Clarify/Amend

This is a serious feedback thread, no flaming, stay on topic, constructive responses only, etc, etc, etc

Just providing feedback in this case about how the rule could be worded more precisely to prevent potential for abuse.

• 
  
  
  
  I don't see anything wrong with the intentions behind this rule. It is to discourage needless staff harassment. Someone's presence on Sythe.org should not affect their IRL lives, and certainly shouldn't affect the lives of their loved ones, friends, co-workers, family members, etc.
  
  The main aspect that needs addressing is there needs to be a stipulation on what qualifies as a "Close IRL Acquaintance". I feel that this rule is a disaster unless the requirement for falling under the group of "Close IRL Acquantaince" includes the stipulation that this person does not have a Sythe.org account.
  
  The reason this is so important is because the rule is obviously made with the intention to protect staff and discourage people from causing undue stress on their personal lives, and the personal lives of those close to them.
  
  Let's say I was a staff member of Sythe.org. Let's say my co-workers/employees in my virtual goods market are also dear friends of mine, are Sythe.org members, and I know them in real life.
  
  If someone leaks personal information about them, they should only receive the standard info leak 1 month ban. My hypothetical position as a Sythe.org staff member shouldn't act as an umbrella of protection for non-staff Sythe.org members, it should act as an umbrella of protection for my family, etc. I hope that the rule can be worded more clearly to make sure that the personal info leak of IRL acquaintances cannot apply at the higher sentence if this person has a virtual presence on Sythe.org as well.
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    Seems unnecessary, but ultimately harmless.
    
    
    This is reasonable.
    
    

I am still strongly against 'victims' having the final and only say in a pardon. The potential bias is just overwhelming. This is the reason courts have juries. This is the reason Pardons require X amount of supports and then a poll.

 

This rule needs a re-write. A close IRL acquaintance? By definition an acquaintance is not close.

Furthermore I don't understand why this only applies to staff, why shouldn't the common user be afforded the same protection?

 

Semantics.

There's a reason that killing a cop is a higher punishment than killing an ordinary citizen. Richard addressed this already here:

 

For your consideration, and the reasoning behind it:

 

Repost from the other spammed to fuck thread:

 

@Sythe, in response to your post in the other thread:

I write novels because people never understand my leaps of judgement. I can stop that for you.

• I'm not sure how users could entrap one another. If something has been posted, it is no longer private and the privacy rule does not apply. Pretty straight forward.
• I like the flexibility of ranges. If you hard code a higher punishment for staff you are hard coding bias into the rules.
• Allow users to dispute the length of their punishments?
• Should malicious intent be considered?
• A phone number or address can cause much more damage than an arrest report even though both are generally considered public information. How are we going to address this inconsistency in potential damage?

 

I don't understand all the fuss or disbelief on the new rule that it is showing a greater punishment for staff than a normal member. If there aren't great consequences to doing this to staff members, it could lead to staff members finding helping sythe no longer worth it which could have a direct impact on the community as a whole. If someone decided to dox FireZ and find personal information for him, and he was just like.. well screw this place then, it isn't worth putting my neck out there.. the whole community here would lose out because we would no longer have the hard work FireZ does here. When someone targets a staff member they indirectly are able to target the whole community whereas a normal member.. although just as bad crime wise.. does not warrant the same deterrent. I am sure if there was a sudden outbreak of members being targeted the rules would be vamped up on it..

There are many real life examples of similar things, this of course will be different based on your local area but here at least..

Fines are doubled in construction zones with higher penalties for injuring/killing a construction worker than a normal Joe walking down the street. This is because them being out there doing their jobs puts them at a greater risk than the average Joe and so they decided to make an extra deterrent to really make people think and decide if it is worth it before reckless driving in a construction area.

 

I disagree that being staff puts them at more risk.