[DISCUSSION] What spawned the Privacy Violation rule?

[Cogitation]

Many users have been asking about the details of the incident that spawned the new Privacy Violations rule in the One-Stop Rules Shop. I stopped discussion of that specific incident, promising you a statement that would explain things in due time. What follows now is the promised statement.

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 understanding Facebook's privacy settings watching Facebook's privacy settings like a hawk hyped up on... (help me out, here, I need the name of a narcotic that makes someone attentive and paranoid...) staring down a mouse that might step out-of-line. For those who aren't familiar with Facebook's privacy issues, whenever Facebook introduces a new feature, the default privacy setting for the new feature is "SING FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS! LIFT YOUR VOICE!" Consequently, there were some connections between Reploid Productions and some aspects of her real life littered about in various places. It didn't get noticed, before, because attention wasn't drawn to it.

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

[Wrapper]

For the record, the appeal has been denied. A player has the right to post links to their own social media. That does not give anyone else the right to post other links to that player's social media without permission. In this particular circumstance, where a player (in this case a moderator) becomes a target of animosity for whatever reason, posting or reposting links to that player's social media is akin to lighting the torches for the lynch mob, which makes it even worse. Given Dread Lady Nathicana's relatively clean record and the fact that I don't perceive any deliberate intent to cause harm, an official warning is sufficient in this case.

[Cogitation]

Some things to remember before anyone starts posting, here:

First and foremost, keep it civil, respectful, and emotion-neutral. Emotions ran really high on this one. Many of you have legitimate concerns and we will not stifle those concerns. Some of you might have thought of something that we haven't, which is why we're opening this up. But at the same time, if this degrades into shouting matches, acrimony, and personal attacks despite the attempts of us Moderators to keep it within limits, then absolutely nothing of benefit to Moderation or the community is going to result and this thread will sadly have to be locked.

Second, all of the NationStates forum rules remain in effect, but most particularly the prohibitions on malice and gloating, and that goes for everyone in this matter and everyone in this thread. Some players really like pushing people's buttons despite our admonitions, but there's going to be even less tolerance for it here than usual.

Third, we might need to adjust the parameters of this thread as the thread goes based on factors that we did not anticipate in advance. We don't know what you're going to post, in here; again, some of you might have thought of something that we haven't. However, Moderation cases will NOT be tried by Courts of Public Opinion, and if that's all this thread becomes, then it will be locked.

iUnlock. iUnsticky.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

[CoraSpia]

I'd just like to ask how talking about moderator records in an event where some individuals have lost literally years of work is not in bad taste. You may all be volunteers, but I do volunteer work myself receiving phone calls and doing active listening. If I posted something to friends only saying how good it was that so many people had called in tonight and how it was record-setting, I'd be decried as unsensetive at best and at worst I'd receive an official reprimand.

[The Black Forrest]

I'd just like to ask how talking about moderator records in an event where some individuals have lost literally years of work is not in bad taste. You may all be volunteers, but I do volunteer work myself receiving phone calls and doing active listening. If I posted something to friends only saying how good it was that so many people had called in tonight and how it was record-setting, I'd be decried as unsensetive at best and at worst I'd receive an official reprimand.

Talking about Moderator records? As in Nathis actions? She received a warning. I think I am missing your point.

As to the losing "literally years of work" well? They didn't pay to be here and they violated the rules.

[Caelapes]

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.

Is there any reason that people who face moderator sanctions involving deletion of nations are not notified through other means? Several of the people involved in the telegram-related deletions Reploid Productions was involved with found out why they had been deleted through the public announcement on the forum. I found out why I was puppetswept when Sedgistan posted the reason in a Gameplay thread when someone else asked what had happened, even though my main nation (Misley) had an active and up-to-date email account associated with it and I had submitted a GHR requesting information prior to his post and, until this post, it was widely understood that moderator actions were private and would not be discussed with third parties.

It seems like it would make sense for moderators to issue an official statement ("Your nations have been deleted for X reasons; if you wish to appeal file a GHR") to affected players through email if possible prior to carrying out massive actions (i.e. puppetsweep, DOS).

[CoraSpia]

I'd just like to ask how talking about moderator records in an event where some individuals have lost literally years of work is not in bad taste. You may all be volunteers, but I do volunteer work myself receiving phone calls and doing active listening. If I posted something to friends only saying how good it was that so many people had called in tonight and how it was record-setting, I'd be decried as unsensetive at best and at worst I'd receive an official reprimand.

Talking about Moderator records? As in Nathis actions? She received a warning. I think I am missing your point.

As to the losing "literally years of work" well? They didn't pay to be here and they violated the rules.

I am talking about the deletions, yes. And whether they payed is neither here nor their, they still put a lot of work in.
If Reppy had said something like 'Gods, that was hard, thank fuck it's over,' that would be fine. But talking about moderator records makes it sound almost like she thinks that having a high moderator record is somehow a good thing. It's not a good thing or a bad thing: it's simply a thing.

[New Dukaine]

After taking awhile and reading over it, I can see why they are so protective. I see the point, and I now fully support this rule

[Floor 448]

It seems like it would make sense for moderators to issue an official statement ("Your nations have been deleted for X reasons; if you wish to appeal file a GHR") to affected players through email if possible prior to carrying out massive actions (i.e. puppetsweep, DOS).

That might not be effective; I have an email address associated with this nation, but I don't check it very often because I typically just check my other email, which is a school email that can't receive emails from NationStates. Additionally, a decent amount of nations (obviously I don't have access to the statistics here but whatever) don't have an email set. Another idea would be to have an optional field when deleting a nation for a note to the nation that is automatically shown upon a successful login, or what would have been a successful login if the nation still existed.

[CoraSpia]

I think that answering why someone has been deleted should be one of the first priorities on the ghr queue. People put a lot of effort into these nations, if they somehow break the rules they aught to know what it was they did.

[Drasnia]

Talking about Moderator records? As in Nathis actions? She received a warning. I think I am missing your point.

As to the losing "literally years of work" well? They didn't pay to be here and they violated the rules.

I am talking about the deletions, yes. And whether they payed is neither here nor their, they still put a lot of work in.
If Reppy had said something like 'Gods, that was hard, thank fuck it's over,' that would be fine. But talking about moderator records makes it sound almost like she thinks that having a high moderator record is somehow a good thing. It's not a good thing or a bad thing: it's simply a thing.

I interpret Reppy's post totally different in a way like "This might be a record for deletions and DoSes. Let's hope we scare everybody so bad that this never happens again." I don't get how you can interpret what Reppy said as gloating. She'd have to be so emotionally calloused for that, and Reppy is one of the most lighthearted and cheerful staff members, except maybe somebody like LG.

[CoraSpia]

I am talking about the deletions, yes. And whether they payed is neither here nor their, they still put a lot of work in.
If Reppy had said something like 'Gods, that was hard, thank fuck it's over,' that would be fine. But talking about moderator records makes it sound almost like she thinks that having a high moderator record is somehow a good thing. It's not a good thing or a bad thing: it's simply a thing.

I interpret Reppy's post totally different in a way like "This might be a record for deletions and DoSes. Let's hope we scare everybody so bad that this never happens again." I don't get how you can interpret what Reppy said as gloating. She'd have to be so emotionally calloused for that, and Reppy is one of the most lighthearted and cheerful staff members, except maybe somebody like LG.

To me it seems to be in the same spirit as the 'mod Olympics.'

[Cogitation]

I'd just like to ask how talking about moderator records in an event where some individuals have lost literally years of work is not in bad taste. You may all be volunteers, but I do volunteer work myself receiving phone calls and doing active listening. If I posted something to friends only saying how good it was that so many people had called in tonight and how it was record-setting, I'd be decried as unsensetive at best and at worst I'd receive an official reprimand.

First, Reploid's comment reads to me as a merely factual statement. Given the amount of effort put in, I imagine that she was exhausted when she typed that. Maybe this is an assumed-tone-of-voice issue?

Second, I don't know what sort of volunteer work it is that you do, so I'm having trouble understanding your example. Can you elaborate and explain the relevance here, please?

Third, the targets of the large-scale Moderator operation were violating NationStates rules in severe ways for months before being discovered and acted upon. That they lost years of work is totally irrelevant to our considerations.

Is there any reason that people who face moderator sanctions involving deletion of nations are not notified through other means? Several of the people involved in the telegram-related deletions Reploid Productions was involved with found out why they had been deleted through the public announcement on the forum. I found out why I was puppetswept when Sedgistan posted the reason in a Gameplay thread when someone else asked what had happened, even though my main nation (Misley) had an active and up-to-date email account associated with it and I had submitted a GHR requesting information prior to his post and, until this post, it was widely understood that moderator actions were private and would not be discussed with third parties.

It seems like it would make sense for moderators to issue an official statement ("Your nations have been deleted for X reasons; if you wish to appeal file a GHR") to affected players through email if possible prior to carrying out massive actions (i.e. puppetsweep, DOS).

With our current tools, every such E-mail would have to be sent manually. I'll ask the team about what can be done about this.

Another idea would be to have an optional field when deleting a nation for a note to the nation that is automatically shown upon successful login (or something that would have been successful if the nation still existed).

Good idea on paper, but Admin would have to program it. I'll ask about the feasibility.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

[The Black Forrest]

Talking about Moderator records? As in Nathis actions? She received a warning. I think I am missing your point.

As to the losing "literally years of work" well? They didn't pay to be here and they violated the rules.

I am talking about the deletions, yes. And whether they payed is neither here nor their, they still put a lot of work in.

Ok.

As to the work? Well? That can be a so called life lesson. You want your work to remain? Don't make a deletion offense. Personally, I never understood the value people place on post counts. They have been doing this for years. I remember it back when I was a mod for a gaming company. But that is just me. If my account was deleted; I would not mourn the loss of my posts.

If Reppy had said something like 'Gods, that was hard, thank fuck it's over,' that would be fine. But talking about moderator records makes it sound almost like she thinks that having a high moderator record is somehow a good thing. It's not a good thing or a bad thing: it's simply a thing.

*shrugs* I took it as she stated a fact. It's probably a record for the the site in general and I have have been through a few site migrations.

People get upset over such actions. Especially if it involves an online friend. I admit to surprise as a couple people I had a friendly discussions were listed.

Posting is not the best form of communication. What sounds very obvious in your head doesn't guarantee the reader will get the intent of the message.

[Reploid Productions]

Just a quick note on the "tone" of the FB post. For the intended target audience (that is, FB friends who presumably know me well enough to catch the subtext,) the glaringly obvious subtext was basically "That this record even exists and has been broken repeatedly is not a pleasing thing." Maybe I should have tacked on a "-feeling annoyed" or >_< face or something, since it is obvious now that someone on my friends list clearly misread the tone. Comments made before the account was deleted entirely certainly indicated that most caught that displeased subtext.

As noted by Cog:

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.

So, really, "What Rep said on FB" is at best only very distantly related to the actual discussion topic of "Why sharing someone's social media profile without thinking first is a bad idea and could potentially get you in hot water with site staff."

[CoraSpia]

I'm sorry if this is too unrelated, but here goes:

Was the person who was DoS'd for sending death threats with peoples rl information the same guy who found as much as my rl information as he could and threatened to spread it around if I didn't change my views?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Given how many NS players are friends - or at least were, no idea now - with Reploid Productions on FB, given the tone of the post made here, it did not seem appropriate when combined. Simple as that. Were the two entirely separated, it would have never crossed my mind. But they were not. Tone is something that can be taken as arbitrarily as things come, and the likelihood of folks on one side of things perceiving it one way, and others another, is high. Call it human nature, and the natural urge to support one's own.

Claims can be made til the end of time that this isn't the case, but when folks ask for a why, that's the simple answer of it. No intent to harm, bring harm, or anything of the sort ever crossed my mind either. It was a simple comparison, to illustrate a perceived problem, and that was the end of it. To illustrate, had it not been there, I would have never even known the problem existed. I'm not the only one who could likely say that. Hence, the perceived inappropriateness of it.

All there is to it, got no arguments about enforcing rules so long as they're done fairly across the board, reasonable transparency is maintained, tone and approach are held to the standards that I was informed of when modding, and actions are handled with consistency. When there is the perception of a player, multiple players, or a significant portion of the player base, questioning those actions or posts or rules would seem to be the appropriate action.

It is unfortunate in the extreme how this has all panned out. A note of disappointment was all that was intended, not the loss of friendship, nor the overreactive removal of accounts, nor anything else. Hopefully a clear understanding of this new ruleset will prevent similar from happening to others - not that many are in the same boat as myself, nor dealing with quite the same sorts of politics and histories. It can still sink you on the site if you don't keep your ducks in a row, and ignorance or misinterpretation of the rules will be no excuse, and never has been.

[Twilight Imperium]

I'm actually going to post about the thread topic. Crazy

I feel for Nathi, since I've always had a lot of sympathy for her "take no shit from the shits" approach to modding, and because her admittedly sorta edge case was basically speared on a pike for all to see the foundation of a new rule. But at the same time, it's these sorts of edge cases that usually outline the need for a new rule (or clarification of the old ones). Thus it was here. Kudos to all around for handling it about as well as humanly possible.

[Grenartia]

Now, in the past, Reploid Productions had a Facebook account themed on one of the fictional characters she created.

This statement seems to be at conflict with another statement:

Nathi said that she linked to Reppy's FB in-character NS profile. Reppy, to my knowledge, has not denied that fact.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28598060

That answers that.

Now, enough.

[Twilight Imperium]

Now, in the past, Reploid Productions had a Facebook account themed on one of the fictional characters she created.

No. It was not. It was a psuedonym, yes. It was not "an NS Mod persona" page.

What conflict?

[Esternial]

For what it's worth, Moderation, thanks for taking the time to explain your position rather than just decide we don't have to know or maybe that it's not worth spending your time on.

If you could do that more often that'd be swell.

By the way, do you have any intention of adding clarification regarding Telegrams and offensive/explicit content to the OSRS? Would be helpful.

[NERVUN]

Now, in the past, Reploid Productions had a Facebook account themed on one of the fictional characters she created.

This statement seems to be at conflict with another statement:

viewtopic.php?p=28598060#p28598060

That answers that.

Now, enough.

Theme does not equal persona.

[Gregoryisgodistan]

I'd just like to ask how talking about moderator records in an event where some individuals have lost literally years of work is not in bad taste. You may all be volunteers, but I do volunteer work myself receiving phone calls and doing active listening. If I posted something to friends only saying how good it was that so many people had called in tonight and how it was record-setting, I'd be decried as unsensetive at best and at worst I'd receive an official reprimand.

I don't think Rep said it was a good thing though, contrary to what Nathi implied. And while I'm guessing from context your work is somewhat sensitive, perhaps a mental health hotline of some sort, there is no such sensitivity here. Reppy is more like a police officer/detective than whatever you do. If a police officer just completed a lengthy investigation and mentioned something about it on Twitter, then that wouldn't be too unusual. Police departments make posts about how their massive inestigations concluded all the time. And while it would be somewhat different if an individual officer or detective made the post, that's not because of any bragging so much as because it could be construed as a post on behalf of the department. Now, in all likelihood it wouldn't, but they like to err on the side of caution. That's understandable, and is used by many public and private organizations, but many others don't. And whether NS mods should have a "social media policy" is another discussion if we want to have it, though I think the current one (don't reveal any super-secret info, other than that do what you want) is fine and anything else is excessive for an online nation simulator with volunteer mods.

[Araraukar]

All the hassle surrounding this particular incident and the new (updated?) rule is just leaving me with one thought: Reppy needs a hug.

I don't mean that in any sort of creepy way, but just as a show of sympathy and a big thanks for putting up with everything and everyone.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

for what my two cents are worth -

I'm of the opinion that of course Reppy meant no malice, and that commenting on the matter was not inherently bad, and that there's some leeway for posting while exhausted. That said, the phrasing was definitely....poor, mentioning of a record and a link is not at all a stretch to be construed in ways it was not intended, and I don't think the statement that "it can't be construed by any Reasonable Person™ as being unprofessional or distasteful" is really true - it certainly could, and was. With that noted, I agree with the other terms placed - it wasn't intended to be a public post, this isn't the same as a judge posting that they may have just set a record for convictions metaphors aside, etc. I agree with the end ruling by Wrapper - that, in absence of explicit malice, this is ultimately somewhere between a misunderstanding and a not-cool move that promoted a barely-related come-to-jesus realization of how much information most of us unwittingly make public online, and a simple warning is enough here...and hopefully, the whole brouhaha serves as a reminder to others as well. It never hurts to google yourself and your screen names now and then, and either try to doxx yourself or have a trusted friend try to do it, so you can cut any links you don't want.