[Discussion] DEATing for "Doxing" - The Reboot

[Idzequitch]

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?

That's the type of question several people are asking, and as yet, there has been no attempt to answer. In fact, I was rather condescendingly told to stop worrying about it when I asked similar questions on the first page.

[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.

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?

Excellent questions, we're waiting on the related ruling to be issued before we can go into the nitty gritty and work this out.

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.

Depends on the Mod. I try to TG those whom I hit with a unofficial to be aware of it.

That's the type of question several people are asking, and as yet, there has been no attempt to answer. In fact, I was rather condescendingly told to stop worrying about it when I asked similar questions on the first page.

It was not condescending, it was stated, again, that more information will be forthcoming when the rulings are issued. Until then, working yourself into a panic that we're about to unleash the banhammers for people saying "Hi classmate!" isn't conductive.

My example above was meant to provide people reassurance that we're not about to do that. I'm sure we're gonna be pounding out the details more and more, but right now there's a lack of details that I can release to you to pound.

[Idzequitch]

That's the type of question several people are asking, and as yet, there has been no attempt to answer. In fact, I was rather condescendingly told to stop worrying about it when I asked similar questions on the first page.

It was not condescending, it was stated, again, that more information will be forthcoming when the rulings are issued. Until then, working yourself into a panic that we're about to unleash the banhammers for people saying "Hi classmate!" isn't conductive.

My example above was meant to provide people reassurance that we're not about to do that. I'm sure we're gonna be pounding out the details more and more, but right now there's a lack of details that I can release to you to pound.

Alright. That's the kind of answer I've been looking for. I appreciate that. I still question the usefulness of this thread until such a time comes as you can "pound" those details, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

[Parhe]

Thanks for the response Nervun. I don't have much else to add, tbh, at least until more things are pounded out.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

And yet we were specififly asked in the moderators OP not to talk about dln's case in this specific thread.

[The Archregimancy]

And yet we were specififly asked in the moderators OP not to talk about dln's case in this specific thread.

I appreciate that this isn't immediately obvious given that the posts have been removed, but I would stress that said removal wasn't predicated on the Reploid Productions/Dread Lady Nathicana case specifically mentioned in the OP, only on the nature of two posts that were removed.

[Lockdownn]

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.

Well, you can't commend the "team's" response to this shit either.

[Parhe]

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.

Well, you can't commend the "team's" response to this shit either.

The staff couldn't respond in many other ways when the poster was supposedly posting inaccurate and misleading info. Info that many players would believe from a mix of current suspicion towards the staff team and DLN's former position. Without any evidence being supported by the player, it can be considered libel of the staff team as a unit. No response would have left the damaging post up, a simple deletion with no comment would be a step away from transparency, drawing more outrage, and a rebuttal may have just led to an argument, which probably would have gone no where. DLN making such posts placed the staff team in a bad position to respond.

[Ethel mermania]

And yet we were specififly asked in the moderators OP not to talk about dln's case in this specific thread.

I appreciate that this isn't immediately obvious given that the posts have been removed, but I would stress that said removal wasn't predicated on the Reploid Productions/Dread Lady Nathicana case specifically mentioned in the OP, only on the nature of two posts that were removed.

You appreciate? ??? That is mighty white of you.

Look its your site, do what you want. But can we stop the Nonesense and just get on with it.

Edit: I am done with this topic. If you want to continue feel free to tg me.

[Parhe]

I appreciate that this isn't immediately obvious given that the posts have been removed, but I would stress that said removal wasn't predicated on the Reploid Productions/Dread Lady Nathicana case specifically mentioned in the OP, only on the nature of two posts that were removed.

You appreciate? ??? That is mighty white of you.

Look its your site, do what you want. But can we stop the Nonesense and just get on with it.

Edit: I am done with this topic. If you want to continue feel free to tg me.

"Appreciate: understand (a situation) fully; recognize the full implications of." Probably as in "I (The Archregimancy) 'can recognize the implication' that this (the topic of the posts removed) isn't immediately obvious given that the posts have been remove..."

No need to get snarky and rude because of wording. Afterall, you were the one who wrongly assumed that the two posts removed, and The Archregimancy's post address that, had to do with the specific example of Doxing concerning DLN mentioned in the OP.

[Ularn]

Well, it's been a few days lurking since this whole clusterfuck started - I guess now's as good a time as any to hop down from the peanut gallery. Here, someone can finish my popcorn.

Having been able to read DLN's posts before they were removed, I attest that Arch's assessment of them as being bad faith and misleading considering DLN's previous history and perceived authority as a former moderator was perfectly fair, regardless of how you may feel about anything else. Her tone was bitter and resentful and it's quite clear she has an axe to grind with the moderation team; the posts didn't add anything useful to the conversation and would likely have only served to derail it similarly to how the last one was - or how this one is, come to think of it. Shall we get back on topic?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

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.

As a side note - Nerv, bless your heart for coming in here and at least trying to offer some points to folks who've been wondering what in Hades is going on with all of this, and just how bad is it going to get. You always have been good that way, and I know you'll keep trying to do what you can for folks, especially in vague situations, or places where a long wait was had for a full mod answer. Didn't mean to put too much pressure on you there, but it seemed pertinent at the time.

Unfortunately Arch, a great many of you lost the right to talk to me on a friendly basis a long time ago, due to either action, or inaction. It's unfortunate, but it happens. I regret that it came to such a point, but not all of it was my choice.

I have repeatedly made it clear they were my opinions, no one elses, and have never put forward in any of this that my opinion was to be held at a higher value than anyone elses, or that I know what is going on behind the scenes now, or what changes may have happened since I was removed. However, I believe I'm free to talk about my experiences so far as they do not reveal direct discussions, name names, let slip methods of moderation that will allow others to break the rules, intentionally or otherwise, or reveal opinions that were made in strict confidence. I don't believe I've done any of that here. Nor have I intended to, in spite of being urged by some to do so. Won't happen. I've simply stated my opinion, which I'll openly admit, is not nearly as shiny as it once was. Especially given the threat leveled by you there at the end, and those hinted at by others. No, I did not miss that.

That can't be helped now, and it certainly isn't helped by the efforts of yourselves trying to 'operate from a position of authority' to tarnish my reputation (come on now, we all know folks either like me or hate me as is, and I haven't changed one whit that way), and dismiss my opinions as simple sour grapes. If that were the case, I'd think it'd become readily apparent to the rest of the folks following up. One might think that if there is any 'misleading or inaccurate' information being posted by me, it would better serve you to point it out and educate everyone as to which points those are, rather than scrapping and hiding said opinions, but then you've just announced to everyone that I have no idea what I'm talking about anyway, so they should just ignore whatever I happen to post going forward, or looking back, so what do I know, neh?

I was there when 'removing bad faith posts' became a thing, and I know exactly what it's about. You can continue to be disappointed, and that's fine. I've been rather disappointed with the words, actions, and lack of actions with various sectors of the site's moderation and admin team, and this is no secret. Others have voiced ample disappointment over other matters as well. There's a whole lot of disappointment to go around. But the more you try to bury things, and brush this off as 'Nathi is just being a bitch and is just mad that she got removed', the more you might suggest that perhaps - just perhaps - there might be something to some of my concerns about it all, regardless of my somewhat bitter tone. Disillusionment - it happens. And it isn't always warm and cozy. And if bitter, perhaps one might take into account that a great many of us have been here on this site for a very long time - mods and players - and hate to see some of the things go on that have. Bitterness is also something that's gone around, in plenty.

This is in part of what I'd tried to talk about prior to that unfortunate blow-up - consistency, dealing with players more honestly and openly about what has lead to this, that, or the other mod action, not holding the mod team above reproach or judgment, remembering the community and the importance it once held when making rules or changes or taking actions, and the overall disconnect that I believe has been growing between not only various player groups, but the site's governing body as well. Some of the rest, I can't discuss in public, as you and others know quite well. Some you may not know about, but as no one has bothered to contact me concerning it, save one who didn't offer much more than 'shush, you' in the end, one supposes that also isn't a concern going forward. This still is not the place for those discussions, nor likely a great deal of this, but given your accusations, I believe the accused deserves one post in defense of themselves, no?

Of course you could expect one would act negatively when one's opinions are removed simply because someone doesn't like what they say. And on the flip side, you have every right to do so, which is another point I've always explained to others. This isn't about free speech, it is very much the private playground of those running the site, and if players don't like it, they're free to either appeal, discuss, deal with it, or leave. I've been discussing. Am I being told now that if I continue to discuss, as any other player is allowed, that I will in addition to being removed from modding, be removed from the site? That would set a rather interesting precedent, wouldn't it?

As I stated earlier, I'm very interested to see what comes of this whole overblown incident, and the unnecessary hysteria on the parts of some that it has caused. And it would seem I'm not alone in that curiosity. Carry on.

[Grenartia]

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?

Excellent questions, we're waiting on the related ruling to be issued before we can go into the nitty gritty and work this out.

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.

Depends on the Mod. I try to TG those whom I hit with a unofficial to be aware of it.

That's the type of question several people are asking, and as yet, there has been no attempt to answer. In fact, I was rather condescendingly told to stop worrying about it when I asked similar questions on the first page.

It was not condescending, it was stated, again, that more information will be forthcoming when the rulings are issued. Until then, working yourself into a panic that we're about to unleash the banhammers for people saying "Hi classmate!" isn't conductive.

My example above was meant to provide people reassurance that we're not about to do that. I'm sure we're gonna be pounding out the details more and more, but right now there's a lack of details that I can release to you to pound.

What, exactly, is keeping the ruling from being issued now?

[The Corparation]

Excellent questions, we're waiting on the related ruling to be issued before we can go into the nitty gritty and work this out.


Depends on the Mod. I try to TG those whom I hit with a unofficial to be aware of it.


It was not condescending, it was stated, again, that more information will be forthcoming when the rulings are issued. Until then, working yourself into a panic that we're about to unleash the banhammers for people saying "Hi classmate!" isn't conductive.

My example above was meant to provide people reassurance that we're not about to do that. I'm sure we're gonna be pounding out the details more and more, but right now there's a lack of details that I can release to you to pound.

What, exactly, is keeping the ruling from being issued now?

Presumably they're still piecing it together inside the mod cave. The most us regular posters can do is camp outside the mod's conclave and wait for the white smoke that signals that the mods have chosen a new pope reached a consensus

[The Union of English Speaking Countries]

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.

And yet we were specififly asked in the moderators OP not to talk about dln's case in this specific thread.

To be fair, given the nature of the discusion it is rather difficult to divorce the two without turning this thread into just a circle-jerk of "Dox is WRONG"
Given that the discussion on that case was meaningful in that it brought up concerns about what exactly constitutes private information. I mean, no one honestly thinks Doxxing should be okay, all this thread can really do is reach consensus on what punishment should be (which it for the most part already did in the other one)

[Cogitation]

So, yeah, I posted a thing. Discussion on the specific case that spawned the Privacy Violations rule are to be limited to THAT thread, and it will be unlocked for such discussion tomorrow after people have had time to grok it.

This thread remains limited to general discussion about the rule, itself.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

[Cogitation]

I can now safely talk about the factors that will go into the severity of a Privacy Violations punishment.

• The first factor is the set of circumstances surrounding the violation. If it occurred in calm conditions, an innocent discussion of some sort, then we will tend towards leniency. If it occurred in circumstances where there's drama or otherwise raised tempers, then we will tend to be more harsh.
• The second factor is what information was directly exposed. The more specific real life data, here, the worse the punishment. "Cogitation is really Sputnik Sputnikovich and he lives at..." as a post, or a link to a Google Maps pointer, or a link to a website that has a real name and address right there without further digging, is going to get fried with Modly hellfire.
• The third factor is what information was in-directly exposed, and it's because of this factor that I needed to wait until we could post this statement that I could explain this, as this was what was endangering Reploid. Basically, what I'm talking about here are links that, while they don't directly point to personally identifying information, do lead to a trail of littered breadcrumbs that if investigated by Your Average Google Internet Stalker could lead to personally identifying information.
• The fourth factor that comes into play is our assessment of the most likely intent of the offender. We'll be more lenient if we think someone's being careless and dumb, and we'll come down like a ton of bricks if we think the offender was actually trying to scare someone or actually get them killed. We will probably be somewhere in-between, possibly leaning towards Ton-O-Bricks™ in cases of gross negligence where a Reasonable Person™ Should Have Known Better™, but doesn't seem to actually intend to cause physical harm.

There might be other factors that we'll take into consideration when the time comes, but which we haven't thought of, yet. But, these were the first factors that we could think of.

If you think that someone's personally identifying information might have been unintentionally or maliciously exposed, then alert Moderation. GHR is best, as the less attention drawn to it, the better. You can also use Internet Relay Chat: irc.gamesurge.net:6667 (Address irc.gamesurge.net --- Port 6667), channel #themodcave

[edit] I got distracted while typing, and posted while forgetting to finish a sentence. [/edit]

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

[Idzequitch]

I can now safely talk about the factors that will go into the severity of a Privacy Violations punishment.

• The first factor is the set of circumstances surrounding the violation. If it occurred in calm conditions, an innocent discussion of some sort, then we will tend towards leniency. If it occurred in circumstances where there's drama or otherwise raised tempers, then we will tend to be more harsh.
• The second factor is what information was directly exposed. The more specific real life data, here, the worse the punishment. "Cogitation is really Sputnik Sputnikovich and he lives at..." as a post, or a link to a Google Maps pointer, or a link to a website that has a real name and address right there without further digging, is going to get fried with Modly hellfire.
• The third factor is what information was in-directly exposed, and it's because of this factor that I needed to wait until we could post this statement that I could explain this, as this was what was endangering Reploid. Basically, what I'm talking about here are links that, while they don't directly point to personally identifying information, do lead to a trail of littered breadcrumbs that if investigated by Your Average Google Internet Stalker could lead to personally identifying information.
• The fourth factor that comes into play is our assessment of the most likely intent of the offender. We'll be more lenient if we think someone's being careless and dumb, and we'll come down like a ton of bricks if we think the offender was actually trying to scare someone or actually get them killed. We will probably be somewhere in-between, possibly leaning towards Ton-O-Bricks™

There might be other factors that we'll take into consideration when the time comes, but which we haven't thought of, yet. But, these were the first factors that we could think of.

If you think that someone's personally identifying information might have been unintentionally or maliciously exposed, then alert Moderation. GHR is best, as the less attention drawn to it, the better. You can also use Internet Relay Chat: irc.gamesurge.net:6667 (Address irc.gamesurge.net --- Port 6667), channel #themodcave

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

Between this and the other post, my questions are answered, Thanks Cog (& Co.)

[The Archregimancy]

You appreciate? ??? That is mighty white of you.

Look its your site, do what you want. But can we stop the Nonesense and just get on with it.

Edit: I am done with this topic. If you want to continue feel free to tg me.

"Appreciate: understand (a situation) fully; recognize the full implications of." Probably as in "I (The Archregimancy) 'can recognize the implication' that this (the topic of the posts removed) isn't immediately obvious given that the posts have been remove..."

This is the correct interpretation of the post in question.

[Cogitation]

I just realized that I forgot to actually finish typing out the last sentence in the fourth factor, above. Fixed in edit.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Given absolutely no course has been left open to rebut mischaracterizations and such made in the moderator posts, there really isn't much to be said in that direction. Unfair, but ... there you are.

The point that I find most problematic is the section on 'intent', as that has historically been difficult to determine, and when biases are present on either side of a situation, it might be argued that it could be impossible to get a fair call concerning the intent at the time of post. Although you have since reiterated specific, it would seem, to a matter I am not supposed to reference. Which makes it difficult to discuss here further.

If someone has put themselves out there and left the impression that such references were ok, even without a statement that confirmed this implicitly, I can see folks getting into trouble, given the vague outlines you have laid out there. People fall in and out of favor all the time, and what was ok today, might not be ok with them tomorrow. We've seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the Factbooks section for sharing layouts and other such tweaks. It isn't a stretch in the least to imagine it could hold the same pitfalls for other aspects, like this. It could create some rather ugly traps if misused, especially if the aggrieved felt the need to push harder for punishment on account of such factors.

There is the point that 'information directly exposed' can be loosely interpreted as well, depending on one's working knowledge of how any given site or system works, and/or their knowledge of how to utilize a link, a photo, a reference, etc. In fact I was surprised at what could be gotten from some photos, as pointed out by another player, and mentioned to folks so as to allow them to avoid potential problems due to it. I had no idea previously. However, not everyone is an internet genius, not everyone's first reaction is 'what can I gain with this' upon seeing a link or photo, in a spirited discussion or not, and in the end, a great deal of the statement appears to have been reached with one particular incident, and player, in mind. Which would suggest a new precedent in that regard, and potential concerns to go along with.

Not entirely, no, and perhaps it was a point that needed addressing sooner, but it's more the method of delivery that I'm calling into question there. Not the end results themselves. I would never forgive myself if any real harm came to anyone on account of my careless use of information, link, photo, etc. I agree wholeheartedly with other statements made that honest-to-mod deliberate doxxing is not something any of us want legalized here, nor is there any argument that such attempts ought not to be stomped on rather hard. The question is just how arbitrary will such determinations be, and if as arbitrary as some of it sounds, what guidelines could be laid out to help players ensure that they do not inadvertently run afoul of it? What assurances do the players have that they can, within reason, continue on as they have without fearing repercussions?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This question is directed at Cogitation, in view of the ruling stickied: would you recommend then that we refrain from sharing any social media material directly tied to us or to NS posters we may have as friends in social media? The reason I ask is because of image sharing. Sometimes, posters (myself included) post/posted direct links to images from their FB accounts, as an example.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

This question is directed at Cogitation, in view of the ruling stickied: would you recommend then that we refrain from sharing any social media material directly tied to us or to NS friends we may have as friends in social media? The reason I ask is because of image sharing. Sometimes, posters (myself included) post/posted direct links to images from their FB accounts, as an example.

Always a good idea to upload to somewhere like imgur, or a Dropbox either seperate from personal info or with careful security settings. You can do a lot with photo url's to work back, as well as reverse search if you've posted them publicly anywhere else. A little minor editing, crop, or resize can go a lot way to help the latter.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This question is directed at Cogitation, in view of the ruling stickied: would you recommend then that we refrain from sharing any social media material directly tied to us or to NS friends we may have as friends in social media? The reason I ask is because of image sharing. Sometimes, posters (myself included) post/posted direct links to images from their FB accounts, as an example.

Always a good idea to upload to somewhere like imgur, or a Dropbox either seperate from personal info or with careful security settings. You can do a lot with photo url's to work back, as well as reverse search if you've posted them publicly anywhere else. A little minor editing, crop, or resize can go a lot way to help the latter.

Always a valid point. I erased my FB account so people cannot really do cross referencing and the like about my photos, but I have seen other people post direct links to FB and was curious.

[Mousebumples]

This question is directed at Cogitation, in view of the ruling stickied: would you recommend then that we refrain from sharing any social media material directly tied to us or to NS friends we may have as friends in social media? The reason I ask is because of image sharing. Sometimes, posters (myself included) post/posted direct links to images from their FB accounts, as an example.

I can't speak for others, but I'm in the habit of uploading any pictures I want to share to my Photobucket account rather than linking to images from Facebook, etc. I don't think it will be a "rule" or anything, and I understand that some players don't really care if everyone knows everything about them (as evidenced by the telegrams I get on occasion from regionmates, introducing themselves as 15-year-old Joe Smith from Anywhereville, Arkansas) ... but I'd rather have a step of separation between myself and other people I don't really know on the internet.

I also know that there are plenty of players that add each other on Facebook, as Facebook friends. If that's a route you want to take, that's your prerogative; however, you don't really know who's on the other side of the computer, and - over the decade-plus that this game has been around - we've had well-known players end up in jail/prison for non-NS related offenses (*so far as I'm aware), but it's a scary world out there. Maybe it's just the female sense of self-preservation in me, but as much as I might think I could trust someone I only know on the internet ... it's quite possible to find yourself completely snowed, insofar as not really knowing who you're talking to or what you're dealing with.

TL;DR - there are a bunch of free photohosting sites out there. I'd recommend using them.