Too Long; Didn't Read:
Moderation needed to act on a possibility that Reploid's life was in danger. This problem has now been corrected.
---
Get a sandwich, get up and stretch, get limber, then sit down and make yourselves comfortable. This is going to be a long one.
For several days, now, many of you have been wondering why we issued an Official Warning against Nathicana and calling it "almost DOXXing". We couldn't go into detail at the time because security holes still existed that needed to be plugged for the sake of Reploid Production's personal safety.
Those holes have now been plugged, so now we're going into more detail.
First, the background.
To use our site, you must agree to the Terms and Conditions of this website. Amongst other things, the Terms and Conditions state "You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it... does not invade the privacy... of a third party...." The full sentence is, of course, much longer than that; I've snipped the portions that aren't relevant here.
Now, in the past, Reploid Productions had a Facebook account themed on one of the fictional characters she created. She would sometimes post on NationStates links to SPECIFIC pieces of content hosted by Facebook, such as computer-generated images that she created. She also used her Facebook account to keep in touch with various friends.
Unfortunately, like many Facebook users, Reploid fell into the trap of not
Now, over the past four months, there was an investigation. As I stated previously (specifically as point #1), "In retrospect, several of us really should have also helped out with the heavy lifting (so to speak), but because some of us had to recuse ourselves from the case and the rest of us were all too lazy to touch this with a 10-foot pole (3.048 meters), Reploid had to slog through a LOT of telegrams and a LOT of telegram boxes, so this contributed to her mounting frustration. ...we as a team really should have been doing more earlier in the process to help with the workload." Because we didn't, Reploid had gotten frustrated, exhausted, and overwhelmed, and that's OUR fault as The NationStates Moderation Team as a whole, not Reploid's fault.
Besides which, there's a reason we had to come down on this like a ton of bricks, to begin with.
So, when the time came to publicly pull the trigger on this ring of offenders, Reploid needed to vent. So, she posted a comment about the incident to Facebook and designated the comment to be viewed by her Facebook Friends only. The comment was NOT publicly viewable and did NOT contain any Operational Security details.
At the time (5 days ago), Reploid's circle of Facebook Friends included Nathicana.
Given the brouhaha that's arisen, we have Reploid's permission to reproduce the exact comment, as we're about to demonstrate that Nathicana misrepresented it. Reploid's original Facebook comment to her circle of friends was: "Well, that's probably a couple of new mod records for both DOSes and DEATs in one post: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=376532 "
That brings us to Nathicana's offense.
Nathicana posted a link to Reploid's private Facebook comment (stated above) and commented on it as "We'll excuse for a moment the apparent bragging on the part of Reppy on Facebook of her 'record-breaking' ruling, given it's offsite and thus, not really usable in this situation. But again, one might consider it to be less than professional, and perhaps in poor taste."
There are three problems, here, which I'll describe in order of increasing severity.
1) Nathicana mischaracterized the Facebook comment as "unprofessional" and "in poor taste" and wound up doing so in a context where readers could not judge that for themselves (again, recall that the original Facebook comment was NOT visible to the public, only to Reploid's circle of Facebook Friends). There are two counterpoints, here: first, Reploid was working this case alone in her spare time (bearing in mind that we ALL moderate this site in our spare time; such is the nature of a volunteer staff), so she was venting to friends. As long as she's not revealing Operational Security information to non-Moderators, she's allowed to vent in private and isn't required to be professional or tasteful in that context. The second counterpoint is that even if the post were public to begin with, it can't be construed by any Reasonable Person™ as being unprofessional or distasteful. Given that we've shown you the original Facebook comment, above, you can plainly see that for yourself. Again, the comment was: "Well, that's probably a couple of new mod records for both DOSes and DEATs in one post: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=376532 "
2) The fact that Nathicana tried to link private content in a NationStates forum post to begin with. Regardless of any considerations on whether or not the rest of the Facebook profile can be regarded as private, that one comment can most definitely be considered private (at the time) because it was NOT visible to all Facebook users. Nathicana did NOT have Reploids permission to repost it to a public venue.
3) Here's where we get to the "almost-DOXXing" accusation that every single last NationStates Moderator AND Administrator is cross at Nathicana for. Nathicana drew attention to the carelessly littered-about links between Reploid's identity on NationStates and her identity in the real world right in the thread where these individuals and their supporters were already venting their dismay at the ruling being made by Reploid, ensuring maximum attention to Reploid's profile in a highly negative context.
Within literally hours of Nathicana's post, we were privately alerted by someone who informed us that there were security risks with Reploid's Facebook profile. From the details that the player found, the player was able to narrow down what neighborhood she lives, or lived in, what school she went to, and the real names of multiple people that she's somehow connected to. Based on this, it was possible to infer Reploid's real name and location, which could have put her safety at risk.
Thankfully, this kind-hearted individual came to us quickly and Reploid started the process of locking down her offsite materials. This process is complete and anyone trying the same thing now will just run into dead-ends.
It's worth noting, here, that one of the targets of the cybersex sting was DOSed ahead of the rest of the set in an unrelated case for sending threatening telegrams to another player containing multiple real-world death threats. So, there was a slight but non-zero possibility that an angry user might have tracked down Reploid's real-world address and caused her physical harm because he didn't like how she moderated a website.
Was it careless for Reploid to leave so many breadcrumbs lying around? Yes, it was. But that does NOT justify drawing attention to those breadcrumbs, regardless of whether it was intentional or deliberate. Noticing that someone left the front door of their house unlocked does NOT justify walking inside and stealing everything that can be carried, nor does it justify taking a megaphone and announcing that the door was left unlocked, nor does it justify taking a megaphone and announcing that the interior decoration is distasteful (thus leading to attention about how to get inside the house to take a look). We will not tolerate victim-blaming in this regard.
The protection of our users (and that includes the protection of our Moderators) takes precedence over all other considerations and will not be compromised under any circumstances or for any reason or for any other ideal. The "posting personally-identifying information" cases do pop up on a fairly regular (but not too frequent) basis. They've always been illegal under the site Terms (specifically, it's malicious and theatening, see the Terms and Conditions). Previously, we'd punish offenders under the Griefing rule. On reflection, it's sadly become obvious that this needs to be spelled out more clearly to our player base, hence putting it in a separate rule in the One-Stop Rules Shop. Previously, we only had a prohibition on posting someone elses IP address; this is now implied in the Privacy Violation rule.
---
Now, on a separate matter, very valid questions have been raised about under what circumstances Moderator rulings will be public. Specific instances are handled on a case-by-case basis, but SOME of the factors taken into consideration are:
If an offense was committed in the public view, the ruling is more likely to be publicly announced. Conversely, if it was committed in a private venue, such as telegrams, then the ruling is more likely to be private to the offender and the complainant.
If an offense concerned an activity that could threaten people or the site itself, the ruling is more likely to be publicly announced.
If a case required contacting law enforcement, then whether or not any ruling will be public will be dictated by considerations specific to the case.
If a case might result in a lawsuit (such as libel) if handled improperly (such as announcing that we removed someone for being a pedophile or a terrorist, and we turn out to be WRONG), then the ruling will most likely remain secret.
If we need to conduct behavioral correction on a large scale, then the ruling is more likely to be public (such as reminding people that cybersexing on NationStates is strictly forbidden, even by telegram).
If a case involves an individual who is chronically vulnerable in some fashion, then the ruling is more likely to be private to avoid drawing attention to said vulnerable user.
If explaining why we ruled a particular way on a particular case requires exposing evidence that teaches malicious users how to evade our detection methods, then the ruling will most likely remain secret.
This is just a sampling of the considerations that come into play. Every case is different and subject to Moderator judgment, and the above factors are NOT exhaustive nor in any particular order. It's just another one of those judgment calls that can't be programmed into, and blindly followed, by a Moderator Robot. Moderators must be (and are) chosen and trusted to make these judgment calls.
---
Finally, Nathicana did file an appeal for her Official Warning. One of the newer Moderators is handling that appeal, as he isn't familiar with Nathicana and thus cannot be reasonably said to be biased. That Moderator will post their ruling separately.
---
I'm going to leave this thread locked for a day to give everyone a chance to actually read this, then I (or another Moderator) will unlock the thread. To be clear, that means that I intend to unlock this thread and open up discussion sometime on Saturday, United States time.
"Think about it for a day." (A moment is not sufficient for this.)
--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator