Amend The "Personal Information" Spam Forum Rule

How about that?

Disclosing Personal Information of other members':

• Including posting anyone's contact information (email, phone number, Skype, Facebook, address, etc) or identification (photos, videos, audio, name, etc) unless the member in question has given you explicit permission to post said information, or the member in question has themselves publicly posted said information. It is not relevant if the information is otherwise publicly available.
  • Under no circumstance may you quote a users comments in the Personal Support Forum.

As for comments on re-posting user photos, this rule in the spam forum seems to also apply:

• Posting user photo's that were not intended to be used in the spam forum without user's permission

 

You are literally quoting what I wrote. I agree that it isn't clear but whether or not it was publically available refered to information not disclosed by the person on Sythe. It was literally a change due to someone doing a whois lookup on someone's domain and saying it was alright to post on Sythe because it was public.

 

Yea, I remember that case. Could always add publicly available offsite?

 

If we are going to disallow that we should do it site wide since it seems like it would be applicable site wide but I think people should just grow up and not post stuff that they don't want other people to see.

 

I'd rather make it about the actions that the user took on Sythe. I feel like if you are posting someone on Sythe that gives people on Sythe a license to use it on Sythe and I think that will be a lot clearer than trying to define it the other way but maybe not. I'm not great at writing.

 

@SuF disallow what site wide? The 'posting user photo's that were not intended...'?

Also, I meant, that by adding 'offsite' users wouldn't be able to say 'but it's publicly available on whois', etc. So adding offsite as an adjective.

 

Well what Gun is talking about is the spam forum rule, which I didn't know even existed. What I quoted was the site wide rule. I do like Roary's idea of making all the rules in one place to avoid all this confusion though.

 

Yea, I was only talking about the spam forum one to clarify the ambiguity - don't have authority to change the site-wide one.

I'll amend the spam forum rules later today to clarify it.

 

You do realise that's not following the rules. Even if it's your picture? It's a private photo, you should of banned them otherwise that is not following the rules. Because it's your picture doesn't mean you bend the rules in that circumstances. I say this because then the rule holds no weight to its meaning. This is why another staff member banned him, even though you seem to be ok with it. The rules are clear. The ban is clear.
Am I missing something?

No where in the rule does it say, "unless staff feel its ok for you to repost their private photos".

In the main site rules it says you can repost pictures/info if the original thread exists. So it seems fine to repost say Chloes AMA picture else where on site, but not in SF. Clearly the whole issue stemmed from the SF situation about Chloes picture, which was a private photo (as she claims).

I don't support an amendment to this rule. If people decide to post their images or information on this site; that doesn't give you any right to repost it without their explicit permission. If those persons posting their images or information want it to be in SF then they can post it themselves.

 

No support. Spam Forum and everywhere else are completely different places with completely different sets of rules, people shouldn't have to worry about what people in the Spam Forum are gonna say about their post in Face of Sythe.

 

If the picture was posted on Sythe, asking for permission to repost it, even in a quote should be a thing. Rarely is this not done for purposes of defamation. A ban for onsite reposting without permission is excessive. Should be an infraction worth 2-3 points, and if that turns into a temporary ban (if you already have active infraction points), then the 2-3 day ban should not be modified to be lengthened. Multiple incidents should result in a forum ban (not account).

 

Well, to be honest here in response to your post. Every staff member has bent the rules while handling certain cases, that's what makes them a staff member, by using their own techniques and opinions. Anyone who has ever been on staff knows that no matter what the case, no matter what the situation is nobody else will have the same opinion or handle the case the same way as the next guy.

 

For example, I've personally not banned people who threaten to ddos someone who has scammed them, and I know for a fact that other staff including ex admins have handled it the same way. While the rules state otherwise. Being a good staff member doesn't mean being a robot, it means using your brain.

 

tfw you get overruled by a white knight

I agree with sonia's posts though

 

That's not what he said so one of your is either wrong or lying.

 

cant think of a good reason to post anyone else's personal information unless they've posted it publicly on sythe, thereby knowingly sharing it with the site. as for the ban i issued for chloe's picture, that image wasn't publicly available on sythe, and thus the ban was correct per the rule as it stands.

that said, im fine clarifying the definition of what constitutes "public" if others want, so i support @Gun's op. generall though, i suggest just not being a dick and posting shit about other people, but maybe that's just me

 

Ah. I'm down with the last thing you posted but I'd really just rather not have the image prohibition at all.

 

Personally I'd rather not have someone drag a photo of myself into the SF in an attempt to "get lulz"

 

No support. The rule is okay the way it stands. It's clear enough, Brandon is just a fucking retard simple as that. Also nice DNT @Gun

 

If we are going to keep the rule about not x-posting pictures can we at least make it just an infractable offense? Banning someone because they hurt someone's really sensitive feelings is ridiculous.