The SearchVoat Forum

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:26 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 1:24 am Your continuation to evade this dox report is rather concerning. You are going back on your policy, yes?

tlolocaust isn't SVF.

Neither is catbox or the SV archive, numb nuts.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:44 am 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.

Re: The smoke drifts away from the battleground
1 Report
Post by SearchVoat » 16 Sep 2022 17:14
SearchVoat wrote: ↑16 Sep 2022 05:00
I just attached a bot to his chat posts (I think of it as a user flair) and banned him from replying to posts here in v/Announcements.
Ok I made my point. Enough with the bot.

Exactly what was your point, other than a vulgar display of admin power? You really didn't do yourself any favors by sinking to the likes of AOU tricks.

Yeah if you really want to discuss this, you're going to have to stick to one point at a time. But I don't think you really want a discussion, do you? Just a flame war?

You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

The rest you can address bullet point by bullet point, as I did for your post that you had to censor me from replying to directly.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:05 am You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:33 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:05 am You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

Don't play stupid.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:49 am Don't play stupid.

It's a simple question. Don't assume I'm playing games. Makes you sound paranoid.

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:52 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 4:49 am Don't play stupid.

It's a simple question. Don't assume I'm playing games. Makes you sound paranoid.

Why don't you enforce your own rule? Now that's a pretty simple question. Go back to reading people's private messages.

> paranoid

Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

SearchVoat wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:33 am

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 2:05 am You can address the fact that it was a dox by your own standards, complete with multiple sources of proof (your own words), and explain how that doesn't violate your custom definition of dox.

Which dox - the b4a dox here that I disallowed, or the mention on tlolocaust?

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:05 am Why don't you enforce your own rule? Now that's a pretty simple question. Go back to reading people's private messages.

Sounds like you're talking about the second one then. Why be so obtuse?

As I said to @MadWorld in chat earlier, yes to be consistent I should probably block the link to the tloloc. Or allow doxing outright.

The options as I see them are these:

1. Allow doxing without limitation. Everyone's responsible for their own opsec.

2. Allow "self-doxing" without limitation, but ban non-self-doxing, i.e. the common rule elsewhere. Then it depends on your definition of "self dox". If someone's revealed the info by mistake, you seem to think that's a self-dox and fair game. In which case, why ban doxxing at all? Let people be responsible for their own opsec.

3. Ban doxxing here, but allow links to doxes elsewhere e.g. the tloloc link, links to SV archive, catbox etc. I'm inclined to think it's different whether the info is displayed here explicitly (e.g. as text or embedded image) or you have to follow the link to find it (e.g. tloloc, SV archive). But in reality a link here that says "follow this link for dox on [username]..." might as well be explicit.

4. Ban doxxing here and links to doxes elsewhere. Very hard to police (I can imagine a link to a google search which shows someone's dox at the bottom of the page, or on page 2). Would ban some links to SV archive (which, by the way, I see as separate from SVF and obviously not subject to the same rules) and other sites. It comes down to what "hosting information" means. We know SVF would be in trouble for "hosting CP" even if it was just a link to a catbox image.

That's where I am currently. If you want to contribute to this discussion I would encourage you to do it sensibly, civilly and helpfully. Right now you're being even more of a dick than I am. But if it helps you feel good about yourself to carry on like that then go for it.

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:05 am > paranoid

Yup, it's all in your mind, goyim!

Thanks for posting that, I mean it. It's an important issue that most people probably don't think about. You and @kestrel9 obviously didn't for a while.

Edit: btw working on it here and here.