Clarify/Amend

[Xier0]

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

Staff can change rules when we see fit so not sure why the stir up over this...

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

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

• 
  
  
  
  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.
  
  
  
  

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

  • 
    
    Seems unnecessary, but ultimately harmless.
    
    

    [*]A second offence from the same user will result in a permanent ban

    
    This is reasonable.
    
    

    with a single admin veto on behalf of or for the affected party.

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.

 

Alright I think the rule is fine but I'll remove the veto part. A perm is already a strong enough second punishment. I'll also clarify 'close INRL acquaintances'.

 

[Visci]

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?

 

[Xier0]

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

Semantics.

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

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

Because staff are targeted disproportionately to normal users precisely because of their job. We have always had a policy to perm users for maliciously targeting staff. This rule codifies that policy

 

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?

Feel free to submit suggestions to Sythe Rule Reform on the topic of the other personal information rule.

 

[Xier0]

Feel free to submit suggestions to Sythe Rule Reform on the topic of the other personal information rule.

For your consideration, and the reasoning behind it:

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.

 

[SuF]

Repost from the other spammed to fuck thread:

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).

 

[SuF]

@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?

 

[Cami3532]

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.

 

[SuF]

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.