PeliusAnar
Well-known member
Let me ask, did you pick a new name?
Did you reference posts and actions you did on SB here on TS?
Did you discuss the exact same topics and copy/paste arguments from SB?
If the answer is yes to any of those questions, why should I be punished for figuring out your ID and asking about it? I would really like the mods/staff to respond to my earlier questions about where the line is drawn on soft-doxxing. Since this is a rule that has never existed before I would request very clear and explicit guidelines. Otherwise the only assumption I can make is that I am okay to guess people's IDs based on the evidence presented by the people themselves without any punishment or consequence.
Ask my in private like many others have yeah.
Just don't go "Hey so and so" and use my SB name here.
I post somewhat the same stuff, but a lit less liberally
Following this new rule is simply impossible.
This would require every user to refer to other users by their chosen Username or a related acronym etc!?!?!
Do you not see how this is impossible to do?!
Because I haven't yet..!
This would require every user to refer to other users by their chosen Username or a related acronym etc!?!?!
Do you not see how this is impossible to do?!
Because I haven't yet..!
PeliusAnar
Well-known member
Well make sure you refer to me by my Sietch username not my SB username. It is meant to be secret and I don't want them connected. Since no clarification has been given, even that reference would be considered soft doxxing.
Using Sietch usernames on the Sietch is literally the easiest thing to do. . . the username is literally in front of your face, is automatically quoted and tagged, etc.
You're literally the reason this rule got started.
Because after posting in the same style and telling people what your job is, And where you work, on both boards, staff decided to ban one of our users for making the easy connection.
If you don't want your identity being exposed, then don't post information that links you.
I'd you weren't under Zoe's protection, we probably wouldn't even have this rule.
PeliusAnar
Well-known member
That person sounds incredibly stupid. They should be banned for being that stupid. Still waiting on the limits of the soft doxxing rule from the staff. I really need my questions answered and want to know if I should report people who use my SB user name here??
The deliberate obtuseness on the part of some posters is causing the Boot to be tempted to start stomping just on general principle. We have enforced this very rule on behalf of both right and left wing posters, and it has been enforced almost from the very beginning of this board (the first temp ban of this nature was last year against a leftist poster who engaged in this very behavior). If this is too difficult for you to comprehend then the Boot sincerely doubts that anything any of the mod staff says can get through to you.
It is not difficult to comprehend.
And I'm not, and won't, break this rule.
To be clear, though, are you threatening to punish me for being "deliberately obtuse?" Because I'm not sure how I have been. Not entirely agreeing with a rule doest not mean I am breaking it. Or being "intentionally obtuse."
I am making a good faith attempt to follow the rules here, and I will always continue to do so. I don't have to agree to all of them to follow them. If I do break one, it was a mistake, not some intentional violation of the rules.
Last edited:
PeliusAnar
Well-known member
My issue is that the stated purpose of the rule is to not discover the IDs of people who don't want to be discovered. The problem is that if people make any effort they won't be discovered. My issue is this:
If someone shares their job and posting in the exact same way it is not a stretch to figure out the person's ID. Then the question becomes where you draw this line in regards to how obvious the person is being. Because in my mind, this is super obvious and the blame lies solely on the person who posted about their job and in the same way. BUT the staff here clearly disagrees and that is fine. My issue then is, at what point is obvious too obvious? If it is solely a judgement call, can we get some idea where that judgement falls. Since this is an entirely new rule not on other forums with no precedent, and appeals in this can't be seen due to the nature of the infraction, it would be appropriate for the staff to make it very clear where the line is in regards to this infraction. Hence all my silly questions, they actually have merit since they make it clear where the line is.
The Boot will make it crystal clear for the umpteenth time. The line is bright and clear. Do Not Refer To Posters By Their Handles On Other Forums. Period. Dot. End of sentence. No ambiguity. No wiggle room. No fuzzy line.
It does not matter if you know for certain that they are the same person as a different handle on a different forum, it does not matter if they self identify as such, it does not matter if a flying spaghetti monster told you, it does not matter if the heaven's opened up and Chuck Norris himself descended from on high and roundhouse kicked the other forum handle to you. Do Not Refer To Posters By Their Handles On Other Forums.
For the hyper pedantic who are simply trying to stir shit, if their handle on a different forum is identical to their handle here then referring to them by their handle here is perfectly fine even if it's the same as their handle on a different forum. The Boot never thought the Boot would have to be that pedantic. Would you like this announcement in MLA or APA citation format?
It does not matter if you know for certain that they are the same person as a different handle on a different forum, it does not matter if they self identify as such, it does not matter if a flying spaghetti monster told you, it does not matter if the heaven's opened up and Chuck Norris himself descended from on high and roundhouse kicked the other forum handle to you. Do Not Refer To Posters By Their Handles On Other Forums.
For the hyper pedantic who are simply trying to stir shit, if their handle on a different forum is identical to their handle here then referring to them by their handle here is perfectly fine even if it's the same as their handle on a different forum. The Boot never thought the Boot would have to be that pedantic. Would you like this announcement in MLA or APA citation format?
People outright impersonate me on other sites, at one point there were four IWD's on SV alone. Each one claiming to me, arguing that they were an aggrieved party and the others were impersonating me.
So the concept of hiding yourself when your online persona is the only metric by which anyone knows you (Anyone who breaks the veil is a fool IMHO) and does amass a reputation "abroad" over time..So I approach this from that mindset and I mean no offense.
However, if you're hiding who you are here, joining a board of exiles who are here solely to escape leftwing techno tyranny, doxing and slander and who advocate for free speech (Everyone here except the majority of the staff seems to actually hold those values..Even the misguided amongst you). I would argue anyone who joins seeking to conceal their SB identity is a spy for the SB staff and has come here with malicious intent.
That's just my take on it...Doxing/Doxxing involves the releasing of personal information, pertinent real world personal information. Outing someone's identity..especially a Dupe/sock puppet...is not doxxing..its just generic internet banter.
I don't understand the application of the rule, it strikes me comparable to the cartoonish overreaction by the Staff and their misrepresentations of the intentions of various users during the election...And what they've repeatedly done to me.
It essentially strikes me as an attempt by the mods to bait and cull users they deem..to borrow the enemy's language "Problematic"
At which point..I have to question why they don't just simply admit they're out to target and remove certain users and that this is a purge to keep The Sietch nice and friendly and well in te Mitt Romney school of selective principles..
Keep in mind too.. the same users who impersonate me, have also threatened to murder my children. So I'm not unsympathetic to what the staff is claiming to be about..on paper.
At all
Using fear of being outed to trample your fellow forumers is fucking awful and should be met with a decisive response. but this seems to be not that.
Edit on paper, its an awesome policy though. The practicing end seems designed to hurt colorful users.
This a bit like preferred pronoun enforcement which I consider an attack on individual liberty and reality itself and to my knowledge the Sietch doesn't enforce.
So I'm not understanding this. Unless its what I said above. A deliberate attempt by the staff to obfuscate their true intentions while shielding their friends and rounding up and lynching users they don't like.
So the concept of hiding yourself when your online persona is the only metric by which anyone knows you (Anyone who breaks the veil is a fool IMHO) and does amass a reputation "abroad" over time..So I approach this from that mindset and I mean no offense.
However, if you're hiding who you are here, joining a board of exiles who are here solely to escape leftwing techno tyranny, doxing and slander and who advocate for free speech (Everyone here except the majority of the staff seems to actually hold those values..Even the misguided amongst you). I would argue anyone who joins seeking to conceal their SB identity is a spy for the SB staff and has come here with malicious intent.
That's just my take on it...Doxing/Doxxing involves the releasing of personal information, pertinent real world personal information. Outing someone's identity..especially a Dupe/sock puppet...is not doxxing..its just generic internet banter.
I don't understand the application of the rule, it strikes me comparable to the cartoonish overreaction by the Staff and their misrepresentations of the intentions of various users during the election...And what they've repeatedly done to me.
It essentially strikes me as an attempt by the mods to bait and cull users they deem..to borrow the enemy's language "Problematic"
At which point..I have to question why they don't just simply admit they're out to target and remove certain users and that this is a purge to keep The Sietch nice and friendly and well in te Mitt Romney school of selective principles..
Keep in mind too.. the same users who impersonate me, have also threatened to murder my children. So I'm not unsympathetic to what the staff is claiming to be about..on paper.
At all
Using fear of being outed to trample your fellow forumers is fucking awful and should be met with a decisive response. but this seems to be not that.
Edit on paper, its an awesome policy though. The practicing end seems designed to hurt colorful users.
This a bit like preferred pronoun enforcement which I consider an attack on individual liberty and reality itself and to my knowledge the Sietch doesn't enforce.
So I'm not understanding this. Unless its what I said above. A deliberate attempt by the staff to obfuscate their true intentions while shielding their friends and rounding up and lynching users they don't like.
Last edited:
Well my comment was meant as sarcasm in pointing out that the only way to befall this rule is if its somehow impossible to address a person as the username (unless its something like "@Convicted Pedophile" or something) they chose on this forum. All you have to do to not ever run afoul of this rule is to just refer to people by their username on this forum.
And if we're concerned about SB, it's telling that SB moderator Unhappy Anchovy is one of the people apparently violating or precipitating this rule change by referring to TS members by their username used on SB, the very forum they were driven from.
I dont care about the preferred pronoun comparison. This has nothing to do with trans/gender identities and everything to do with apparent harassment.
Context, holding a metaphorical gun to someone's head and demanding they respect pronouns = holding a metaphorical gun to someone's head and demanding under penalty of retribution that they deny the evidence of who a person is right in front of their faces.
Except you don't have to deny it? You just have to call them by their username on this forum. It's basically a sliding scale, like I can't go around calling people racially based slurs and that's curbing my freedom of speech as well. Harassing people for their past actions seems just as potentially harmful or retributive as throwing slurs about.
But whatever, you can have the last word. If calling people by their username is too much and putting a "metaphorical" gun to peoples heads then I doubt talking about it will convince people otherwise. Happy hunting and harassing!
It isn't when the reasoning is to protect people from harm....When it's done out of a nepotistic need to protect the Boss's homeboys..and a backdoor way for the staff to engage in digital lynching and aiding and abetting the targetted harassment of users..then what they're doing is something else entirely.
And as for me having the last word...You gray names are putting an awful lot of effort into trying to discredit a few of us more outspoken users .
Kinda wonder why that is...It's a thing I've only begun to notice. Every time a knife is slid into one of our ribs and a mod is there to facilitate a brigade attempt..there's one of you holding the grip.
Aldarion
Neoreactionary Monarchist
Why? Some people may change nickname simply because their interests have diverged. And in such a case, knowing their old identity might be something they do not want to be revealed, simply out of principle (for me, I don't think anyone has any business "informing" themselves on my activities, or "stalking" any one person/online identity in general).
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you (via metaphorical stabbing you in the ribs) by responding to you quoting me and asking for an explanation for my post.
I promise to restrain myself from disagreeing with you because I don't want to discredit or brigade you. For that I sincerely apologize.