2019-03-27 00:02:37

So, rereading the new rules, something came to mind.

It states, sharing cracks or illegal material can be used to invoke the community failure clause. But nowhere does it actually state what illegal material actually is however. The other topic didn't go anywhere at all however as far as tightening up the copyright/illegal material argument....because at the end of the day, linking to a Youtube video with copyrighted music is *technically* illegal, and a hypothetical overzealous mod could see that, go THAT'S ILLEGAL and start punishing me.

Something I'd like to suggest, and I'd like an answer from the mods/admins. Can you guys read PMs, and see what, let's say, I'm sending somebody. If so I'd like the failure clause to extend to that.

Hypothetical scenario below:

Alice: Yo check out this sweet voice I got. I got given it
Bob: Cool, I got a cracked version
Mod warns Bob for breaking the rules
Charlie: Hey PM me a link
Alice: *insert link to voice info*

Now at this point, if Bob was to send Charlie a link to the cracked voice, and the mods saw that by going through the PM system given Bob literally JUST in the example said he got a crack (think: probable cause), I'd vey much like in this example, Bob to get punished for distributingh illegal stuff via PM, as that's a massive loophole, assuming of course mods/admins can't see PMs. Personally, I accept that mods/admins are liable to go through my PM system, and hell even forum Emails if really needed honestly. I'm fine with it as long as it's written into the rules

Maybe I'm suspicious by nature, but it always seems a huge huge loophole when somebody is on about a voice then there's people suddenly sending PMs as a result of that topic. yes, they might very well be nnocent PMs, but in the context of those topics....it doesn't exactly look entirely innocnet. Now I'm saying that without seeing the PM contents, but I'd be willing to wager at least one user is getting around the rules by PMing cracks or links to sites that do so and not (visibly) getting punished. This needs to be closed off far as loopholes go.

If in doubt, chocolate and coffee. Enough said.

Thumbs up

2019-03-27 01:12:28

As far as I've seen, there's no way for mods to see private messages that others send, after all they wouldn't be private.
We are still trying to figure out the context of "illegal material". Put it this way, I don't see YouTube links being punished. I am also not sure what is going to happen in regards to audio described content.

Thumbs up

2019-03-27 06:18:16

This is also why you have seen me say on a couple of different occasions that if you're sent a link to something illegal, you should report it. Of course, if person 1 sends person 2 a link, and person 2 is totally okay with cracking or doing other illegal things, they're not going to report it.

But no. As far as I know, we cannot read your private messages.

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

Thumbs up

2019-03-27 16:12:20

I would say until there has been a unanimous push for described content across all streaming providers (ahem, Apple TV+). Spoiler alert, I actually almost forgot the name of the service, that's how unexcited I was about the Apple event. lol!
Anyway, with so many streaming services not providing description, or just now providing description (Hulu), yet taking control of nearly all of the world's digital movie distribution, there is often no way for people to get described content apart from so-called illegal means. However, I do believe the described content falls under exception especially considering it is just the movie description audio that is posted. If it was actually illegal I'm half-convinced Blind mice would've been slapped with a takedown notice, especially considering they are a business (they don't make money off described content, but they are no personal website either).
But I digress as this is for a different topic altogether, but it was mentioned here so had to put in something about in response.

I'm the only adventure at c: master hahahaha I have unlocked just about everything!

Thumbs up

2019-03-29 18:17:46

Over the past few days I've been thinking about the situation where Mahdi-Abedi posted someone else's Skype ID. That topic had been deleted before I ever knew it existed, which opened up a totally different can of worms.

In these rules (post 1 of this topic), there's a list of things which could lead to punitive action, but which are not numbered rules in and of themselves. One of these items is the sharing of personal information of someone else without the permission of the person to whom the information is personal/private. Examples given are the real life name, street address, and phone number, but imho it needs to go further than that.

Email addresses, for one. Once an Email address is published here, it can at least in theory be harvested by spammers and other unfriendlies. In the topic in question, a Skype ID was posted. This is all well and good if that ID is readily available to anyone who wants it I.E. in the owner's signature, on their website which is publicly viewable or well known, etc. But imho if you are the kind of person who only gives this kind of information to certain people, people you trust, etc. or you're the kind of person who likes to stay hidden so every average Jo can't find you, you should have the right to expect all other forum members to respect that, and not go blabbing it all over the place. Same goes for Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I make no secret of the fact that my Twitter username is @jaybird110127 and anyone is welcome to follow me, mention me, etc. I might also have reason to put my Email address somewhere, knowing the risks I was taking. What I'd probably do is come up with a disguise which is easily reversible by humans, but will leave automated harvesting bots scratching their virtual heads in confusion. But if someone else outright posted my Email address out of the blue, I wouldn't be happy about it.

Thumbs up

2019-03-29 18:30:31

For the record, I agree with you, and would come down very hard on any of this sort of info being leaked if it wasn't otherwise available. I thought that was implied. The list posted is not exhaustive, maybe it should be.

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

Thumbs up

2019-03-29 19:52:17

I guess what made me think about this is, in the topic where this all came out, people were making a big deal about the personal attack as the rule violation being possibly stricken from existence by deleting the topic. In my opinion, the posting of that private Skype ID should be a violation right then and there, never mind the personal attacks that came afterward.

Nobody can account for every possible violation in a set of rules. If you even tried, you'd have to say something like, "You shall not post any private or personal identifying information about anyone else such as real names, addresses, telephone numbers, Email addresses, Facebook IDs, Twitter usernames, Skype IDs, or any other type of identification for any network or service, of every kind or nature imaginable, online or offline, whether it exists at the time this rule is being written or not." You can do all that, and there'll still be somebody who either doesn't get it, or deliberately ignores it.

Thumbs up

2019-03-29 21:18:25

rules wrote:

Attempting to scam any forum user out of their personal details (passwords of any kind, address, personal social media details, etc.))

Seems pretty clear to me on the surface. Big picture is that someone apparently falsely accused of forking got their skype name revealed to the forum, so it is basically a dupe at the same time.

I'm the only adventure at c: master hahahaha I have unlocked just about everything!

Thumbs up

2019-03-29 22:50:34

Ah, righto. I did put that in there then.

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

Thumbs up