Total posts: 5,653
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
But obviously the situation has changed.
But the status of anonymity hasn't. I really don't understand the "need" for reconsideration here.
1. There was never any "problem" to which de-anonymization was a solution.
2. The "problem", such as it was, has been fixed without relying on de-anonymization.
3. It was even put up for discussion where a supermajority (>= 2/3rds) agreed with reinstating it, but bsh1 arbitrarily decided that not enough total people voted (despite the number of voters being fine to decide other issues) and just ignored it.
What's left to consider?
If I could, I'd just encrypt the PMs and be done with it so even God himself wouldn't be able to access them, but there is no way (that I can think of off the top of my head) to make it secure. But to be honest, I don't think there are many websites that do that, I imagine even Facebook and other social networks don't. Maybe only some websites where people discuss riots and stuff like that but idk.
I like this attitude. But if you feel that strongly about it, why is this even a discussion? Just tell bsh1 "No" he doesn't get this loaded gun to play with?
Created:
Posted in:
Drafterman why do you trust Mike to have that access but not bsh1? What the fuck has this faceless guy who came in with the DDO hacker bots do to earn your respect or trust?
With respect to Mike, it isn't about trust. We access his servers. He has access to all of the information we put here. That is an inherent concession any user makes when they sign up. His turning over PMs (or any other information) to law enforcement isn't up for discussion. If he is so supoena'd, he doesn't have a choice.
It is less about "trusting" Mike than the fact that that bridge is already crossed and burnt. There is no uncrossing it. I did not, however, give any sort of consent, implicit or otherwise, to let some random person who happens to have Mike's ear have access to that information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Reporting may get back to being anonymous when there is a way to prevent the spam reports,
You have that with the 10/day limit. Also, the issue with the spam reports was the work load the mods decided they needed to do in response to them. That, too, has been fixed with the relaxation of the voting standards and the lack of need of mod response for every report. Furthermore, the lack of anonymity didn't stop the spam reporting.
the best idea I've got so far is to add a required field for the report description ( so that it wouldn't be so easy to spam report ) and add a button that would take the user's right to report away if we see some copy pasted descriptions or some other bad behaviour but this way the mods will not know who they've just taken the right away from and it may bring some complications. It's just an idea but give it time and we may come up with something much better than that.
There wasn't a need to take anonymity away then and there certainly isn't one now.
Regarding the PMs, truth be told, I am also not a fan of disclosing them,
Dude. It's YOUR site. They only have the power to do what YOU give them. Put your foot down and say, "No, you can't have that."
but bsh1 pointed out some situations where it could possibly make sense and I believe we decided to bring this up on the forum and discuss it and that's what this topic is about. But then you've also provided some good points so it's going to be a hard decision. The best idea I've got is to maybe provide access only in some very serious cases (death threats and whatnot) and limit the access somehow so that the mods wouldn't be able to access it on a whim. But then, I can't come up with decent logic for this request PMs feature...so it's going to take some time and thinking.
The only person who should be digging into PMs is you and the only people you should be giving them too is the police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think I've explicitly stated that your presented scenario isn't "a problem." However "bad" it is, it isn't "bad" enough to warrant any sort of action from you or anyone else.Whether you call it doxxing or not is immaterial to the fact that you admit it was bad. Ergo, you're argument was never misrepresented. Instead, your admission that it is bad underscores the need for moderation to be able to respond to such a problem. Whatever you want to call it is irrelevant to its need to be policed.
it seems like doxxing people via PM is still pretty bad because of the potential for real-life problems.
You don't ban people for potential behavior. You certainly don't gain access to their private communications because of it.
Not enough people weighed in.
Absolute bullshit. The amount of people that weighed in was enough to rule on other issues.
At such time when a clearer consensus emerges against it, I will be happy to reinstate it. But a 5-2 decision is not exactly compelling.
It's a majority, which you claim is enough here. So stop prevaricating. If there is a minimum number of people, why haven't you stated it?
This issue, with PMs, is different, however. I think the substantiality of the potential for misuse warrants a presumption against implementation, so I would reject PM access on a 5-2 decision.
Except the loss of anonymity of reporting has actual misuse already tied to it. Actuality trumps potentiality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You're still welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That doesn't make sense. You essentially admit here that doxxing people via PM is bad,
No I don't. I have explicitly said that what happens in a PM isn't doxxing. Don't deliberately misrepresent my argument.
but not as bad as public doxxing.
Private disclosure is less impactful than public disclosure. Disclosure only exists at all if there is a recipient for the information to be disclosed to. Necessarily, the impact of the disclosure is proportional to the amount of recipients. Note: that by digging into people's PMs, you're worsening the problem because then you become aware of that information as well.
Even if I buy that, and it seems like there is a reasonable case for you being right, it seems like doxxing people via PM is still pretty bad because of the potential for real-life problems.
You can't "dox" people via PM.
Certainly it seems bad enough that it should also be banned. Simply saying that it is less awful than public doxxing is not an argument for its being permissible.
Only if you don't believe that the impact of a behavior is a part of how you decide whether it should be permitted or banned or in weighing how the behavior ought to be responded to. Sometimes the response is too costly and you simply accept the risk of allowing that behavior. In this case, giving you unfettered access - and it is unfettered - to everyone's PMs to be investigated simply because someone on the site becomes paranoid is too costly.
Moderation does need it in order to know when it happens and who is doing it. This allows moderation to ban toxic and potentially dangerous users and to create a vigorous deterrent against users engaging in that kind of activity.
When are we getting anonymous reporting back?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
The only way for the "target" in question would be two ways:
1. The two users let slip, publicly, that they have this information. In which case the mods have access to that public information to make a decision.
2. The two users are doing something, IRL, against the user, in which case the user should be calling the cops and get Mike involved in a legal capacity. Which doesn't involve the mods at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I did, as a way of demonstrating the problem with the voting standards and how they were being implemented. Guess what happened? The voting standards and their implementation was changed for the better.
You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The eloquence of this reply notwithstanding, indeed it is the case that "the potential for real life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum."
But not in the same degree. Which is why actually Doxxing is bad and should be prevented and stopped, but private individuals privately discussing other individuals isn't.
Suppose for example that User W hated User T, and was willing to use the personal information revealed to them to out User T as gay or to harass them at work or to message all their friends on facebook or to send them threatening letters in the mail (among other potential harms). The fact that the information was revealed in a PM does not change that revelation's potential to have real-life, negative consequences for User T.
And giving you access to everyone's PMs doesn't alter that situation. Ergo, you don't need it.
Doxxing is banned in part to prevent such real-life consequences from occurring. This kind of activity is incurs the exact same harm. So, as I said, "the potential for real life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum."
Two private individuals talking about another individual privately does not have the "exact same harm" as someone's private information being made publicly available to the entire user base.
When is voting anonymity going to be restored? The majority of the community voted on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I disagree.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. That's the definition of the word.
As I said to Poly: "If someone gave out my personal information to someone who wished me ill, there is a lot they could do that would be problematic for me.
Which has fuck all to do with the above scenario which doesn't say anything about the motives of the participants. Having access to PMs certainly doesn't prevent that exchange of information and even if it acts as a deterrent they'll just exchange it via personal e-mail. What, you want everyone's e-mail login's now, too?
Imagine if you gave someone's stalker their home address or something like that. Just because it happens in PMs doesn't mean it isn't doxxing."
Yes it does. It means exactly that. The public nature of the disclosure is inherent in the definition.
One of the primary reasons doxxing is such a severe violation of the rules is precisely that it could entail real-life consequences for the user; the potential for real life consequences holds whether their personal information was revealed in a PM or in a public forum.
No it doesn't.
But, the reason this discussion was started was precisely to put this decision in the hands of the community, not in the hands of the mods. Ultimately, the community will decide.
Bullshit. The community decided on anonymous reporting. When is that going to be restored? Until it is restored, should anyone give two shits about your promises?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Don't accept bs1h false premise that the presented scenario is a "problem" and evaluate it independently. What is the "problem" and why is accessing user PMs the only "solution"? Are we saying literally no other action could be taken?
Created:
Posted in:
Mods have complete discretion in determining whether or not a CoC violation has happened. They don't need "proof" let alone proof from a PM. This is just crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
I've already pretty much checked out of this site because of the loss of reporting anonymity but I swear to Christ if Mike gives mods access to PMs I'm doneso permanently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Jesus fucking Christ it just doesn't stop doesn't. As much as you guys talk the talk about having user privacy as a priority you sure are eager to snap up any chance to rob them of it.
Imagine the following (hypothetical) situation: User Q doxxes User T in a PM with User W.
That's not Doxxing. Doxxing means to publish such info. As in, make it public.
User T becomes suspicious that they have been doxxed, and reports Users Q and W to moderation. Users Q and W deny any wrongdoing and offer (selectively chosen or doctored) screenshots to verify their innocence. Users Q and W in turn accuse User T of framing them/lying about them to moderation. The only means moderation has of resolving this dilemma would be to access the PMs of the users involved through the moderation portal.
NO IT ISN'T. NO IT ISN'T. NO IT ISN'T. NO IT ISN'T.
This is only a dilemma if you operate from the premise that access to these PMs is somehow needed or warranted. "Resolving this" is simply a response to T saying: "The content of a PM is the business only of the people involved in that PM." It's none of T's business what Q and W are talking about.
However, the ability of mods to access users' PM would naturally raise substantial privacy concerns.
Virt and I, and I believe Mike as well (but I will let him speak for himself), feel that it is occasionally necessary that mods have access to users' PMs to resolve situations like the one described above.
Wrong. There is NEVER a case where a mod needs access to a PM. Mike can argue a case to access a PM when it becomes a legal issue and such a PM is evidence.
That said, because of the substantial privacy concerns implicated by such a power, we believe that such authority should be limited.
Wrong again. Because of the substantial privacy concerns, such authority should be non-existent for mods.
As a limiting measure, we believe that Virt, Mike, and I must all approve access to a user's PM in order for that access to be granted to any one of us.
That's not a limiting measure. The mod circle you've established simply parrots whatever you say, almost verbatim, and Mike has basically checked out of moderation that he's willing to let you do whatever you want. A limiting measure would be people with diverse and independent viewpoints that are actually willing to disagree and limit the others' (that is, your) power.
In other words, in order for any one of us to gain access to any PM, the three of us would need to unanimously agree that (a) reasonable suspicion of a COC violation exists, (b) the violation of the COC may be severe, and (c) accessing the PM is the only way to definitively resolve the issue (i.e. there are no less intrusive ways for moderation to resolve the issue). This tripartite test and the requirement for unanimity would act as checks against spurious or inappropriate use of any power to access users' PMs.
No it wouldn't. For the above reasons. There is absolutely no reason why you or any mod needs access to a PM.
However, I can imagine that many may feel as if moderation should never, in any circumstance, no matter how grave, have such authority. While I disagree with that position, it is one which I can respect and abide by if the community decides that is best. For the record, this is not a power mods currently have.
You shouldn't have access to the identity of reporting users either, but fuck all good that has done the community.
Therefore, I am using this post to pose the following questions to the DART usership:1. Should moderators be able to access a user's PM if (1) all three admin officials unanimously agree that (2) the three part test outlines above is met?
No.
2. Should moderators never--in any circumstance--have the ability to access a user's PM
Correct.
3. Is there another solution to this problem or a suggestion for how to improve the proposed checks?
Nothing you've presented is a "problem."
Please feel free to comment or to ask questions. Moderation will respect any majority decision reached by the community.
Really? The majority wanted anonymous reporting and you basically flipped your middle finger at that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
That's a limit on vote reports, not votes themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(you can use it via browser, too. That's how I use it mostly)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
(It's like chat for gaming, but has a lot of features. For example you could roll your own dice and it'd link with your character sheets.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@Buddamoose
@Earth
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@kindertina
(Ok guys, I'm thinking of moving this game to Discord. Anyone have an issue with that?)
Created:
Posted in:
Utterly ridiculous. Anonymity was stripped and abused without so much as a whisper yet you're going to require unanimity to give it back (despite a supermajority agreeing to restore it.) The reasonable thing to do would be restore the status quo unless a consensus agrees with it's removal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Based on this, anonymity is not being restored?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The same is true of children, yet we still teach them otherwise and establish consequences.tbh I'm use to and expect politicians to lie, I mean how can you not be?
I'm not sure why they even went there other than to make Acosta look bad/worse than usual and perhaps gain some sympathy.
Less sympathy for themselves and more antipathy for Acosta and the press in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Agreed on all points. But I think a White House that habitually lies is more concerning than an aggressive reporter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The claim was that it was doctored in a fashion that speeds it up. But it's almost like things automatically look faster when they're zoomed in cause now the frames focus has changed, centered around a smaller area, which causes a blurry effect to movements outside it.
For a comparison look at football broadcasts. When they take closer looks in replays such as on hits, they slow it down. This is necessarily to keep the picture itself clear and remove motion blur. The video is "doctored" in the sense that it zoomed in on the exchange. But the speeds from original, to zoom, if you actually comprehend how cameras operate, wasn't actually changed, it just looks that way as a natural by by product of zooming in.
No, it actually was, literally, sped up. Even factoring in the zoom.
Seriously, the argument being made here is basically, "i did put my hands on her and refuse to acquiesce the mic after already asking a couple questions. But the video is doctored so that means I did nothing wrong!"
Two people can do things wrong. Just because one person does something wrong doesn't mean any and everything and all things done against them in response is automatically acceptable.
The White House shouldn't be using doctored footage as evidence against someone. Period. This statement is true, regardless of the factuality of the accusation.
And, if this was a court of law, you're absolutely right that the case of the prosecution would be diminished by the use of doctored evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
It'll be hand waved away as either fake news or irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
The group meets up with the hunters outside the sunset gate and begin to head out west along the Old Svalich road. They eventually reach an X intersection, with branches tothe northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. Thelower half of a snapped wooden signpost thrusts upwardat an angle near the eastern elbow of the intersection.The top half of the sign, featuring arms pointing in fourdirections, lies in the weeds nearby.
When the twoparts of the sign are aligned and rejoined, the arms indicateKREZK, WIZARD OF WINES, and TSOLENKA PASS to the southwest, LAKEBARATOK to the northwest, VALLAKI and RAVENLOFT tothe northeast, and BEREZ to the southeast. Following the sign they head toward the WIZARD OF WINES.
Your presence on this dreary road has not gone unnoticed.A raven follows you for several minutes while keepinga respectful distance. After a few minutes, more ravens begin to take an interest in you. Before long,their numbers swell, and soon hundreds of them arewatching you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(Mid morning, day before the festival)
Created:
Posted in:
Lucian: I will call on those I can trust. I would urge discretion. If the Baron hears about some strangers telling people about some impending attack, he may perceive it as an attempt to cast a pall on his festival.
Created:
Posted in:
Lucian: No Vistani, they're not allowed in the town due to their affiliation with The Devil Strahd. And of course everyone inside the town has a vested interest in its protection.
Created:
Posted in:
Lucian: I have faith that this church is protected by the spirit of St. Andrals. That much is clear from their need to take the bones in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
Lucian is understandable distraught at these events.
Lucian: I have no idea where they would be hiding. I didn't even consider that they were planning an assault until you just told me. They could be anywhere. I'm confused as to why they would advertise Vargas as a target. If they wanted him dead, surely they would just kill him?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
(Things are pretty close)
N1 - St. Andral's Church
N2 - Blue Water Inn
N3 - Burgomaster's Mansion
N5 - Arasek Stockyard
N6 - Coffin Maker's Shop
N8 - Town Square
N9 - Vistani Camp
Created:
Posted in:
(You guys heading to the church? Anything else to ask of or discuss with the illustrious Vargas?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What would you prefer to be called? Evolutionists? Modern Synthesists? Neo-Darwinists? I can't call you evolutionists, that encompasses all evolutionary beliefs.
Do you have a special name for people who believe in gravity to distinguish them from people that don't? How would you word a question about gravity?
The answer is, you wouldn't. You'd just go onto the science forum and ask the question. So just dispense with the unnecessary labels and just ask the question in the appropriate forum and you'll avoid these kinds of miscommunications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I like calling you guys Darwinists.
Ok. Well you should know it's commonly used as a derogatory term so anyone knowledgeable in evolution is less likely to take you seriously or hold your intentions to be honorable. If you care about that kind of thing.
It differentiates you from IDers,Orthogenesists,and theistic evolutionists,all who believe in evolution.
No they don't. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. ID, Orthogenesis, and theistic evolution are religious beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Ok. So you're asking a question about a scientific theory. Ergo it belongs in the science forum. And you needn't call you people specifically as "Darwinists" nor more than you would call out people that accept gravity as "Einsteinians"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I wasn't asking a question about your beliefs.
You are asking a question to other people about "evolution." The evolution you are asking about: are you talking about the scientific theory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
And you consider this to be a religious belief, not a scientific theory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
When you posed a question to "Darwinists" asking "Isn't evolution supposed to be slow" who, exactly, where you referring to and what form of "evolution" did you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Orthogenesis is not part of evolution in a modern scientific sense. It is no more "evolution" than blood letting is "medicine."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You may think so, but they aren't. To me you are coming off as:
"Hey silly evolutionists, evolution is supposed to be slow, but looks like it's fast. How do you explain that?!"
With the obvious implication that this is some sort of rebuke or disproof of evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
The fact that you posted this in the religious forum and refer to the outmoded label of "Darwinists" suggests ulterior motives.
Created: