2019-02-04 04:41:02

Yeah I think what we have right now should suffice. There's no better way of knowing than pushing it out there. At any rate it's miles better than what we have now, and the longer we wait the longer we allow users to sign up agreeing to an incomplete set of guidelines.

A couple things. First, would it be possible to add a sort of header to the site as was done after the recent period of downtime, letting users know of the change and urging them to have a quick read? At least keep it there for the first month or so. There's also the classic mass-email, "we've updated our policy" as an alternative.
Also, it might be nice to see less topics with names like, "help!", "questions", "why isn't this working?", "I'm about to rage!". If people are using search engines to locate content, I can see meaningful names being much more efficient. No penalty for not adhering, possibly put under #6 in the first section. But I mean there are some times when your legitimately raging and about to destroy something.

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 14:54:56

Just a quick update:

I have added a new guideline regarding the termination of your account and the rights and responsibilities you have as regards the accuracy and presence of your data.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 15:28:24

Jayde wrote:

7. Should you wish to leave the community, you are free to stop using your account at any time. We also invite you to edit your posts in order to remove or correct things as you see fit. In the event that you desire to have your actions on the forum stricken from public record, we urge you to contact Google or other search engine providers to begin that process. We are generally not in the habit of editing or deleting posts or accounts ourselves except in specific circumstances, and this is a precedent we intend to uphold, as it is unreasonable to expect this level of data control from a website with our size and scope.

This policy violates the GDPR under Art. 17 and can open AudioGames.net to legal prosecution. If a user requests their data to be deleted, in most cases the data controller must comply. This is a precedent that has been upheld in a court of law multiple times, and it has been implemented on several social networks with Twitter and Facebook being the most prominent. Therefore, it would be unwise for AudioGames.net to not comply with erasure requests.

More information on Art. 17 GDPRRight to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) can be found here:

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/

https://gdpr-info.eu/issues/right-to-be-forgotten/

The Beast adopted new raiment and studied the ways of Time and Space and Light and the Flow of energy through the Universe. From its studies, the Beast fashioned new structures from oxidised metal and proclaimed their glories. And the Beast’s followers rejoiced, finding renewed purpose in these teachings.
from The Book of Mozilla, 11:14

Thumbs up 0

2019-03-07 15:44:34

This is true, except where a user can largely control their own data. This is why the guideline exists in its current form. If you can edit or delete your own data, then you are responsible for doing so. Only in cases where data is 1. incriminating and 2. inaccessible to the original source can this be legally upheld.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 15:55:43

Sorry, but I don't believe your claims regarding, the right to be forgotten, to be valid in the slightest. I'm certainly not the most qualified to be siting these matters but I still must wholeheartedly disagree.

Your posts make countless references to, data collection. Might I remind you that this forum has not collected your data. You signed up. You clicked the hey I want to be a member checkbox. You agreed to the rules as they were at the time, and by continuing to be a member you agree to be bound by rules as they're updated. Of course that's the point of this topic, to discuss the validity of new ones.
You have the ability to delete posts as you see fit if you may choose to do so. You have the ability to change your name as you see fit to do so. And once your account is deleted, it's no longer able to be viewed by anyone. That is not privacy violation. That is not data collection. that is not in violation of legal obligation. By this logic I could go up to literally any website begging for everything I've ever said or done there to immediately be cleared no questions asked.

So my advice to anyone wishing to have everything deleted/wiped. Clear the posts yourself, then spend the next who knows how long combating every search engine on the net to remove any mention of these posts from cache. If we were dealing with personally identifiable information I suppose I could understand, but in many cases this simply isn't how it is. Can I go up to any email list demanding for the destruction of archived threads just to get my information out of circulation? No, I most certainly cannot.

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 16:15:19 (edited by TheGreatCarver 2019-03-07 16:16:42)

The forum stores a user's data, therefore it collects the user's data. Again, under the GDPR, A user may request his data be deleted and in most cases, (not withstanding the freedom of speech or the need to uphold a legal obligation), the data controller must comply. This has been upheld in court and is a precedent upheld by corporations such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Twitter.

The Beast adopted new raiment and studied the ways of Time and Space and Light and the Flow of energy through the Universe. From its studies, the Beast fashioned new structures from oxidised metal and proclaimed their glories. And the Beast’s followers rejoiced, finding renewed purpose in these teachings.
from The Book of Mozilla, 11:14

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 16:38:40

Again, this is upheld when the user cannot or does not control said data. Users are expected to perform their due diligence where it comes to what they themselves can interact with, and as of yet, I have not seen any evidence that you are doing so. All of your posts, even in topics that are not locked, appear to be whole, and, in most cases, do not actually appear to represent anything reprehensible.

However, in the interest of putting a nail in this coffin, I'd like to highlight one piece of private correspondence I received yesterday from this user. This is my right as a receiver of this information, and even in the event that all of your own info is deleted, I do not revoke permission for this information to be published, and as its recipient I am upholding its right to exist. Hopefully its mere existence, as well as the demands made therein, will demonstrate the extremely dubious moral nature of this claim.

**********

Hi,

I created this account when I was a young, immature child, and as such, made some really horrible choices. However even worse is the fact I made these choices live on the internet for anyone to see. As such, I'd like to ask for my account to be deleted. Further, I'd like to ask that all of my posts and topics be deleted too. Finally, I'd also like to ask that the DMNB3 topic be deleted, as it reflects badly on several individuals who were put in a situation that they never should have had to deal with in the first place.

I understand that this is an odd request, however I feel that my choices and actions made here do not reflect who I am today and would rather they be erased from the public record.

Thanks,

(redacted)

**********

1. Your account's first public communication was posted in late 2016. If you represent yourself as an "immature child" less than two and a half years ago, do you actually have the legal right to demand anything by law? I am assuming that between 2016 and 2019, you must have reached the age where you have become capable by law of dictating your own fate in such matters, else you have the written, provable permission of your parent or legal guardian to pursue such action. I'm just getting started.
2. You have not been convicted of a crime. You have not been falsely accused of anything that is going to matter. Put bluntly, the grand majority of the world is not going to care about the two hundred and fifty-one posts you've made in this corner of the internet. What possible legal precedent do you think is going to apply to you in this instance, especially when you refuse to edit or delete your own posts?
3. You ask not only for your own posts to be deleted, but also want your own topics to be deleted. This is even more unmanageable, as this is asking us to censor the opinions of other people pursuant to your wishes. That simply is not going to happen, and I'm afraid that no legal counsel in the world is going to be okay with that unless there were ramifications indicting your character and action to such a degree that it was inhibiting your future. After some review, this appears not to be the case. As such, you definitely are not going to be able to have the opinions of others deleted purely because you made the post, unless you yourself are capable of deleting the topic and taking the choice out of our hands. If this is a right granted to you by the forum, then feel free to exercise it as you see fit.
4. You specifically mention a topic to be deleted that you did not create, unless, of course, you are in violation of the forum rule about making multiple accounts, that is. There is no way we are going to delete a thread made by someone else purely because you don't like the way it went. And this part of your request throws the viability of almost all of your other claims into question. It makes one wonder whether you truly have gained the maturity you imply. It makes one wonder if you have actually thought out the full ramifications of not only what you ask, but of what you have to do in order to fulfill your own obligations. Put another way, all this legalistic snarling has a lot of doubt cast on it by the way you originally initiated contact, and the demands you made, however politely.

When one joins a forum, one accepts that communication with others is organic. This is what the new guideline is meant to explain. One may be able to cease using their account, or to edit or delete posts with new information, but as for simply redacting themselves out of existence? It's just not viable on a forum without strong legal precedent, such as in the case of criminals or of public outcry pursuing someone long after the event which stirred it should have died. There is no such precedent here.
I urge you to do a more careful study of when and how the articles you cite have been historically invoked. I also urge you, as I have multiple times privately, to do your own legaork. If there are posts of yours that you no longer think represent you fairly, and if you have the tools to edit them, feel free to do so at your discretion.

One may be asking why I have made this post as I have. One of the reasons is to further explain not only the rule itself, but the shaky grounds upon which the original request which spawned it was predicated. Another was, in essence, to immortalize this issue which, as a forum user, I have a right to do. If you want to be unsearchable, go talk to Google and other search providers, as I have also advised, and see if they will grant your request.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up +1

2019-03-07 17:25:12

@157, vary good points.
It should not be the job of the moderators to remove your mistakes, they were your mistakes, so fix them.
Asking for your account to be deleted should be ok, because we are not capable of doing this without moderator help.

yo! so I'm working on programing, it's really hard. But I'll tell you where you can contact me if your stupid enough to do so.
Contact information:email: [email protected]
Skype: Brennan Draves
I'm usually found on online games, chatting, and being warned bye admins for talking to much, f**k you admin!

2019-03-07 18:16:52

hi
6. Please do not revive very old topics without a good reason. If the last post in a thread is from a long time ago and the topic has clearly been quiet, please post elsewhere or create your own topic. Some threads go silent for awhile, only to legitimately flare up again later. This is fine, so long as it's not being done repeatedly and with no good reason. Excessive "thread necromancy" - raising threads from the dead - may be grounds for a caution or a warning if it continues  unchecked.
I dont agree with this, whats problem when I arive topics?

Thumbs up

2019-03-07 18:34:15

Might be a stupid question, but why do you repeat numbers?

jade wrote:

Each person is permitted one (1) account. Duplicate accounts will be deleted, and users guilty of creating duplicate accounts for any reason will be

Hope I did the code for that right.

yo! so I'm working on programing, it's really hard. But I'll tell you where you can contact me if your stupid enough to do so.
Contact information:email: [email protected]
Skype: Brennan Draves
I'm usually found on online games, chatting, and being warned bye admins for talking to much, f**k you admin!

2019-03-07 18:35:15

@mahdi, it is spammy and unnessisary wen you can just ask in a new topic

yo! so I'm working on programing, it's really hard. But I'll tell you where you can contact me if your stupid enough to do so.
Contact information:email: [email protected]
Skype: Brennan Draves
I'm usually found on online games, chatting, and being warned bye admins for talking to much, f**k you admin!

2019-03-07 19:46:54

The repeating of numbers like thirty-seven (37) is a legal thing. I don't know exactly what it's called, but I assume the purpose is to insure there can be no misunderstanding due to misprinted or misread numbers, so the number is first spelled out in English words, then written as digits within parentheses.

Thumbs up

2019-03-08 02:02:41

Lol that thing about the GDRP had me rolling. What the actual. How does that even apply to a forum that doesn't actually collect data, doesn't have any income, doesn't advertise and doesn't accept advertisements. Users are free to delete their own posts and topics, so make use of the facilities you have.

I felt the wind of your passing
        is preferable to
I felt the passing of your wind

Thumbs up

2019-03-08 03:06:37

I have the article in question, and here is the ext, for those interested:

Art. 17 GDPR
Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’)
1. The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay where one of the following grounds applies:
(a) the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed;
(b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6(1), or point (a) of Article 9(2), and where there is no other legal ground for the processing;
(c) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1) and there are no overriding legitimate grounds for the processing, or the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(2);
(d) the personal data have been unlawfully processed;
(e) the personal data have to be erased for compliance with a legal obligation in Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject;
(f) the personal data have been collected in relation to the offer of information society services referred to in Article 8(1).
2. Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data.
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary:
(a) for exercising the right of freedom of expression and information;
(b) for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject or for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller;
(c) for reasons of public interest in the area of public health in accordance with points (h) and (i) of Article 9(2) as well as Article 9(3);
(d) for archiving purposes in the public interest, scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes in accordance with Article 89(1) in so far as the right referred to in paragraph 1 is likely to render impossible or seriously impair the achievement of the objectives of that processing; or
(e) for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

As the "subject" (TGC) stated to me privately today, he was doing this under Art. 17, sec. 1, par. B. Take note of the following though:
* The section in question states, in the first sentence, "The data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase personal data without undue delay". Notice the use of the words "personal data". I don't ever recall AG.NET collecting "personal data" without permission of some kind.
* Paragraph B states: "(b) the data subject withdraws consent on which the processing is based according to point (a) of Article 6(1), or point (a) of Article 9(2), and where there is no other legal ground for the processing". For reference:
Point (a) of art. 6, section 1, states: "(a) the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes", and point(a) of art. 9, section 2, states: "(a) the data subject has given explicit consent to the processing of those personal data for one or more specified purposes, except where Union or Member State law provide that the prohibition referred to in paragraph 1 may not be lifted by the data subject".
Notice here the use in art. 17, section 1, paragraph b, of the words "where there is no other legal ground for the processing". Interesting stuff, I say.

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +1

2019-03-08 13:44:29

@TheGreatCarver to help with this, I have checked some of your posts. Some of them have helped when it comes to things like Eurofly, with hints and such given. There's a lot of Redspot in there. Some of it shows some interesting opinions. It is not rude. However, the topics in question are old. Therefore, I am wondering the best course of action. What should we do about posts like the eurofly ones giving a few hints? Because those could be useful for any newcomers that might find them.
I am going to be honest, this feels to me like a really difficult situation. On the one hand, yes, as admins, if someone asks us to delete an account, we could, in theory, just go to their profile, click the delete button, and it's done. But it feels like we'd be wiping a bit of history out in the process, however small, and it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable and even a little sad.

Thumbs up

2019-03-08 13:54:01

Well, I say feelings shouldn't enter into this. The thing is though, the forum is not a business, and while it is hosted in Europe as far as I know, it doesn't collect data, doesn't process data, etc. I don't consider using the search function processing data as it's just sql queries. The forum and audiogames.net are not a business, so this is completely a moot point as I see it.

I don't see any reason why one person gets to wipe out the history of others though, even if they are the post originator. If I had my druthers, you wouldn't be able to even delete your own topics, or posts in any topic. I think that puts us all on an equal footing, and makes the forum a rolling archive. Short of that, I really can't see any reason why someone should get to just wipe their account and take everyone else's posts with it.

I felt the wind of your passing
        is preferable to
I felt the passing of your wind

Thumbs up

2019-03-08 13:59:56

I mm in favour of letting people stop using the site and delete their account, if it means no actual posts are deleted in the process. Everyone should have the right to withdraw from a community.

I am vigorously opposed to being able to straight-up delete posts, though I have a little sympathy for deleting your own. Only a little, though, as this is a forum full of organic discussion.

As far as being able to torch whole threads you don't like? Nope. All the nope. So the desire to torch the DMND thread, or whatever it was, just because it "put people in a position they should never have been in"...not buying it.

It should also be noted that since this little forest fire sprang up, TheGreatCarver has actually made a couple of posts (neither of them harmful or destructive in any way), so we can now add doubt about the viracity of the original claim into question. i.e., if you really and truly want to withdraw your consent, why are you continuing to tacitly grant consent by making new posts? I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up.

I do agree that feelings shouldn't enter into this. My objection to being able to delete posts and nuke topics is because frankly we all come here to discuss things. We shouldn't get to totally rewrite stuff just because we later realize we were being idiots. It's a slippery slope though. I do think editing your posts to have more accurate info, or to fix mistakes, is arguably a good thing, and I think mods/admins being able to edit other people's posts (such as removing links) is essential.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-08 20:26:01 (edited by Ethin 2019-03-08 20:33:12)

The forum does have to comply with the GDPR. A data controller is "the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of such processing are determined by Union or Member State law, the controller or the specific criteria for its nomination may be provided for by Union or Member State law". It classifies a data processor as "a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller". Finally, it classifies personal data as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person". However, while this seems clear-cut, there are three issues with this idea that readers of this post probably have of the AG.NET forum being a data controller/data processor processing personal data:
* All of the personal data can be erased or not entered at any time by the data subject: you don't need to specify anything in your profile that uniquely identifies you.
* Your online identifier (in this case, your username) can be changed at any time via a request to the moderators/administrators. As such, the online identifier is dynamic and, therefore, can make identifying (directly or indirectly) the data subject difficult just by modifying this online identifier.
* The data subject can delete their account at any time via a request to the moderators/administrators.
The GDPR also classifies "processing" as meaning "any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction".
So, in summary:
* The AG.NET forum is a data processor only. It is not a data controller; the data controller is the data subject.
* The AG.NET forum is capable (and does) process a very limited range of personal data. The AG.NET forum does not, however, collect any private personal data.
* The data subject is in full control of the processing and storage of their personal data. The data subject is capable of collecting, recording, organizing, structuring, storing, adapting or altering, retrieving, consulting, using, disclosing by transmission, disseminating or otherwise making available, aligning or combining, restricting, erasing or destroying of the personal data the forum does collect, either by editing their profile or by contacting the administrators or moderators for wide-scale tasks (deleting their account, altering their online identifier, and so on).
But I digress. The hole point of this little diatribe was to prove that TGC's actions were (entirely) unwarranted. As he is the data subject and data controller, he is capable of controlling the data that the forum does process. He, however, is only capable of controlling his personal data and not any others.
Anyway! I do have to agree with 166 and 167. Users should be allowed to delete their account, but not delete *every single* post they've made via automated means. Hell, the task alone would be incredibly hard. It would, also, leave gaps and spark confusion on the forum, and would be a way of causing chaos because people would be seeing replies that (seemingly) reply to someone who does not exist. And that could then be used to call them out for supposed 'character assassination', which, at that point, would definitely have a lot of evidence for, and it would be an extremely powerful way for people to destroy the credibility and reputation of others. Let's take myself as an example. If I suddenly went through and deleted all... oh... 3000 plus posts of mine, I could then call pretty much half the members of this forum out for character assassination -- and it would look that way too! It wouldn't be, of course, but forum-wide deletion of an accounts posts could cause a ridiculously large amount of damage that would be impractical to recover from. You could look things up via archive.org or via google cached pages, of course, but most people probably wouldn't.
And no, I'm not going to do that. I'm not that evil. smile
Disclaimer: the above scenario was meant for demonstrative purposes only on how the forum-wide deletion of an accounts posts could harm other members of the forum. No harm to other forum members should've been caused by the recording of said scenario. big_smile

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!]: 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out ?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."    — Charles Babbage.

Thumbs up +1

2019-03-12 21:55:07

I would like to propose that anyone who accepts a staff position of moderator or higher should have to accept that title so that it may be shown below their name, and must keep that title for as long as they remain a moderator or higher. This has created a bit of confusion on my part in which I was questioning the validity of SLJ's moderatorship, because he did not have the title. Anyone can start a post with Moderation! as the first line, but anyone cannot edit their title.

I feel strongly about this, because it is like a police officer walking around with his badge on. When you see that badge, you know that you're dealing with someone with authority. However, let's discount the fact I wouldn't be able to see it for a minute, if someone is yelling for me to stop, I do so, and turn around, and they're not wearing a badge or a uniform, I'm not going to react in the same way. In this case, the moderator title is like the badge, it denotes the post the person in question holds. While detectives might not have to wear a badge at all times, and neither do federal agents, they still do carry badges, and FBI agents don't go around arresting people for speeding or littering.

Starting a post with the moderation tag line is like the police officer blowing a whistle or yelling stop, the title is like me seeing the badge pinned to the officer's left breast pocket. When both those things are in evidence, then I take the post seriously.

if ForumMember.title == "Moderator" and ForumPost.HasModerationTagLine():
    ForumMember.ironcross32.behavior_moderation = True
else:
    ForumMember.ironcross32.behavior_moderation = False
    ForumMember.ironcross32.ReplyWithSmartAssComment(random_number)

I felt the wind of your passing
        is preferable to
I felt the passing of your wind

Thumbs up +1

2019-03-12 22:55:34

I see both sides of this issue.
On the one hand, yes, it would be good to see both things being validated, as it's an immediate clarification that yes, this is official.
On the other hand? We are going to jump pretty squarely on anyone who is falsely impersonating a moderator or administrator. Actually, this belongs in the rules (i.e., don't pretend to be anyone you're not or to have rank you don't have). You should safely be able to assume that anyone who shouts "Moderation!" at the start of a post is a moderator or administrator and has the right to do so. You do not have to know a cop is a cop before he calls you out, but he does have to produce his credentials when called upon to do so.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-16 00:33:16

I have updated rule 3 to more clearly delineate what is and is not acceptable regarding the discussion of cracks. The reality is that it is hard to lay down an exact law on this, but I hope the clarification is better.
And this is precisely why we wanted to push an evolving set of rules. The framework has been in place for a long time, but tweaks have been necessary as flaws have been exposed. Speaking for myself at least, I vastly prefer this method of execution over, say, straight autocracy, where we just pass down judgment from high with no input.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-26 17:32:55

In light of recent events, I've updated rule 8 just a little, and have tweaked the Discipline Breakdown section. Please give it a read.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-26 18:12:28

Which post has the most up to date rules? The first post doesn't seem to have been edited for a while.

Who threw the big green talking wheel? It's been demanding that I find whoever injured it for the past several hours.

Thumbs up

2019-03-26 18:39:19

It's been edited as recently as this morning, but it's been edited silently.

Check out my Manamon text walkthrough at the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ls3rc3f4mkb … n.txt?dl=1

Thumbs up

2019-03-26 19:11:48

The official rules now in effect, if I'm not terribly mistaken, are to be found in post 1, which is edited as needed.

Thumbs up