Reminder: Rule 1 of this site: No doxxing of site members

[SearchVoat]

There's been a lot of activity on chat regarding personal details of a member of this site. I don't care how the information was found, nor how it was disseminated, nor any other circumstance for that matter. It's simply a direct breach of Rule 1.

I don't want to ban everyone in one go!

Stop it.

[antiliberalsociety]

Just to clarify, if someone exposes their own shit it's forbidden to repeat it?

[SearchVoat]

Yep

[antiliberalsociety]

Kind of retarded to be honest. If someone uses their real ID for a username you maintain you're going to ban them?

Did you forget about the TexasVet self dox on voat.co? He did that on purpose to try to get me banned the second I repeated it.

[antiliberalsociety]

Furthermore, WERE YOU NOT JUST PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY HAVING TO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AT YOUR HOME AND THREATS OF DEPLATFORMING?

And WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCOUNTS?

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

[MadWorld]

I think if someone knowingly provided personal info and shared it in public, it is a self-dox, take @TexasVet as an example. Users should be allowed to cite it, since it is the responsibility of that someone to not share personally identifiable info in public. But if some info got revealed, due to the nature of unknown setting, that info should be regarded as private and not a self-dox.

[MadWorld]

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

He also had zero contribution to that subverse

[SearchVoat]

Ok 2 issues:

I think if someone knowingly provided personal info and shared it in public, it is a self-dox, take @TexasVet as an example. Users should be allowed to cite it, since it is the responsibility of that someone to not share personally identifiable info in public. But if some info got revealed, due to the nature of unknown setting, that info should be regarded as private and not a self-dox.

I don't want to be the arbitrator of whether it's a self-dox or not. Maybe someone got hacked, maybe they were misunderstood, maybe there's a gray area somewhere where A thinks they self-doxed and B thinks they didn't. Whatever. Don't share personal info about site members. The rule is simple and broad.

Furthermore, WERE YOU NOT JUST PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY HAVING TO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AT YOUR HOME AND THREATS OF DEPLATFORMING?

And WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCOUNTS?

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

I don't bear grudges, I try to treat people equally according to the circumstances regardless of history.

There's an informal unwritten rule here that if you mod a sub and haven't logged in "for a while" I'll allocate it to someone else, just because they asked. HOWEVER I do think I erred in that case because that user had not contributed to the sub. That's going to be another part of the informal unwritten just-made-it-up rule. I don't want to undo things because I made a mistake. They got away with it. I'll be more careful next time.

[Savesequim]

Ok 2 issues:

I think if someone knowingly provided personal info and shared it in public, it is a self-dox, take @TexasVet as an example. Users should be allowed to cite it, since it is the responsibility of that someone to not share personally identifiable info in public. But if some info got revealed, due to the nature of unknown setting, that info should be regarded as private and not a self-dox.

I don't want to be the arbitrator of whether it's a self-dox or not. Maybe someone got hacked, maybe they were misunderstood, maybe there's a gray area somewhere where A thinks they self-doxed and B thinks they didn't. Whatever. Don't share personal info about site members. The rule is simple and broad.

Furthermore, WERE YOU NOT JUST PERSONALLY AFFECTED BY HAVING TO DEAL WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AT YOUR HOME AND THREATS OF DEPLATFORMING?

And WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THOSE ACCOUNTS?

You just made one a fucking mod, why didn't you ban both of them?

I don't bear grudges, I try to treat people equally according to the circumstances regardless of history.

There's an informal unwritten rule here that if you mod a sub and haven't logged in "for a while" I'll allocate it to someone else, just because they asked. HOWEVER I do think I erred in that case because that user had not contributed to the sub. That's going to be another part of the informal unwritten just-made-it-up rule. I don't want to undo things because I made a mistake. They got away with it. I'll be more careful next time.

And I didn't realize that was a standard. Wasn't seeking to get away with anything and am going to be active in that subverse to address that criticism. So far, I've taken a hands off policy as there are posts I think ought to be removed prior to my modship, but don't want to be seen as a dictator.

I've found @SearchVoat incredibly magnanimous and impartial. I know that means nothing to you all given your perception of me, but I applaud his fairness. I also appreciate his commitment to free speech, though I find much of the content posted violates my own sensibilities.

I've explicitly PM'd him regarding doxxing rules so as to not run afoul of them. Though I agree with @antiliberalsociety that explicit self-doxxing (or self promotion) ought to be excepted. I won't be crossing that line on this platform as SearchVoat has made his rule clear.

TLDR: Respect the host when you're in their house.

P.S. @SearchVoat , Mods are allowed to make more discerning submission guidelines to their subs as long as they don't violate your site-wide rules?

[SearchVoat]

P.S. @SearchVoat , Mods are allowed to make more discerning submission guidelines to their subs as long as they don't violate your site-wide rules?

Yes, your sub, your rules. BUT...

So far, I've taken a hands off policy as there are posts I think ought to be removed prior to my modship, but don't want to be seen as a dictator.

...it wouldn't be cool to parachute into a sub and delete old posts. If you want a sub that doesn't have that content, create a new one.