The SearchVoat Forum

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:17 am Ok 2 issues:

MadWorld wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:28 am 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.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 2:18 am 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.

I'm trying to be nice here, work with me.

By your own standard, YOU SHOULD BAN YOURSELF with all that personal shit you done spilled a month back. You mean to tell me repeating what you voluntarily put out there would be a bannable offense?? Come the fuck on.

Don't give me that "unwritten rule" bullshit either. That's always been the doorway to censorship as we're seeing on ConPro right this moment. That just allows you to pick and choose what you want to enforce and when. As it stands it could be a made up name and location but it's still forbidden to even hint that it's someone or out comes the banhammer. "Simple and broad" yet not fucking defined, is it...

Legally speaking in any country, if someone puts it out there voluntarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's on their own dumbass, not the host of a web forum.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am I'm trying to be nice here, work with me.

I appreciate that.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am By your own standard, YOU SHOULD BAN YOURSELF with all that personal shit you done spilled a month back. You mean to tell me repeating what you voluntarily put out there would be a bannable offense?? Come the fuck on.

Heh, yeah... but I don't think anyone posted anything identifying me? I sure didn't. That would be what I call a "dox".

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am Don't give me that "unwritten rule" bullshit either. That's always been the doorway to censorship as we're seeing on ConPro right this moment. That just allows you to pick and choose what you want to enforce and when. As it stands it could be a made up name and location but it's still forbidden to even hint that it's someone or out comes the banhammer. "Simple and broad" yet not fucking defined, is it...

Legally speaking in any country, if someone puts it out there voluntarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's on their own dumbass, not the host of a web forum.

Of course, you are correct. The application of rules here is entirely at my discretion. Whether that leads to censorship is a matter of personal opinion. If I had the time and the inclination I could put some work into codifying the Terms of Use here in more detail, for the avoidance of doubt.

But this isn't a dispute over the law of the land, it's a dispute over whether I am a fair and reasonable administrator. I do my best, I have my own principles, I hope that on balance it works out well. This isn't a democracy, it's a monarchy (or a dictatorship, if you prefer - I hope a benevolent one).

What's happening here is not about B4A, it's about fostering an understanding that the discussion of identifying information in general is not ok, for the comfort & wellbeing of all participants on an anonymous site.

I think you're proposing that the rule be amended to exclude self-doxing. I've made my case for keeping it as it is. It remains open for discussion.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:17 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am I'm trying to be nice here, work with me.

I appreciate that.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am By your own standard, YOU SHOULD BAN YOURSELF with all that personal shit you done spilled a month back. You mean to tell me repeating what you voluntarily put out there would be a bannable offense?? Come the fuck on.

Heh, yeah... but I don't think anyone posted anything identifying me? I sure didn't. That would be what I call a "dox".

They knocked on your door, did they not? Obviously someone has it. They did the very thing you were worried about, then you turn around and "no hard feelings, bro!" And promoted one. Yet, you threaten the rest of us with a ban for even repeating information already out there.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 4:51 am Don't give me that "unwritten rule" bullshit either. That's always been the doorway to censorship as we're seeing on ConPro right this moment. That just allows you to pick and choose what you want to enforce and when. As it stands it could be a made up name and location but it's still forbidden to even hint that it's someone or out comes the banhammer. "Simple and broad" yet not fucking defined, is it...

Legally speaking in any country, if someone puts it out there voluntarily, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's on their own dumbass, not the host of a web forum.

Of course, you are correct. The application of rules here is entirely at my discretion. Whether that leads to censorship is a matter of personal opinion. If I had the time and the inclination I could put some work into codifying the Terms of Use here in more detail, for the avoidance of doubt.

But this isn't a dispute over the law of the land, it's a dispute over whether I am a fair and reasonable administrator. I do my best, I have my own principles, I hope that on balance it works out well. This isn't a democracy, it's a monarchy (or a dictatorship, if you prefer - I hope a benevolent one).

What's happening here is not about B4A, it's about fostering an understanding that the discussion of identifying information in general is not ok, for the comfort & wellbeing of all participants on an anonymous site.

I think you're proposing that the rule be amended to exclude self-doxing. I've made my case for keeping it as it is. It remains open for discussion.

Oh my so inclusive! What's next, political correctness? You best shut down SV then because God only knows how much personal information you're storing in that archive. What you're keeping "as is" is censorship, pure and simple. That shit had been posted in chat several times right in front of that pedo, why only now is it a problem?

Did anyone on fake voat get banned for posting it? Not one intervention by a self admitted censorship loving admin from what I can see. Even in his most hated topic he left it alone.

I had your back up until now, but this is some goal post moving bullshit. What's the point of supporting this place or any forum where you post under intimidation? Are you trying to pull a talk.loli? Look what happened to their traffic stats.

Or, was this part of your exit strategy? Turn on the user base and separate any sympathies while you go follow through with your threat? Similar to Putt's departure... That way you feel no guilt for hurting anyone knowing they won't miss you...

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 am They knocked on your door, did they not? Obviously someone has it.

The cops tracked me through the web host IP address.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 am then you turn around and "no hard feelings, bro!" And promoted one.

That user knows how I feel about what they did. I think they were wrong to do it for self-serving purposes. But just because the guy's an idiot doesn't mean I have treat him badly. It's not his fault.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 am That shit had been posted in chat several times right in front of that pedo, why only now is it a problem?

Took me this long to notice it.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 am What's the point of supporting this place or any forum where you post under intimidation?

There are rules everywhere.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:01 am Or, was this part of your exit strategy? Turn on the user base and separate any sympathies while you go follow through with your threat? Similar to Putt's departure... That way you feel no guilt for hurting anyone knowing they won't miss you...

Nope. Staying.

Edit: removed gratuitous insult.

Have fun then.

Just to clarify: an open pedophile can tell us his name, but we can't repeat it?

Yes or No?

No, you can't.

...as things stand currently. Open to debate.

CognitiveDissident5 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 9:08 am Just to clarify: an open pedophile can tell us his name, but we can't repeat it?

Yes or No?

His allegiance has been established, this with a guy that has (had) kids. Makes one question the validity of his sob story about losing them...

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:29 am No, you can't.

...as things stand currently. Open to debate.

Wow, why is it that every site owner enables and protects child molesters? I now doubt your story about having kids yourself and perhaps there are good reasons for access issues.
I never saw this coming in a million years. No wonder b4p referred to you as a friend.

CognitiveDissident5 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:50 am

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:29 am No, you can't.

...as things stand currently. Open to debate.

Wow, why is it that every site owner enables and protects child molesters? I now doubt your story about having kids yourself and perhaps there are good reasons for access issues.
I never saw this coming in a million years. No wonder b4p referred to you as a friend.

On a side note, look at the utter hypocrisy. He goes from saying he's a dictator, this isn't a democracy - to its open for debate?

I don't know if it's even the same dude, maybe he really did kill himself. He's never been the power hungry type, let alone a pedophile sympathizer. In any case, he's no Puttitout.