys with a fairly broad-reaching statement, I would hope there would be a fairly detailed ruleset to go with it, since the assumptions operated on before appear to be in error - and from the points others have brought up, perhaps knowingly allowed by the mod team over the years because of the community-based support. It creates some questions, and players are clearly laying them out.

It will be interesting to see the answers, and potential fallout of the decisions made going forward. I hope it doesn't result in the loss of some of the threads and sharing people have enjoyed for a very long time on the forums. It'd be a damn shame to depersonalize it more and potentially drive players off from the socializing that's helped create some of the communities here.

Honestly, if it goes that route, and I hope not as I have met many long time friends through NS, we won't be able to share photos directly from social media as it could be viewed as doxxing by the more GI. I would assume, of course. I don't see the instance that relates to this discussion as an instance of doxxing. Not at all. I do hope that the mod team expands on this in due course. It is rather confusing as it stands.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Honestly, if it goes that route, and I hope not as I have met many long time friends through NS, we won't be able to share photos directly from social media as it could be viewed as doxxing by the more GI. I would assume, of course. I don't see the instance that relates to this discussion as an instance of doxxing. Not at all. I do hope that the mod team expands on this in due course. It is rather confusing as it stands.

Agreed. I'v'e been watching in the hopes of learning what direction they're pondering, but I can't make heads or tails of it yet. Whatever the end result, I just hope it's sensible.

[Idzequitch]

In this case, I think the overall unknowns, the lack of set 'this is allowed and this is not' firm statements, and the ambiguity involving all the information that has been willingly shared over NS, between NS players, for the enrichment, education of, or information to the NS community at large. If all of it is arbitrary, where are the controls to separate intended maliciousness and misunderstandings or assumptions? In addition, would it matter where the info is shared? What circumstance it was shared in? The purpose of said sharing? Is there going to be a point by point list to go through, where A is fine under the terms of B but only if C is not also involved?

Before, it seemed clear enough that posting information that one would not have any way of knowing on NS would be a no-no. We've seen similar issues crop up - even seen varying mod actions result from them, depending on the situation. If we're going to open up a whole new barrel of monkeys with a fairly broad-reaching statement, I would hope there would be a fairly detailed ruleset to go with it, since the assumptions operated on before appear to be in error - and from the points others have brought up, perhaps knowingly allowed by the mod team over the years because of the community-based support. It creates some questions, and players are clearly laying them out.

It will be interesting to see the answers, and potential fallout of the decisions made going forward. I hope it doesn't result in the loss of some of the threads and sharing people have enjoyed for a very long time on the forums. It'd be a damn shame to depersonalize it more and potentially drive players off from the socializing that's helped create some of the communities here.

Honestly, if it goes that route, and I hope not as I have met many long time friends through NS, we won't be able to share photos directly from social media as it could be viewed as doxxing by the more GI. I would assume, of course. I don't see the instance that relates to this discussion as an instance of doxxing. Not at all. I do hope that the mod team expands on this in due course. It is rather confusing as it stands.

I don't understand why they opened this discussion back up already. It's almost useless without the details that they assure us will be coming in the near future.

We can't effectively discuss the punishment for an as yet undefined offense.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

What should be done where certain personal identifiable information would be obvious from the nation name? For instance, it's fairly obvious from my nation name that my real name is Gregory. If someone calls me Greg or Gregory, have they doxxed me or is that just calling me by an abbreviated version of my nation name?

[Ethel mermania]

What should be done where certain personal identifiable information would be obvious from the nation name? For instance, it's fairly obvious from my nation name that my real name is Gregory. If someone calls me Greg or Gregory, have they doxxed me or is that just calling me by an abbreviated version of my nation name?

My name isn't ethel. And calling you greg isn't doxxing. Doxxing would he saying you are Gregor godistan living at 1313 mockingbird lane burbank California.

It's really simple. If the player shares the info in public it's fair game. (Rmb or forum). If the player does not share the information on this site in public it's doxxing.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

My name isn't ethel. And calling you greg isn't doxxing. Doxxing would he saying you are Gregor godistan living at 1313 mockingbird lane burbank California.

It's really simple. If the player shares the info in public it's fair game. (Rmb or forum). If the player does not share the information on this site in public it's doxxing.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation, however.

[NERVUN]

Gang, we're asking that reasonable expectations of privacy should be maintained and respected.

Obviously we're not about to go out on a orgy of DEATs, DoSes, and bans for most posts in what you look like or deviant art posts.

But, for example, I've mentioned multiple times, everywhere, that I am living in Japan (I believe I've even mentioned my prefecture a few times) and I teach junior high school. Stating those would not be a problem.

Going through the forum to find a picture of me, or a link to try and trace back, and then say, "Hey, NERVUN is actually XX-sensei at XX Junior High School!" would be a problem.

[NERVUN]

What should be done where certain personal identifiable information would be obvious from the nation name? For instance, it's fairly obvious from my nation name that my real name is Gregory. If someone calls me Greg or Gregory, have they doxxed me or is that just calling me by an abbreviated version of my nation name?

My name isn't ethel.

So should we call you Shirley?



Sorry, couldn't resist. ~_^

[Ethel mermania]

My name isn't ethel. And calling you greg isn't doxxing. Doxxing would he saying you are Gregor godistan living at 1313 mockingbird lane burbank California.

It's really simple. If the player shares the info in public it's fair game. (Rmb or forum). If the player does not share the information on this site in public it's doxxing.

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation, however.

quite often the truth has nothing to do with anything.

[Ethel mermania]

My name isn't ethel.

So should we call you Shirley?



Sorry, couldn't resist. ~_^

Shirley, you jest

[Ethel mermania]

Gang, we're asking that reasonable expectations of privacy should be maintained and respected.

Obviously we're not about to go out on a orgy of DEATs, DoSes, and bans for most posts in what you look like or deviant art posts.

But, for example, I've mentioned multiple times, everywhere, that I am living in Japan (I believe I've even mentioned my prefecture a few times) and I teach junior high school. Stating those would not be a problem.

Going through the forum to find a picture of me, or a link to try and trace back, and then say, "Hey, NERVUN is actually XX-sensei at XX Junior High School!" would be a problem.

Agreed, that's the point, what the rule should be should not require much wailing and gnashing of teeth. It should be simple and straightforward.

[The Corparation]

Gang, we're asking that reasonable expectations of privacy should be maintained and respected.

Obviously we're not about to go out on a orgy of DEATs, DoSes, and bans for most posts in what you look like or deviant art posts.

But, for example, I've mentioned multiple times, everywhere, that I am living in Japan (I believe I've even mentioned my prefecture a few times) and I teach junior high school. Stating those would not be a problem.

Going through the forum to find a picture of me, or a link to try and trace back, and then say, "Hey, NERVUN is actually XX-sensei at XX Junior High School!" would be a problem.

If anime has taught me anything it is that all Junior High Schools in Japan look identical. Ergo we can conclude that there is only one Junior High School in Japan. Given this fact I think tracking you down would be easier than you think. We could probably even find the room since every class is apparently conducted in the same classroom.

[The Archregimancy]

Following a discussion within the Moderation team, two recent posts from Dread Lady Nathicana have been removed from this thread on the basis of being 'bad faith' posts.

In the opinion of the team, myself very much included, the removed posts implicitly use Dread Lady Nathicana's position as a former moderator on this side to present misleading and inaccurate information to the players from a position of authority based on her former status. Furthermore, she is presenting this false information in a manner that not only misrepresents the moderation team's approach, but does so in order to actively undermine what the team is trying to achieve in this and other discussions.

It's fair to note that serious differences of opinion between the moderation team and Dread Lady Nathicana over her approach to moderation were the direct cause of her being asked to leave the team. It's a source of profound regret on our part that some of these differences are being made public. I would stress in the strongest possible terms that Dread Lady Nathicana's opinions, as posted in this thread, are not in any way representative of the moderation team's opinions or approach; they only represent Dread Lady Nathicana.


And Nathi, let me note that I'm profoundly and deeply disappointed in you on a personal level. Your approach is neither constructive nor helpful. I have little doubt that you'll react negatively to both the decision to remove your posts and my post. Be as that may, I would like to gently ask you to take a moment to consider that it may be useful for you to pause and take a step back here before deciding whether this is a direction you really want to take.

[Phydios]

I was going to respond to this ruling, but I'm too stunned to think of what to say. So let me just say this. After 17 months of being the mods' biggest fan, my trust in them is being seriously shaken. Not broken (yet), but certainly tested.

[The Archregimancy]

I was going to respond to this ruling, but I'm too stunned to think of what to say. So let me just say this. After 17 months of being the mods' biggest fan, my trust in them is being seriously shaken. Not broken (yet), but certainly tested.

I would be genuinely interested in reading where your concerns lie.

We're always interested in hearing what the player base has to say - hence these discussion threads - even if, of course, we can't always act in the manner that individual players would like us to.

[Parhe]

Gang, we're asking that reasonable expectations of privacy should be maintained and respected.

Obviously we're not about to go out on a orgy of DEATs, DoSes, and bans for most posts in what you look like or deviant art posts.

But, for example, I've mentioned multiple times, everywhere, that I am living in Japan (I believe I've even mentioned my prefecture a few times) and I teach junior high school. Stating those would not be a problem.

Going through the forum to find a picture of me, or a link to try and trace back, and then say, "Hey, NERVUN is actually XX-sensei at XX Junior High School!" would be a problem.

While that is all great, I feel we need stricter guidelines on PII. For example, if some else was as open about their age or occupation as you are with your occupation, would it be fair for other players to repeat the information elsewhere in the forums with no negative intentions, and would the player have a "right" to be offended and demand action against those who repeated the information? Or would punishment be based on some grid (extreme, I know almost everything on NS is a case by casevapproach) and only pursued if a complaint is filed?

Also, question, do players get telegrams for unofficial warnings? I really am concerned that, if not, players may build up unofficial warnings for Dozing without knowing (maybe they never checked back on some threads or otherwise somehow passed them) and then get hit with a large punishment in their x^th occurance.

@Above. DLN has been increasingly bitter, if NS posts, here and elsewhere, are anything to go by. All those negative posts do nothing to help the situation or spur ideas, only create an athomosphere of suspicion that can be hostile to staff. I feel like most other players would probably have received some warning for such bad faith posts and DLN is being treated with leniency. Apologies if the ruling above is not supposed to be discussed.

[The Corparation]

I was going to respond to this ruling, but I'm too stunned to think of what to say. So let me just say this. After 17 months of being the mods' biggest fan, my trust in them is being seriously shaken. Not broken (yet), but certainly tested.

it's taken you 17 months to have your faith tested? Although thinking about it many of the shall we say "more discused" rulings in the past predate you joining. Honestly though I think the mods have done an alrigh job in the way they've handled hints so far. Could have done something's better but they're only human.

For the most part they've mostly let us voice our opinions on the impending announcements. Scrubbing a couple posts made in "bad faith" relating directly to the specific ruling that is leading the announcement is nothing. In the past they've scrubbed some decent sized threads in their entirety for "bad faith" posting. This round of outrage there hasn't been much in the way of "bad faith". Although I'm sure we'll doubtless see a thread in the coming days with some newer more innocent poster demanding an explanation of what constitutes bad faith posting. We haven't had one of those in ages I think we might be due for another one. (Spoiler alert its highly dependent on the current situation and there's no good fixed definition that the mods can give you! They just know it when they see it.)