Personal Information

[Grave]

Okay.

I understand why the rule was made, but it's being abused, and the rule is absolutely unfair as it stands. Let's say I take a screenshot of a tinychat, or take a picture of Skype with people's pictures showing. I mean no harm, but if I post it, they can complain, and without warning, I get a 30 day ban. See a flaw in this? There needs to be a boundary between what's considered private and public. If someone goes on a PUBLIC tinychat they should assume that someone may take a screenshot and post it.

For example, I don't like anyone posting my picture around. Usually when I report someone posting me, I just want it removed, not them banned. At least have it as a warning for the first time, or a reduced ban.

I reported thatguy for posting my profile picture. He didn't know, and he got banned for it, but I just wanted it removed and him unbanned. He then got banned for using a public picture of deathsnova as his avatar.

N4n0 also posted a screencap of tinychat, and I don't like my picture being posted, but I didn't make a big deal about it because I knew if I did, nothing would be done since he's an admin. Please treat everyone else as you would if a moderator broke the same rule without meaning harm. If the harm is obviou, then sure, use the elastic clause, but please stop being so strict about it, or at least make a clause that says once you make the information public on Sythe, it can be freely posted.​

 

[Corey]

Please make a Sythe Rule Reform thread as I've told you countless times on Skype.

If you really wanted change and not just drama you would use the system that was implemented for this, when I told you about it like 10 times before you made this thread.

 

[Heeatz]

N4n0 also posted a screencap of tinychat, and I don't like my picture being posted, but I didn't make a big deal about it because I knew if I did, nothing would be done since he's an admin. Please treat everyone else as you would if a moderator broke the same rule without meaning harm. If the harm is obviou, then sure, use the elastic clause, but please stop being so strict about it, or at least make a clause that says once you make the information public on Sythe, it can be freely posted.

Its obvious staff would be treated better than regular users in the case that rules are slightly eased on them, which is unfair, and in this case, n4n0 should have a 30 day ban? is that not incorrect? I have nothing against you n4n0 btw

 

[Grave]

Please make a Sythe Rule Reform thread as I've told you countless times on Skype.

If you really wanted change and not just drama you would use the system that was implemented for this, when I told you about it like 10 times before you made this thread.

I created this thread to discuss it and see everyone'e else opinions on the matter. It will be brought forward to Sythe Rule Reform once there's a clearer idea on what everybody wants. Don't want to spam that thread with arguments.

Its obvious staff would be treated better than regular users in the case that rules are slightly eased on them, which is unfair, and in this case, n4n0 should have a 30 day ban? is that not incorrect? I have nothing against you n4n0 btw

No, that's the opposite of what I want. I'm saying instead of banning n4n0 for 30 days, everyone else should be treated as n4n0 if they made a mistake. If a person doesn't want their information posted, and someone accidentally posts it, then just remove it and give a warning. The second offence can be a 30 day ban. Also, when it's obvious, such as someone posting someone's DOX, then 30 day should be done immediately.

 

[Heeatz]

I created this thread to discuss it and see everyone'e else opinions on the matter. It will be brought forward to Sythe Rule Reform once there's a clearer idea on what everybody wants. Don't want to spam that thread with arguments.




No, that's the opposite of what I want. I'm saying instead of banning n4n0 for 30 days, everyone else should be treated as n4n0 if they made a mistake. If a person doesn't want their information posted, and someone accidentally posts it, then just remove it and give a warning. The second offence can be a 30 day ban. Also, when it's obvious, such as someone posting someone's DOX, then 30 day should be done immediately.

Well we need to have it one way or the other... not one way for staff and another way for reg users... To the suggestion section!

 

[SuF]

Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: posting information such as private emails / MSNs, private Skype accounts, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, private photos, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in up to a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.

A month ban is not required, simply permitted. When we changed the rule I made sure that was in there.

 

[Punjabi3]

A month ban is not required, simply permitted. When we changed the rule I made sure that was in there.

going on tinychat which is linked from sythe really isn't private or confidential anymore

 

[Grave]

A month ban is not required, simply permitted. When we changed the rule I made sure that was in there.

There still needs to be a maximum sentence for smaller offences to protect people, or a warning system for it and

regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.

is way too vague.

private photos

and this needs to actually be interpreted as private, and not any photo of you that you post around.

 

[Heads447]

I understand why the rule was made, but it's being abused, and the rule is absolutely unfair as it stands. Let's say I take a screenshot of a tinychat, or take a picture of Skype with people's pictures showing. I mean no harm, but if I post it, they can complain, and without warning, I get a 30 day ban. See a flaw in this? There needs to be a boundary between what's considered private and public. If someone goes on a PUBLIC tinychat they should assume that someone may take a screenshot and post it.

Perfect case and point : http://www.sythe.org/11791607-post3.html

 

[Heeatz]

A month ban is not required, simply permitted. When we changed the rule I made sure that was in there.

so what your saying is basically this:

1 month ban for reg users

Nothing for staff members.

to me it sounds like 'when we changed the rule i made sure that was in there.' was to save staffs+ arses lol. seems legit.

 

[SuF]

going on tinychat which is linked from sythe really isn't private or confidential anymore

Tinychat photos wouldn't be deemed private, in my opinion.

There still needs to be a maximum sentence for smaller offences to protect people, or a warning system for it and

is way too vague.

I was going to write up guidelines but never got around to it. It's also vague on purpose so it covers basically anything and everything.

 

[Grave]

It's also vague on purpose so it covers basically anything and everything.

I hope you do understand the issue with being vague though. There's too much wiggle room, which can make it unfair in many situations.

 

[Syed]

I'm pretty sure the precedent was already set with Deathsnova on this thread:

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggest...photos-not-re-posted-outside-faces-sythe.html

A verdict was already reached regarding re-posting pictures that were already posted on Sythe. And that verdict was that it's not a bannable offence. So, thatguy1234 should be unbanned.

 

[SuF]

so what your saying is basically this:

1 month ban for reg users

Nothing for staff members.

to me it sounds like 'when we changed the rule i made sure that was in there.' was to save staffs+ arses lol. seems legit.

Yea no.

The first iteration I came up with was:

Disclosure of Others' Personal Information: posting information such as private emails / MSNs, Facebook accounts, addresses, phone numbers, etc. of someone other than yourself without explicit consent of that person will result in a 1 month ban regardless of whether or not the information is publicly available.

It was then changed some over some time and then I wrote the current rule. The point was to give staff discretion so that they can be more fair.

I'm pretty sure the precedent was already set with Deathsnova being a little bitch boy motherfucker on this thread:

http://www.sythe.org/denied-suggest...photos-not-re-posted-outside-faces-sythe.html

A verdict was already reached regarding re-posting pictures that were already posted on Sythe. And that verdict was that it's not a bannable offence. So, thatguy1234 should be unbanned.

tl;dr niggers tongue my anus and le prepare your diddlyholes

Defacing user photographs: Defacing someone else's picture (drawing on it, photoshopping etc.) without that user's full consent will receive a 1 week ban.

If you deface it, it's against the rules. If its not a private picture (already posted) and you are reposting it, it isn't against the rules either.

I hope you do understand the issue with being vague though. There's too much wiggle room, which can make it unfair in many situations.

The point was to make it clear that we don't care if you found the dudes phone # and address in the yellow pages. We don't give half a shit. Don't post it here. Don't link to it. It doesn't matter how you found it (let's search gun owner databases for example)... We just don't want it posted. That's why it's so vague.

 

[Sypherz]

I've dealt with thatguy/ Deathsnova pictures in two steps so far:
1st offence: Warning and deletion of content which broke rules
2nd offense: 3 day ban and temporary avatar disable + warning

If there's a third offense it will be a 1 month ban.

I like to think I'm fair with these rules.

 

[Grave]

I've dealt with thatguy/ Deathsnova pictures in two steps so far:
1st offence: Warning and deletion of content which broke rules
2nd offense: 3 day ban and temporary avatar disable + warning

If there's a third offense it will be a 1 month ban.

I like to think I'm fair with these rules.

While your actions may have sparked me posting this thread, it doesn't mean you did anything wrong. It was just a reminder. You're actually pretty good with these types of reports.

 

[Add My Msn]

If someone goes on a public website where anyone can go, than they shouldn't be banned for it, cos even if he didn't post the link was there, on the spam forum and they could be seen anyway. If it's private from a skype or msn than he should be banned for posting that pic. Just my opinion though.

 

[Fuzzybear]

Once posted on the internet, its no longer private, period.

If say, thatguy went to Deathnovas house, hid in his sisters closet and took sneaky photos of his family, then yes, 30day ban should be given.

 

[SuF]

If someone goes on a public website where anyone can go, than they shouldn't be banned for it, cos even if he didn't post the link was there, on the spam forum and they could be seen anyway. If it's private from a skype or msn than he should be banned for posting that pic. Just my opinion though.

That misses the point that we want to protect our members and we will not let other members make it easier for people to find others personal information.

Once posted on the internet, its no longer private, period.

If say, thatguy went to Deathnovas house, hid in his sisters closet and took sneaky photos of his family, then yes, 30day ban should be given.

No. Then I'd call the cops and have that freak arrested with a perm ban from here.

 

[Nerfed]

Everyone should be treated the same people just need to know there boundaries. If thingg warent a ban for 1 its a ban for all, but in a case like this no ban is needed a simple warning.