Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2014, 12:14 AM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 10:18 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 09:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  We knew about his previous actions and took no steps to inform anyone or to prevent him from repeating them. Seth's is the owner of the forum therefore would be liable if a worst case scenario played out and the victim (or their family) sued.

This is especially relevant because he DID end up leaking private details of one of our members, something that he was a known risk for. In what I believe to be a serious flaw in our current approach to security of user privacy, leaking private information isn't a banworthy offense (WC was banned for a rule 5 violation, not for a rule 3 violation which is interfering with people's lives outside the forum). In addition, only an admin can make the call as to whether privately leaked information can be retracted by a forum team member, unlike, say porn, where ANY member of the forum team can step in.

What if Dark Light hadn't been online when it happened and we had to wait hours in order to be authorized to remove the private information that was leaked? What if it was leaked by somebody that had even more malicious intentions than WC did and didn't retract the information 10 minutes after posting it, but instead left it up on the forum? What if the victim HAD been somebody that was willing to sue Seth due to the FT's inability to properly protect his/her private information?

If members are banned for posting porn since it could lead to lawsuits against Seth; if any forum team member can remove pornographic images from posts due to the legal urgency, then by the same principle maliciously leaking sensitive private information needs to be a banworthy offense and any forum team member needs to have the authority to immediately fix the privacy breach the moment it's spotted.

I agree with every bit of this. Every bit!
Omg yes.

Did I mention that I agree?
Because I do.
Utterly!

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WitchSabrina's post
24-09-2014, 12:35 AM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(23-09-2014 10:18 PM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  
(23-09-2014 09:54 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  We knew about his previous actions and took no steps to inform anyone or to prevent him from repeating them. Seth's is the owner of the forum therefore would be liable if a worst case scenario played out and the victim (or their family) sued.

This is especially relevant because he DID end up leaking private details of one of our members, something that he was a known risk for. In what I believe to be a serious flaw in our current approach to security of user privacy, leaking private information isn't a banworthy offense (WC was banned for a rule 5 violation, not for a rule 3 violation which is interfering with people's lives outside the forum). In addition, only an admin can make the call as to whether privately leaked information can be retracted by a forum team member, unlike, say porn, where ANY member of the forum team can step in.

What if Dark Light hadn't been online when it happened and we had to wait hours in order to be authorized to remove the private information that was leaked? What if it was leaked by somebody that had even more malicious intentions than WC did and didn't retract the information 10 minutes after posting it, but instead left it up on the forum? What if the victim HAD been somebody that was willing to sue Seth due to the FT's inability to properly protect his/her private information?

If members are banned for posting porn since it could lead to lawsuits against Seth; if any forum team member can remove pornographic images from posts due to the legal urgency, then by the same principle maliciously leaking sensitive private information needs to be a banworthy offense and any forum team member needs to have the authority to immediately fix the privacy breach the moment it's spotted.

wow wow wow wow back the crazy train up here.
WC WASN'T banned for leaking private info but for violation of rule5???
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME!?

There were literally hundreds of times he violated rule 5, why is it that as soon as he leaked private info it was at that moment deemed ok to ban him for violation of rule5??

Surely you can see the flaw in moderation here...


The forum rules and how they are (and aren't) enforced on this forum are fucking retarded.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like earmuffs's post
24-09-2014, 02:41 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
I tried to tell you guys. Many times since he did it at AF too, almost a xerox of what happened here. Just let us know if you guys need evidence to present.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like LastPoet's post
24-09-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(24-09-2014 02:41 PM)LastPoet Wrote:  I tried to tell you guys. Many times since he did it at AF too, almost a xerox of what happened here. Just let us know if you guys need evidence to present.

Several of us tried - they wouldn't listen. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-09-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(24-09-2014 02:41 PM)LastPoet Wrote:  I tried to tell you guys. Many times since he did it at AF too, almost a xerox of what happened here. Just let us know if you guys need evidence to present.

I know, second he was banned I said he will be back. Dodgy

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
The WC episodes are enough to make our admin and moderators re-think their mode of operations.
I dont know much but i know this.... If KC was still on the job NONE of us would have had to put up with that clown's bullshit.
What does ot say when our top theist protects us the strongest?

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WitchSabrina's post
24-09-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Sheesh. No need to boo-hoo about this dumb ass ... worse shit has happened before. Dodgy
***

A personal rule: I may have let you in but if I boot your ass out... Angry you don't get back in my kook house.

Top priority: ignore the psycho banging at the door. He is the disappeared one.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(24-09-2014 03:51 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  The WC episodes are enough to make our admin and moderators re-think their mode of operations.
I dont know much but i know this.... If KC was still on the job NONE of us would have had to put up with that clown's bullshit.
What does ot say when our top theist protects us the strongest?

I beg to disagree. I doubt kc would have banned him any sooner.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-09-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
Seems like he is confined to the Shout Box now, so I guess the first post requires approval is working. Deep can probably keep new members out of the shout box until first post approval when he gets back from holiday. Of course those ozzies take like month-long vacations.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-09-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Sock puppets, and the banned. Is there a better way?
(24-09-2014 04:20 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Seems like he is confined to the Shout Box now, so I guess the first post requires approval is working. Deep can probably keep new members out of the shout box until first post approval when he gets back from holiday. Of course those ozzies take like month-long vacations.

Too bad he's the only programmer in the world. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: