@Sythe

Showing how much you're capable of defending your jack shit "Argument" .
Reply to me then, to my "spam post".

Explain how leaking a real life name is exactly the same as getting into a hacked email account (being him or not) and leaking personal information which breaks the law.

Explain, go on.

 

derp derp,

Please point out the exact post where I equated leaking a real life name to hacking an email and leaking personal information contained in that email. Until then, please refrain from posting in this thread, thanks

 

Deleting SF thread/posts contrary to the rules there for example. There are more such as censoring feedback and stuff but I don't want to have to argue specific examples. I'll take the side against him, and you for him.

Ryan was being an asshole for like two weeks, he gave Trin a bunch of fun ranks, miniranks, and shoved it in everyones faces. More of the "I can do whatever the fuck I want" attitude that I take issue with.

Anyway, only a few people re-linked the pictures. It was one specific chat and the few that linked the content got banned.

Just as the few users of BA that did it don't fully represent "the community" neither do the people who were linking the images. There was more negative feedback about how he was handling himself, and then when he started throwing out rage bans basically to people who would be like 'hi n4n0" it put gasoline on the fire. The situation isn't, n4n0 handed out a fun rank and everyone fucking exploded on him as you suggest.

I know its too late, but my rant against n4n0 is definitely on a tangent. The reason I commented at first was in support of amending that rule.

When I bring up something such as mod actions being visible like 4 staff members post and then lock it before hearing a single real user response.

I don't blame Roary for this but this is just a general example about how hard it is to cause any kind of change.

It should be obvious that I really enjoy spending time on this website, for the site itself and the people that I get to spend time with. I don't want to appear overly negative about the sites affairs but like many others I am frustrated about certain things.

 

You're referring to a statement that's incorrect.

He didn't get a 6 month ban because he broke a spam forum rule. He got a 6 month ban because maliciously he got into a staff member's email and leaked personal information of the user which is, infact also break of a real life law.

If he posted something like a facebook, email, name, personal skype, which can be found with just google etc sure i wouldn't support the ban, but it's not the same case (as i'm going to repeat myself) of maliciously getting into an email just to exploit personal information.

I don't care if there was a previous rule, nor do I care if its "6 times as long as it should be", due to the extent of his actions (which he repeatedly did via not creating a single thread and continuously to provoke staff) I'm suprised he's not simply perm banned.

 

What the fuck? Are you really that stupid?? No where did I bring up hattez in this thread. So why the FUCK do you keep bringing him up everytime you quote me. Jesus Christ, this isn't about him, it's about the rule that needs clarification, which was created AFTER everything that happened today. I do not give a fuck what he did/did not do.

omggggggggg you are seriously dumber than the average sythe user

 

Thank you. The rule is much more clear now.

 

" There will be a 6 month Spam Forum ban on top of this "

What is the point of this IF the posted picture(s), had not originated from and/or been posted in the spam forum. You might as well give them a ban to a random section of the site?

 

Thanks for the update.

/thread

edit: I still can't understand why this only applies to staff other than to make a point.

 

I don't understand why it only applies to staff members, maybe some insight on that?

 

Because they are more important than all of us "normal" (lesser) users .

Is this NEW rule applicable to OLD cases?

 

Sorry let me rephrase,

If the rule is extended to all members, what negative consequences would it have?

 

Just woke up and have to get ready for work, so this will be rather brief:

I can see where a few people are perplexed by the wording of this rule. In fact, it's a little offsetting to me that someone might consider plastering my personal information all over the forum without the same consequences as would come for doing it to a staff member. That really should be reconstructed to include the general public (of the forum) as well.

Not only that, but I believe it sort of goes against a permanent ban decision as well:

Regardless of the intent of the harm... Someone brute-forcing, keylogging, etc., their way into an e-mail account and using that to gain access to personal information is a permanent ban offense. If the prior users know that this was done and use the information themselves, the consequences should be equated to the person whom originally committed the crime. That is just my personal opinion on it and everyone has their own opinions.

 

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Girlfriend and all was keeping me busy. And the knowledge I was already going to only get 5 hours of sleep. Anyhoo. I didn't mean for it to be a wall. Sorry about that.

So it seems like there only has been a couple people actually targeted. I'm not sure if we really need to make a rule for only that number of people and even if we did, you are the owner and can remove anyone you want so it really does not even apply to you. Everyone already knows that if they fuck with you, you will fuck them right back.

The moderating comment was directed at the Hattenz situation. Rules only keep people from doing things when they are enforced. If the personal information rule had been used against Hattenz before he posted multiple times, he likely would have stopped, and been sorry, and he wouldn't have to be banned for 6 months. Really the comment was just to say that rules are only as effective as the application of them. Pretty obvious stuff and I think it should be the staff's goal to minimize the number of people that end up being banned. If we can control them another way and let them stay, it is better for activity and likely better for the site in the long run.

I still do not recall other you and Ryan anyone who has been attacked for their role as staff. Are you saying something like Tyro's "Finn is dishonest" thread counts in that or are you scoping to to personal information leaking? I think if you are referring to the former we could simply strengthen the notion of "do not fuck with staff" rather than strengthening a specific piece of that idea (the personal information rule). As long as it does not get abused I would not have any problem with that. Perhaps some sort of public discussion or explanation when such a rule was used would also be beneficial just so the community is very aware of what is going on and we avoid shit storms. I think more transparency would help users trust the staff more.

Staff of course put more of a foot forward than the average user but I do not believe that this is specific to privacy concerns. I would say the same I said in the above paragraph in that we could strengthen the do not fuck with staff policy while extending privacy rights to the wider user base.

I am concerned about the required punishment because the staff generally do follow the rules to the letter. The ban evasion rule is an amazing example of this. People used to evade infraction bans a lot and the staff would perm them for ban evasion. It was not until quite recently that the rules were adjusted so that this would not happen. Codifying into the rules the idea of staff flexibility is something that I think really helps and reduces the number of people pardoned since the staff have another way of not perming someone they do not feel should be permed.




Now to the rule, which is really what I care about in this thread. I never liked the wording "whether it is public or not" but I stuck with it because I could not think of a better way. The rule came about as a response to posting whois information on Sythe. I like the idea of different rules for public and private but I'm not sure it will work well in the context of Sythe.

The important part is below:

What I would suggest is the following:

1) Amend the blackhat rule to include a punishment for knowingly using, selling, disclosing, buying, etc anything that was obtained through any blackhat means. The punishment could range from a temp ban to a perm ban. This would make it clear that Hattenz was responsible for using Trin's name (which was found through blackhat means) to find out more information and would be responsible for that even though he did not have any part in the actual hacking (I think...?). We really already apply to this to gold sales and steam sales and shit, just more on a don't talk about it status, much like pins back in the days.

2) Amend the personal information rule to a privacy rule. Anything that a user has not themselves disclosed or posted in the public view on Sythe is not to be posted. That covers whois information. That covers public records like arrest reports. It covers phone numbers, names, facebook links, photos, essentially everything and I think that is better wording than the current rule. The punishment should be written as "up to 6 months" or "at least a one week ban but no more than a one year ban" or whatever. Give the staff a range because posting a picture from a known Facebook is a lot different than posting someone's address or bank information. I would be perfectly happy to have a clause at the end that was something like "Due to the nature of being a staff member, privacy violations against any staff member will have a minimum ban length of _______".

This accomplishes:

1) Being very harsh on using hacked information or stuff for any reason.
2) Keeps users and staff on the same playing field but just varies the punishments. As long as they have the same rules, I do not care.
3) Makes it really fucking clear what can and can not be posted. If it has not been posted, you can not post it.
4) Makes it really fucking clear that you can repost shit that has already been posted without a privacy rule violation (but flaming rules would apply and stuff).

 

As a person who is not involved but would one day like to be a valuable member in the eyes of sythe. This is utterly ridiculous.

I can not believe how large this has been blown out of proportion. Any rules that protect the staff should also provide protection for the average user in same force. I can't believe sythe has such a huge problem with personal info leaked. Now i understand why the blackhat rule exists because ppl do stupid shit like leaking personal info.



Its a broad rule that covers a broad scope of offences. Naturally some situations will require interpretation.

 

This...He admitted to knowing about it for weeks prior and willingly exploited the opportunity in a very deliberate heinous, malicious way.

I do agree there should be some protection for the general public if/when something like this happens to them. Perhaps a 6 month pardon and a 3 month Spam Forum ban?

 

What are you on? There is no such thing as a 6 month pardon. That isn't how the pardon system works. Please enlighten yourself: http://www.sythe.org/request-pardon...irements-rules-avoid-thread-being-locked.html

 

I know what the rules states. I was avoiding the wordy bullshit. Pardon after the 6 month ban. <-Happy now?

​

 

6 month ban = no pardon needed.

 

Clearly you don't know what the rules state, because this is a not a perm ban (for the first offence), which means a pardon isn't required to be unbanned, it is a temporary ban.