Important Clarificaiton of doxxing rules

[Deleted member]

So, the matter of "soft-doxxing" has come up, that is, when someone operating under one screenname on one web forum uses a different one elsewhere, does not wish it to be known, and is yet linked to the old username by another poster, sometimes repeatedly and sometimes while being asked not to.

While this does not have the same repercussions as actual doxxing, which is banned under the Terms of Service, we've come to conclude it is inappropriate behavior, particularly if done despite a request not to use the old username/screenname, and we will be punishing it accordingly from this point onward.

 

[Deleted member 88]

This seems rather preposterous. Given that many users are firstly familiar with one another from SB and so often address each other by SB names.

Secondly, revealing someone's online handle, is not harmful, it merely allows the rest of the community to evaluate this person's prior background, what they choose to make of said background is not the concern of the unveiler.

Given The Sietch has had trolls under different user names from their SV or SB handles in the past-it seems proper that suspected trolls or those suspected of not being here in good faith(Cromwell for example) be unveiled, as this allows the rest of the community to have a deeper understanding of their background and intentions.

If someone doesn't want their SB or whatever username known, then it would be incumbent on them to conceal it more effectively, as opposed to punishing other users for their knowledge, that they would see as in the community's interests to reveal said knowledge.

It seems that the staff want to implement a policy of forcing the userbase to pretend people they know from elsewhere, are entirely different-so a known troll, must be treated as somehow genuine, because we can't say who they are elsewhere. Its demanding the userbase close its eyes and cover its ears and apparently mentally banish whatever knowledge they have of said other person.

Demanding the userbase engage in double think and pretend ignorance is simply wrong.

 

[Rocinante]

Okay.

I think the userbase deserves to know that [redacted] and [redacted] post here regularly, but I will not dox them.

Edit: redacted names in case just saying their SB names and not linking to their TS names is still considered doxing.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Indeed, the community has an interest in knowing who certain members are. This policy seems designed to prevent that interest from being exercised.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

With all due respect to the staff, I have no problems with this rule, but please, formalize it in the rule book, because internet consensus on what doxxing is isn't in line with what you are defining it to be, hence you would be putting new members unknowingly in the line of fire unnecessarily by not being clear to them on what the rules are.

 

[Deleted member 88]

The rule has been applied haphazardly and in an inconsistent fashion.

That said, I disagree with the rule as negating the interest of the community, so I disagree with it on principled grounds as well.

Copied and pasted from the Sietch commentary thread,

It is in the interest of the community to be aware of such people, as they might not always be so candid of their intentions on the Sietch.

That isn’t an endorsement of real doxing or harassment, but knowledge. I believe the community has the right and need to know when they are dealing with people who are not here in good faith.

This policy is wrong because it suppresses knowledge, not because it cracks down on harassment or bullying. Which it does not.

This policy seeks to crack down on knowledge and the public exchange thereof, knowledge that is in the community interest to possess. Therefore it is against the interest of the community and is thus morally and ethically wrong.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

With all due respect to the staff, I have no problems with this rule, but please, formalize it in the rule book, because internet consensus on what doxxing is isn't in line with what you are defining it to be, hence you would be putting new members unknowingly in the line of fire unnecessarily by not being clear to them on what the rules are.

Okay, so apparently I needn't of posted this as the rules have been updated.

• h) "Soft-doxxing", or revealing a poster's connection to an old or still-active screenname on other communities against that poster's will.

A slight suggestion to the staff, but for some reason I don't see the rule against hard doxing, so you might want to add that in as well, even if it's frankly obvious it would also be banned.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Doxxing is banned in totality under Terms of Service 3i

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Doxxing is banned in totality under Terms of Service 3i

Thank you.

 

[SuperS4]

Indeed, the community has an interest in knowing who certain members are. This policy seems designed to prevent that interest from being exercised.

No it doesn't. The community should have zero interest in knowing who a member is.

When a new member joins up, do you put them up against the proverbial wall and badger them to see if they're from another forum under a different username? IF you answer yes, you're a fucking asshole. If you answer no, then congrats, you just admitted that it isn't in the interest of knowing who certain members are.

A person joins any given forum for their own various reasons. That's for them to know, and if they want to share it with you, they can. Beyond that, they're entitled to the same anonymity that you people so desperately profuse is required for the internet. I use the same username on pretty much all forums I use(with a bit of variation sometimes), but that's my choice. If I wanted to join up with a completely different username on here, you have zero rights to know that unless I state otherwise.

 

[stevep]

Interesting. As a new member I recently engaged in discussion on a number of threads with another poster. The subjects and his approach reminded me of a poster on another site - not SB whatever that is - and I did ask him whether we had discussed this before on another board, which he seems to have dropped out of - not mentioning any details - simply in the interests of clarifying that point as it would have simplified the discussion. He never answered that question although when I later mentioned the other site as a source of information he said he didn't know what it was.

If I read this rightly I was or was very close to what your referring to as soft doxing? A term I must admit I've never heard of before. One of the older generations shall we say, so a lot of the terminology and ideas are unknown of alien to me. That's what I left the SV site as they have some very counter-intuitive ideas, at least to my mind.

Similarly if I come across someone and because of either their username or their general comments I wonder if that's A from board X, say a mate would it be wrong to ask them, either in a public post or by private mail 'Hi are you A?" Just to clarify as that possibly might occur in the future?

Personally I generally use pretty much the same id on all boards, whether AH, historical or whatever so its never been an issue to me.

Steve

 

[Aldarion]

@stevep I do not see why it would be, as you had asked him to provide whatever details he wanted, and you provided none. Revealing or not revealing said details is still left to the poster; that is, in essence, the same choice as deciding to use or not to use the name. Especially if you had not referred to what you suspect his previous username was.

But to my own question RE: soft doxxing, would it include also question of the type "are you XY", as question itself would suggest connection? That might require clarification; personally I see it as rather bad manners at best. @Stephanos Morosoktanos

Anyway, I do not think what the issue is here. People can change usernames for various reasons - simple dislike of old username, a wish for change, or distancing themselves from whatever they posted previously, even years ago (whether they see it as immature garbage or whatever else). Whatever the case, if they do decide to change username between forums, that knowledge should not be public unless person in question decides to make it public for whatever reason. And if person's old username is a known troll, what of it? If they are still a troll, they will quickly reveal themselves as such no matter the username. If they are not, then they deserve a fresh start if they want it.

 

[Rocinante]

@stevep I do not see why it would be, as you had asked him to provide whatever details he wanted, and you provided none. Revealing or not revealing said details is still left to the poster; that is, in essence, the same choice as deciding to use or not to use the name. Especially if you had not referred to what you suspect his previous username was.

But to my own question RE: soft doxxing, would it include also question of the type "are you XY", as question itself would suggest connection? That might require clarification; personally I see it as rather bad manners at best. @Stephanos Morosoktanos

Anyway, I do not think what the issue is here. People can change usernames for various reasons - simple dislike of old username, a wish for change, or distancing themselves from whatever they posted previously, even years ago (whether they see it as immature garbage or whatever else). Whatever the case, if they do decide to change username between forums, that knowledge should not be public unless person in question decides to make it public for whatever reason. And if person's old username is a known troll, what of it? If they are still a troll, they will quickly reveal themselves as such no matter the username. If they are not, then they deserve a fresh start if they want it.

The issue here is that the staff is protecting two members, who are EXTREMELY disliked by a lot of the community here. Especially one who has IRL ties with the owner.

This ruling is to help protect their identity, and any others like them.

A member here exposed who one of them was, and was temp banned for it. The staff have faced some questions about that, so they're making rules after the fact. They are making it clear that we aren't to expose who those people are.

 

[Aldarion]

The issue here is that the staff is protecting two members, who are EXTREMELY disliked by a lot of the community here. Especially one who has IRL ties with the owner.

This ruling is to help protect their identity, and any others like them.

A member here exposed who one of them were, and was temp banned for it. The staff have faced some questions about that, so they're making rules after the fact. They are making it clear that we aren't to expose who those people are.

The point still stands. Whatever said members did to become disliked by the community here should have no bearing on their reception here unless said action is repeated on The Sietch itself. In which case it will not matter anyway. That is what I meant by "deserve a fresh start".

Now, I do not know what exactly they did to be so disliked, and I am not going to comment on whether exposing them is either practically or morally justified in their personal cases; my stance, in general, I explained in previous paragraph. Thing is, however: if you are going to allow exposure in one (or two) cases, you are implicitly allowing, and - if rules are to have any weight - should explicitly allow, exposure (doxxing) in general. I do not see how such a course of action could be productive.

 

[Rocinante]

The point still stands. Whatever said members did to become disliked by the community here should have no bearing on their reception here unless said action is repeated on The Sietch itself. In which case it will not matter anyway. That is what I meant by "deserve a fresh start".

Now, I do not know what exactly they did to be so disliked, and I am not going to comment on whether exposing them is either practically or morally justified in their personal cases; my stance, in general, I explained in previous paragraph. Thing is, however: if you are going to allow exposure in one (or two) cases, you are implicitly allowing, and - if rules are to have any weight - should explicitly allow, exposure (doxxing) in general. I do not see how such a course of action could be productive.

And in the situation I mentioned, where that user was exposed, they were doing the EXACT same shit they did on SB, which is why one of our users who knows who they were, exposed them.

I'm sorry I am being so vague. I might not always agree with the staff decisions, but as a member, I do agree to following the rules. I am being careful not to say too much or give too much detail.

Now to be clear, I am against doxing. This isn't doxing. That's why they had to invent a new phrase, "soft doxing." I understand their reasoning for it, as I assume it's pretty close to yours.

I also understand when a member who has dealt with someone for many years over at SB runs into that person here under a different name using the same shitty debate tactics, it might encourage that person to expose who they are.

 

[Aldarion]

And in the situation I mentioned, where that user was exposed, they were doing the EXACT same shit they did on SB, which is why one of our users who knows who they were, exposed them.

I'm sorry I am being so vague. I might not always agree with the staff decisions, but as a member, I do agree to following the rules. I am being careful not to say too much or give too much detail.

In that case, however, repeat of the action itself was enough. Again, the clean slate: whatever they did at SB - even if it was the exact same shit - should have no bearing on this forum. If they have not corrected behaviour between forums, then they will get punished for actions taken on The Sietch and anything beyond that is superfluous. If they have changed, then they deserve to have a chance of participation without baggage, should they so choose.

The only scenario when I could imagine exposure being justified would be an attempt on takeover of the forum (mass invasion with the aim of turning TS into politically correct hellhole) or something similar; basically, organized attempts (by multiple posters) at interfering with forum as a functional community.

 

[Flintsteel]

Interesting. As a new member I recently engaged in discussion on a number of threads with another poster. The subjects and his approach reminded me of a poster on another site - not SB whatever that is - and I did ask him whether we had discussed this before on another board, which he seems to have dropped out of - not mentioning any details - simply in the interests of clarifying that point as it would have simplified the discussion. He never answered that question although when I later mentioned the other site as a source of information he said he didn't know what it was.

If I read this rightly I was or was very close to what your referring to as soft doxing? A term I must admit I've never heard of before. One of the older generations shall we say, so a lot of the terminology and ideas are unknown of alien to me. That's what I left the SV site as they have some very counter-intuitive ideas, at least to my mind.

Similarly if I come across someone and because of either their username or their general comments I wonder if that's A from board X, say a mate would it be wrong to ask them, either in a public post or by private mail 'Hi are you A?" Just to clarify as that possibly might occur in the future?

Personally I generally use pretty much the same id on all boards, whether AH, historical or whatever so its never been an issue to me.

Steve

Asking would likely not be breaking the rule, although context would matter (questioning in an accusatory way would be borderline, for example). In practice, it would be better to ask if someone was part of the previous community, rather than asking about a specific ID - you will not run afoul of the rules that way.

And as a reminder, if someone tells you a previous handle in a PM, that information should not be shared unless you have explicit permission. Someone may be willing to link up with an old friend while still maintaining general anonymity.

 

[stevep]

Asking would likely not be breaking the rule, although context would matter (questioning in an accusatory way would be borderline, for example). In practice, it would be better to ask if someone was part of the previous community, rather than asking about a specific ID - you will not run afoul of the rules that way.

And as a reminder, if someone tells you a previous handle in a PM, that information should not be shared unless you have explicit permission. Someone may be willing to link up with an old friend while still maintaining general anonymity.

Flintsteel

OK thanks for clarifying. From some of the discussion above I see reasons why there is a purpose for banning doxing as its called. In the case in question I avoided mention the id involved.

I'm guessing that SB is the starfleet Battles board is it. Heard of it before and may have visited it a few years back in reference to a link on a naval site I'm on but know some of the 'debates' there got distinctly heated.

Thanks again

Steve

 

[Rocinante]

Flintsteel

OK thanks for clarifying. From some of the discussion above I see reasons why there is a purpose for banning doxing as its called. In the case in question I avoided mention the id involved.

I'm guessing that SB is the starfleet Battles board is it. Heard of it before and may have visited it a few years back in reference to a link on a naval site I'm on but know some of the 'debates' there got distinctly heated.

Thanks again

Steve

It's called "spacebattles," and a large part of our userbase are users who have splintered off or got banned from there.

 

[PeliusAnar]

Soft doxxing.............really? That is some nonsense. If people don't want to be known, make a new name and don't behave the same way. If someone can figure that stuff out, that is not the person's guessing fault. But now it is? I mean how hard is it to hide one's ID on the internet. If someone can figure it out, you are doing it wrong.

Now I am curious if the people hiding are SB mods. I know the mods on TS like to protect SB and enforce their rules here, so it would not be surprising. /sigh

Also if anyone refers to me by my former SB name, can I ask they be punished for soft-doxxing? The names were formatted differently, I am trying to hide my ID, don't tell anyone. Also me mentioning this does not give anyone permission to soft-dox me? What if someone changed a single letter? What if there name is in reverse? Or like, HeyMyNameWasPaulOnSB. Would calling them Paul be soft-doxing? What if they put their former SB name in their sig? What if they mention a post they did on SB? What if they tell someone outside of this forum both accounts and then someone references that here?

While you may think the questions are stupid, they are very valid because if someone can be found out from their behavior, then I question their intelligence and people could easily be baited into breaking this rule. Imagine a naked man running outside of my house, if I then walk over a street and see another naked man running around, you can't blame me for connecting the two incidents in my mind. Perhaps one of the two clearly separate men should have worn some clothes so there is no confusion if they are the same people. But don't blame me for making that connection. I mean really, how obvious do you have to be to be found out from behavior. You might as well include a catchphrase in your posts everywhere, so people are not confused. BAZINGA!

Hey that is a good question. If someone uses a catchphrase here and on SB, can we ask if they are the same person or is that soft doxxing?