Two Rule Updates

[Excited Penguin]

@Pand, granted, no, this rule was meant to protect other people than me, I suspect, if that is what you meant. Otherwise, it seems to me like you rather have a disagreement with your colleague than with me. I was only going with what representatives of staff had told me about it in this thread up to that point.

Iros, I appreciate your willingness to accept my words, such as it is. I want to assure you, though, that there was no passive aggressiveness in my post, I guess I understand why you would think there was, however.

I have chosen to trust other people's reading of the situation and of my character on this issue. I hope I didn't make a mistake, but regardless, I intend to keep my words and my apologies are as sincere as before.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and the pattern continues to unfold ...

[Edwardo Piet]

New rule: Don't be a cunt!
Also, don't be a dick!

Essentially, be a decent human being and

...and neither be the personification of female nor male genitalia...?

Hmm. Going by what you've just said, Poca, I feel that the new rule is different to when I read it yesterday.

I better check it over.

The rule that is. Not the genital people.

---

* Edwardo Piet pretends to check

Oh wait you're pulling my leg Poca!!! It's not about genitals at all!!!

Oh.... you!

---

[Shell B]

Any chance of instituting a rule whereby members who have had a sensible rule explained to them five different times in short, simple words and then still bitch that it isn't clear could be given a smack?

Boru

There would have been a torrent of smacks in the past two weeks for sure.

[Napoléon]

EP.

[Shell B]

Rabble: Ban all the peoples I don't like because ONI says you must.

Staff: We're going to remove ONI because this is obviously confusing you.

Rabble: Hooray!

On an serious note, I think doxxing stuff should go without saying, but since you clearly have to say it here, you guys have said it well. It's clear enough, and I think you'll implement it just fine. I mean, not mentioning relationships seems overly specific and errs on the side of getting involved in off-forum problems. You can usually Google and see people are in relationships. Even if you can't, it's not personally identifiable information, so it's not doxxing. It's just gossip, which isn't a staff problem, in my opinion. If you said, "I'm in a relationship with Johnny and he likes to pretend he's a moose during sex." you're an asshole, but you're not doxxing, unless no one knows Johnny's real name. If Johnny isn't a member, no one knows shit about him still. If he is, he can easily say, "I don't do that!" in his own defense. If you then whipped out pictures of Johnny wearing antlers in a provocative position, then we can see Johnny! The moose shit is still not doxxing, but that photo of Johnny is because now we know what he looks like. To be honest, though, I can't see this coming up on the regular, so just ignore me. I'm waiting for lunch and bored.

[Jackalope]

Interesting.

Question, though. Is this shoot first, ask later, or are we allowed to post such details about others with their permission? I don't see anything about consented sharing of such information about another person. What is the point then, of the rule, in that context, or is this forum simply averse to fostering any private information about anyone unless it's strictly about them and posted by themselves? How does the one about relationships work then? How would one post about it on their profile page or in a public post "first" without violating this same rule themselves? 

Also, you (staff) just prohibited anyone talking about anything private unless it only involves them or someone famous. I'm just making sure you get that.

To reiterate an earlier point, how and why is it this forum's business if I want someone else to be able to post personal details about me in particular or me in relation to them, and if it isn't, how might this be adressed in the context of the new rule?

Interesting how the person who prompted this change in the rules suddenly has a bunch of issues with it.

If a person has posted information about themselves (like, for example, their first name), then we will not consider using this information as a violation of the doxing rule. Also, I know you have no way of knowing this, but we do actually discuss and investigate suspected rules violations. If a person reports a post in which they suspect a doxing violation has occured, we will generally unapprove the post (quarantine it) and ask the party who may have been doxed if they are okay with it. If they say they are fine, then we won't act. If they say they did not give permission, then we will.

This is an easy rule to follow. Don't reveal information about others that they have not given you express permission to reveal. If you insist on being a repulsive, manipulative asshole, then we will treat you as such.

^^^

You forgot the "drops mic" at the end, SC.

[Excited Penguin]

Rabble: Ban all the peoples I don't like because ONI says you must.

Staff: We're going to remove ONI because this is obviously confusing you.

Rabble: Hooray!

On an serious note, I think doxxing stuff should go without saying, but since you clearly have to say it here, you guys have said it well. It's clear enough, and I think you'll implement it just fine. I mean, not mentioning relationships seems overly specific and errs on the side of getting involved in off-forum problems. You can usually Google and see people are in relationships. Even if you can't, it's not personally identifiable information, so it's not doxxing. It's just gossip, which isn't a staff problem, in my opinion. If you said, "I'm in a relationship with Johnny and he likes to pretend he's a moose during sex." you're an asshole, but you're not doxxing, unless no one knows Johnny's real name. If Johnny isn't a member, no one knows shit about him still. If he is, he can easily say, "I don't do that!" in his own defense. If you then whipped out pictures of Johnny wearing antlers in a provocative position, then we can see Johnny! The moose shit is still not doxxing, but that photo of Johnny is because now we know what he looks like. To be honest, though, I can't see this coming up on the regular, so just ignore me. I'm waiting for lunch and bored.

Are you the only sane person on this entire fucking forum? I swear to God...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Rabble: Ban all the peoples I don't like because ONI says you must.

Staff: We're going to remove ONI because this is obviously confusing you.

Rabble: Hooray!

Except the rule didn't confuse me, the staff's interpretation of it, resulting in its uselessness, did. I'm happy because things are now clarified.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I did some thinking and I completely agree with the new rule, as well as with people's opinions of me for having done such egregious things that the rules needed to be changed just for me. That is unnacceptable and it amazes me that I'm still here to say it. Thank you for a great job, staff. I am already happy with the way things are going and I suspect that will only increase in the future. I am a horrible person and the more this community makes me realize that the better for everyone involved.