Change the posting personal information rule

I feel we should change the posting personal information rule for staff; it's never really been upheld. Everyone someone posts something, whether by accident or on purpose, it always results in an early unban. This is fine, but if this is always the case, change the rule to reflect something more appropriate. Three instances that come immediately to mind (I know there are more), was niki posting something about killswitch, joshuag posting something about soul, and sept posting something about time to buy. I think elite dust posted something too? And I know there are more.

Again, only reason I suggest this is because the 6 month ban is never followed through. Thoughts?

 

[Pain]

I've always been a fan of abolishing the personal information rules both of them.

The staff one especially though I'd be fine with throwing out, support.

 

[Shwag]

TL;DR at the bottom because I jump all over the place :|.

If it's not being followed through like it should be then there is no reason to have it honestly. But it might also be used as a one time thing, like @Tmoe said in the Josh unbanning, if he does it he will be permanently banned. If I'm wrong about that please tell me.
So I guess alright you did it once, you gave me a good reason and unbanned. But if you do it again you're permanently banned no if and or buts.

So since it's not being followed through with, I support, but if it's like a 2 time you're out kind of rule I would like to just see the first ban being worded differently. Then again, it seems dependent on whoever get their stuff posted. Like Soul being the nice person they are, forgave Josh and unbanned him. Was it the same way in the other cases, because if so then the it should be worded along the lines of "Users will be banned for 6 months (Unless forgiven/excused) for the following..." Etc and the forgiven/excused is a one time thing of course.

TL;DR So at this point it's basically up to the staff member who has had their information leaked instead of just the 6 month ban. That's why I think it should be changed to "Users will be banned for 6 months (Unless forgiven/excused) for the following..." but the forgiving is a one time thing and if they do it again it's a perm ban. Either way support

 

[tMoon]

In regards to Niki, he was unaware it was staff information to begin with + the origination of the "leak" was in question. Josh's initial ban dealt with sheer chance while the latter half was almost entirely handled by Soul. I don't know anything about Sept's case; however, I know users who have been banned accordingly to the rule (i.e. Seraphic) and the ban duration generally comes down to the staff member affected and overall information leaked.

I am fine with it being re-worded slightly, but I still think the 6 month ban should remain; however, it does not need to be the end-all-be-all. These offenses directly involve staff member(s) and the rule is there to set a punishment per its occurrence (rather than simply "staff discretion"). While this punishment may be set (6 months), the overall offense/how it occurred/and the staff member in questions attitude towards the offense will affect the overall outcome. If a Sythe member leaks a staff members x, but the staff member does not care and does not want the user banned for 6 months, they won't be; however, if a Sythe member leaked x and the staff member does care and there is no rule solidifying it, it will become a "the punishment is unfair! "They don't like them!" Etc.

In this case, Soul and Josh had a discussion and they agreed to the punishment which Josh also offered this up in his initial dispute. This situation is not the norm and was an agreement that was made between Soul and Josh which I reiterated on the thread per a reference ever being needed. This agreement being that if Josh were to leak staff information again, there would be zero tolerance, and he would be perm banned.

Tl;dr: each case is unique and it should be handled as such; however, there is a codified rule to refer to as a basis of punishment.

 

How about forum restrictions instead of an outright ban? At the end of the day, if somebody leaked something, they've done it and a ban isn't really going to curb it in any meaningful way. Instead, going by the fact how active some of these leakers are, perhaps hurting them where it hurts, on the forums, might work better. Limit how many times they can post in a topic, posts a day, thread creations etc.

I can't say for sure it won#t result in the same way but it looks a little in theory so perhaps, the result will be too.

 

In regards to Niki, he was unaware it was staff information to begin with + the origination of the "leak" was in question. Josh's initial ban dealt with sheer chance while the latter half was almost entirely handled by Soul. I don't know anything about Sept's case; however, I know users who have been banned accordingly to the rule (i.e. Seraphic) and the ban duration generally comes down to the staff member affected and overall information leaked.

I am fine with it being re-worded slightly, but I still think the 6 month ban should remain; however, it does not need to be the end-all-be-all. These offenses directly involve staff member(s) and the rule is there to set a punishment per its occurrence (rather than simply "staff discretion"). While this punishment may be set (6 months), the overall offense/how it occurred/and the staff member in questions attitude towards the offense will affect the overall outcome. If a Sythe member leaks a staff members x, but the staff member does not care and does not want the user banned for 6 months, they won't be; however, if a Sythe member leaked x and the staff member does care and there is no rule solidifying it, it will become a "the punishment is unfair! "They don't like them!" Etc.

In this case, Soul and Josh had a discussion and they agreed to the punishment which Josh also offered this up in his initial dispute. This situation is not the norm and was an agreement that was made between Soul and Josh which I reiterated on the thread per a reference ever being needed. This agreement being that if Josh were to leak staff information again, there would be zero tolerance, and he would be perm banned.

Tl;dr: each case is unique and it should be handled as such; however, there is a codified rule to refer to as a basis of punishment.

Also I think I should add to your case that after speaking to the staff member who was affected by my actions. Administrators themselves are allowed to leak personal information of other individuals and can get away with it. The reason I say this is because if you were to leak someone's Skype (i.e. TriLeZ - the owner of Tribot) then as long as Sythe deems it ok, you do not face consequences. Are you saying that you will ban yourself if you leak someone's private Skype? The system is flawed for Administrators but not for regular users.

 

How about forum restrictions instead of an outright ban? At the end of the day, if somebody leaked something, they've done it and a ban isn't really going to curb it in any meaningful way. Instead, going by the fact how active some of these leakers are, perhaps hurting them where it hurts, on the forums, might work better. Limit how many times they can post in a topic, posts a day, thread creations etc.

I can't say for sure it won#t result in the same way but it looks a little in theory so perhaps, the result will be too.

I'd say people should remain getting banned for leaking personal information and the bans shouldn't be shortened at all. I mean if you get someone's personal details that's fine, but no need to spread them for malicious intend. I wouldn't like someone continueing his day without any consequenses once they have leaked any personal information. I still disagree there should be a difference in whether a staff member's or a regular member's information should be leaked.

 

[tMoon]

Also I think I should add to your case that after speaking to the staff member who was affected by my actions. Administrators themselves are allowed to leak personal information of other individuals and can get away with it. The reason I say this is because if you were to leak someone's Skype (i.e. TriLeZ - the owner of Tribot) then as long as Sythe deems it ok, you do not face consequences. Are you saying that you will ban yourself if you leak someone's private Skype? The system is flawed for Administrators but not for regular users.

1. No we are not allowed to leak information
2. We are focused on Sythe members
3. Sythe himself can do & say whatever he wants as he owns the website
4. We don't typically promote staff members whom we believe would act as such. If a staff member actively doxs someone, they will be demoted and they will be banned.

I still disagree there should be a difference in whether a staff member's or a regular member's information should be leaked.

The differentiation arises from multiple cases where individuals attempt to dox staff due to them being staff.

 

1. No we are not allowed to leak information
2. We are focused on Sythe members
3. Sythe himself can do & say whatever he wants as he owns the website
4. We don't typically promote staff members whom we believe would act as such. If a staff member actively doxs someone, they will be demoted and they will be banned.



The differentiation arises from multiple cases where individuals attempt to dox staff due to them being staff.

Administrators have a lot of power. What stops you from ddosing Sythe members then deleting reports against yourself? Theres been plenty of Sythe Administrators in the past who've actually scammed numerous people and the only reason that they've gotten caught is because they've openly confessed to it. Everybody knows the famous Administrator Shredderbeam. He openly admitted to scamming in that senior position leading to his DNT. Only reason that stops "yourself" from doing that is if someone manages to read the report before you manage to delete it. Or if someone openly ban evades in order to make a report.

 

[tMoon]

Administrators have a lot of power.

Yeah, we do, we are the administrators of the site.

What stops you from ddosing Sythe members then deleting reports against yourself?

Sythe & staff holding myself accountable & my own personal morals. Also the feasibility of me somehow constantly monitoring this forum for any reports that would surely arise if I was some shitty person.

Theres been plenty of Sythe Administrators in the past who've actually scammed numerous people and the only reason that they've gotten caught is because they've openly confessed to it. Everybody knows the famous Administrator Shredderbeam. He openly admitted to scamming in that senior position leading to his DNT. Only reason that stops "yourself" from doing that is if someone manages to read the report before you manage to delete it. Or if someone openly ban evades in order to make a report.

Care to provide some examples?I have been on this forum for a decade and the only case you have against an Administrator is Shredderbeam. Who was caught, demoted, and banned. He wasn't just given a DNT. Shredder returned just a few months ago after being gone for half-a-decade.

I have zero interest in unrealistic hypothetical situations and if you do not trust Sythe, its administrators, or its staff team, then leave.

This is off-topic as hell and do not respond to this post. You can PM me if you have further concerns, but this thread centers around personal information, not among the fallacy you've constructed.

 

I think personal info rule should be a perma punishment I.e. If you got 6months you stay 6months. Reason being is that if you decrease punishment for whatever reason it does not hold any weight to the rules or punishments. Another person can come along and say they didn't know it was staff and said staff can just be like yeh ok just unban. (it sets a bad precedent, a recurring scenario of non-punishment).

Similar thing as what I believe Tmoe said.... some staff can be biased in the sense of a friend and someone they don't like. I don't agree that staff should have an opinion on that. If they literally don't care about said info then nobody should be punished in general to the information even if released in future. I.e. The info josh had on soul wasn't punishable when released because soul said yeh ok unban if he doesn't do it again, why should any person afterwards be punished if you're unable to punish people the first time.

 

[Tyler]

Moving this to denied for two reasons:

Suggestion Section Clean-Up

and the last person to get banned for posting moderators personal information was banned for 6 months.