Sythe Rule Reform -- which rules do you want gone?

A name change would be nice..

Thread Hijacking - This is just spam
Advertising MM Services - This is just spam
Grave Digging - Who cares or spam
Defacing user photographs - Who the fuck cares, it goes under flaming.

Roary said:

Update to rules in effect from here onward:

Users will be banned for 6 months for the following:

• Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
  • There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
  • A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban with a single admin veto on behalf of or for the affected party.

Click to expand...

This is the way the rule currently reads.

To make the rule more clear and apply specifically to the intentions behind it without grouping in potential for abuse, I would write it this way:

RuleReform said:

Users will be banned for 6 months for the following:

• Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member, providing this person is not a Sythe.org user: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
  • There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
  • A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Xier0 said:

Originally Posted by RuleReform
Users will be banned for 6 months for the following:

Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member, providing this person is not a Sythe.org user: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban.

Click to expand...

So, you'd rather discriminate against those that have a potential to become staff, let's say Divica/her boyfriend for example, should either of them decide to want to become staff.

This site is open to anyone who wants to join, just like everyone has the potential to become staff.

Trin said:

So, you'd rather discriminate against those that have a potential to become staff, let's say Divica/her boyfriend for example, should either of them decide to want to become staff.

This site is open to anyone who wants to join, just like everyone has the potential to become staff.

Click to expand...

The reason it should be worded in this way is because when someone is a member of the both the groups "IRL acquaintance" and "Sythe.org" member, it would be realistically impossible to discern with certainty whether or not the personal info attacks against the non-staff member were personally against that Sythe.org regular member, or personally against the Staff member.

Also, the potential for abuse is greater because it extends staff benefits to non-staff Sythe.org users. Let's say Roary is staff, and regular Sythe user goldseller123 isn't. Let's say goldseller123 is an "IRL acquaintance" of Roary. If I leaked goldseller123's information, why should I be punished on the same level as if I leaked Roary's information? I could make the plea for ignorance that I had no way of knowing goldseller123 and Roary knew each other at all, etc.

Someone's status as a Sythe.org member overrides their status as an IRL outsider.

Xier0 said:

The reason it should be worded in this way is because when someone is a member of the both the groups "IRL acquaintance" and "Sythe.org" member, it would be realistically impossible to discern with certainty whether or not the personal info attacks against the non-staff member were personally against that Sythe.org regular member, or personally against the Staff member.

Also, the potential for abuse is greater because it extends staff benefits to non-staff Sythe.org users. Let's say Roary is staff, and regular Sythe user goldseller123 isn't. Let's say goldseller123 is an "IRL acquaintance" of Roary. If I leaked goldseller123's information, why should I be punished on the same level as if I leaked Roary's information? I could make the plea for ignorance that I had no way of knowing goldseller123 and Roary knew each other at all, etc.

Someone's status as a Sythe.org member overrides their status as an IRL outsider.

Click to expand...

Interesting theory considering the fact that Hattez admitted using my personal information to attack & to purposefully piss n4n0 off. So, using me to get to n4n0...hmm, tough pill to swallow. But, this is neither here nor there.

It should read: significant other (which would include girlfriend/boyfriend, spouses) and family.

Trin said:

Interesting theory considering the fact that Hattez admitted using my personal information to attack & to purposefully piss n4n0 off. So, using me to get to n4n0...hmm, tough pill to swallow. But, this is neither here nor there.

It should read: significant other (which would include girlfriend/boyfriend, spouses) and family.

Click to expand...

why would it read significant other? it already includes that unless you want to be raised up even higher on your pedestal by letting everyone know this rule was designed for you.

The new rule should apply to everyone but I don't understand the point of a 6 month spam forum ban on top of the 6 month ban. I'm assuming this is a rule just for hattez so he can't post in the spam forum on his return.

Punjabi3 said:

why would it read significant other? it already includes that unless you want to be raised up even higher on your pedestal by letting everyone know this rule was designed for you.

The new rule should apply to everyone but I don't understand the point of a 6 month spam forum ban on top of the 6 month ban. I'm assuming this is a rule just for hattez so he can't post in the spam forum on his return.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. The rule is still worded very poorly and it is obvious it was a compromise that the staff made so that Hatted gets his fair shake, because we all know that less something changed nothing was going to happen.

Now onto the rule: I don't exactly disagree with Trin. We all know the rule was made for her and Ryan so there is no use in trying to change it from that. My argument is for changing the wording to family member or significant other. Sanctuary has a point, because if you don't break the rule you don't worry about it but people with a grudge might try to extend a poorly worded rule's reach.

Punjabi3 said:

why would it read significant other? it already includes that unless you want to be raised up even higher on your pedestal by letting everyone know this rule was designed for you.

The new rule should apply to everyone but I don't understand the point of a 6 month spam forum ban on top of the 6 month ban. I'm assuming this is a rule just for hattez so he can't post in the spam forum on his return.

Click to expand...

Emperor_Nero said:

I feel the same way. The rule is still worded very poorly and it is obvious it was a compromise that the staff made so that Hatted gets his fair shake, because we all know that less something changed nothing was going to happen.

Now onto the rule: I don't exactly disagree with Trin. We all know the rule was made for her and Ryan so there is no use in trying to change it from that. My argument is for changing the wording to family member or significant other. Sanctuary has a point, because if you don't break the rule you don't worry about it but people with a grudge might try to extend a poorly worded rule's reach.

Click to expand...

I don't need to have Sythe.org or it's rules to place me on a pedestal. The virtual world doesn't provide that for me or for anyone for that matter. Don't make this section an opportunity to blatantly attack me. I made a valid suggestion for the change. Your slide remarks aren't warranted and I request to have them and this post edited to reflect only the suggestions of the rule in question.



The latest rule applies to those associated to staff of Sythe.org whether or not the person is a member of Sythe. IRL close friend still includes girlfriend or boyfriend, however, I wouldn't disagree that wording it family member and/or significant other makes it very clear. I know of a person that would attempt @ saying "a dog is a man's best friend" and would use the loophole that if anyone posted a picture of that person's dog, when/where it was born, what type breed it is, or the name of the dog in attempt to abuse said loophole.

In regards to the 6 month Spam Forum ban, I feel that it's in the best interest of the person that committed the crime, the community and the victim so that retaliation upon return does not occur. Call it a buffer or a cool down period, if you will. I believe it's meant to assist in the change of behavior of the inflicter so that it doesn't reoccur. Because, as you know, the next go around would be a perm ban (IP Ban-delete of account, assuming this is what Sythe means by "permanent ban").

Sythe, could you please clarify what you mean by perm ban? Some may think you only mean how it's been generally used over the years. In this rule where you say perm ban, does it mean IP ban?

Disclosure of personal information relating to a staff member or close IRL acquaintance of a staff member: This includes, but is not limited to, full names, private emails, Skype/Facebook, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc
There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this
A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban with a single admin veto on behalf of or for the affected party.

Click to expand...

Okay, so staff have an extra risk of this. So what? There is absolutely no reason at all that this can't extend to protect every user. You made your point about the n4n0 thing (the members were banned anyway..) but now that that's over you can fix the rule.

The rules are all right here. No one should be removed.

I'd like the suggest a slight revision of the wareZ policy. I'd like to be able to include indirect download links like torrents. I'll write a proposal to the rule change shortly.

Darkest Dream said:

I'd like the suggest a slight revision of the wareZ policy. I'd like to be able to include indirect download links like torrents. I'll write a proposal to the rule change shortly.

Click to expand...

Only person who can really comment on that is Richard since he knows the legality behind that idea.

"Blackhat"/Malicious Activities: Using software tools for deceptive, malicious, or harmful intent (Hacking/DDoSing/Social Engineering). Punishment for these offences will be dealt with on case-by-case basis, but will most likely result in a permanent ban.

you know
its kinda strange doxing is flagged as blackhat tbh
its not like its pulling private information
its only getting information thats on the internet/public
doesnt seem blackhat to me
just my personal stance though
I mean if I resolve ur ip and ip tracker you and google maps you I'd know where u lived to
doesnt mean I'm commiting some blackhat offence lmao
its just public information
reasoning behind doxing being illegal?
I grew up being told dont put anything on the internet u dont want to be known
if theres a tool that gathers already public information
Im not sure how thats illegal?
I could go to the court system and look at ur public files
or ip track you using a free tool
thats not blackhat o.o
I mean I've been doxed many times, none of that information isnt information that I've already put on the web




I would like it to be considerd to change the blackhat rule to the following regarding doxing:

*Selling doxing tools & having a dox is considered legal as doxes are nothing more than public information so using a tool or selling a tool to gather whats considered "public information" should not be illegal

*However, If a user is using said doxing tool or dox to discriminate/hurt/harrass another person then it becomes punishable.


I dont see why doxing itself is illegal because we all grew up being told "dont say things on the internet or put things on it you dont want known"

Pulling together previous past public information shouldnt be considered illegal in my opinion.


Please notice: I do not support doxing or what it in entails in ANY FORM but I dont think the actual act of doxing/selling a tool to gather public information should be illegal tbh.

There is no way Bus in any shape or form that doxing will be acceptable on sythe.org. It is at the discretion of each user on sythe.org how much information from their real life they wish to share, some are fine with providing their real names or facebooks whereas others have no intentions on doing either. Serving all of someone's personal information up on a silver platter can be done as for harassment or online shaming as per Peter (2012) and Estes (2011). It's malicious and there's no way it'll ever be acceptable on sythe.org.

Jack Goff said:

There is no way Bus in any shape or form that doxing will be acceptable on sythe.org. It is at the discretion of each user on sythe.org how much information from their real life they wish to share, some are fine with providing their real names or facebooks whereas others have no intentions on doing either. Serving all of someone's personal information up on a silver platter can be done as for harassment or online shaming as per Peter (2012) and Estes (2011). It's malicious and there's no way it'll ever be acceptable on sythe.org.

Click to expand...

If the dox contains information that can be found on a google search or public record I see no reason why it'd be illegal.

It's just gathering public info :shrug:


I think leaking doxes/abusing them is absolutely bannable but just doxing someone and not doing anything with it doesnt seem blackhat to me, after all its just public information so why would it be illegal to gather public information?


P.S- I just posted this because I'm curious to see what people think, I dont support any of this nor do I gain anything( I actually likely lose ) but I still prefer to see stances on what I see as a perfectly valid point tbh.

Bus369 said:

If the dox contains information that can be found on a google search or public record I see no reason why it'd be illegal.

It's just gathering public info :shrug:


I think leaking doxes/abusing them is absolutely bannable but just doxing someone and not doing anything with it doesnt seem blackhat to me, after all its just public information so why would it be illegal to gather public information?


P.S- I just posted this because I'm curious to see what people think, I dont support any of this nor do I gain anything( I actually likely lose ) but I still prefer to see stances on what I see as a perfectly valid point tbh.

Click to expand...

Why would you dox someone if you didn't have malicious intentions?

Jack Goff said:

Why would you dox someone if you didn't have malicious intentions?

Click to expand...

The one that automatically came to mind is like trying to find a long lost family member or something lmao which is a horrible example but kind of true.

Let the SF govern itself, let us vote fuckers out. Bullying used to work, but now most the wily bastards think we're playing with them!!!

Bus369 said:

The one that automatically came to mind is like trying to find a long lost family member or something lmao which is a horrible example but kind of true.

Click to expand...

come on man. how many sythe members are trying to find long lost acquaintances through doxing people? compare that to the number of people trying to harass other people and tell me you think we should allow doxing

gonna say this is a firm, permanent, doesn't need to be on the DNS list because it's never going to happen "No"