|
|
Post by zevante on Jul 3, 2020 0:29:55 GMT
Video has been suspended on the account of providing information only obtainable by administrators with the intent to obtain personal information, while also requesting and receiving information about another player through Polaris/Wilee.
Video acknowledges that what he did was wrong, and was very forthcoming and cooperative with us.Screenshot provided by Video
Furthermore, Wilee and Video have both been banned from every TotalFreedom related platform for the next two weeks, following rule 6 on Discord and 1c of the Conduct Policy. Forum is an exemption to let both parties speak freely for the time being.
Update: Both parties will be permanently banned on all platforms indefinitely and will retain the opportunity to appeal.
Discussions should be held on another thread.
Edit: Please do not derail discussions. Thread will remain open for a day.
|
|
zeseryu
Veteran Member
Admin Officer
ops rights activist
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by zeseryu on Jul 3, 2020 0:37:30 GMT
If wilee or video have anything to say, giving their side of the story or anything like that, now would be the time.
I will leave this thread open for a day, after that they will be forum banned for two weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 0:51:11 GMT
Let's read through 1c of the Conduct Policy: "Threats to DDOS (distributed denial-of-service attack) the Total Freedom server, forum, TF admins, OPs/members, or actual evidence of DDOS." Not a relevant provision. "Threats or evidence of DOX (publishing personal information of others without their permission) an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom." I did not publish personal information of an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom, so not a relevant provision. "Attempting to place malware on another user's computer or device (e.g. Remote Access Trojan)." Not a relevant provision. "Actual cases of DDOS, DOX, or malware placement can also be referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities." Being in possession of somebody's contact information is not against the law, unless everyone on Earth is a criminal. Not a relevant provision. "'Joke' threats to another member or the server is still a violation per Section 3h but unless admins are absolutely certain it's a joke, it will be treated as a perm banmable offense." Not a relevant provision. "Discussion of such activities is allowed only in terms of defending against such activities." This very thread would be the only "discussion of such activities" related to this on any TF platform, so not a relevant provision. "Threats to other servers (associated or not, Minecraft or not) or players/persons not connected to TF will be treated the same way." I have not made threats, so not a relevant provision. So based on a simple reading of the rule, we should be on the same page that I did not violate this rule. Now in addition to that, it's a Section 1 offense meaning that even if there was a rule violation, this has nothing to do with the forum/discord at all. There is a part of the conduct policy which states that it applies to "any place deemed official," but it is stated that it is only for actual staff, and even in addition to that it would've had to been on a TF platform, official or not, which is not the case. Therefore, in no way is this a violation of the conduct policy, and to extend it to all TF platforms also goes against the conduct policy itself. There is also this rule on the Discord (which is pretty irrelevant given that this has nothing to do with the TF Discord): "6. If I, or any of the discord staff, find that you have dox’d or ddos’d anyone in the community, you will be banned. Even if you discuss doing so, you’re out of luck when it comes to staying in this server. Oh, also you will be banned from everywhere else too  " The definition of DOX that we have been operating on is "publishing personal information of others without their permission," but no personal information has been published. I have also not discussed this whatsoever. However, if you were to apply this rule to me on an uncharitable interpretation, you'd also have to ban several other people from this community. And finally, there is no forum guideline stating that you may not discuss the contact information of an individual on a channel completely unrelated to this community. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:02:40 GMT
"Threats or evidence of DOX (publishing personal information of others without their permission) an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom." I did not publish personal information of an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom, so not a relevant provision. The dox was published to Video without the permission of the victim party. Semantics regarding the word publish is irrelevant, because the dox was given out to separate parties, which is what the conduct attempts to declare. |
|
|
|
Post by fxunctions on Jul 3, 2020 1:07:36 GMT
However, if you were to apply this rule to me on an uncharitable interpretation, you'd also have to ban several other people from this community. If you don't mind me asking, what other members of the community have been DOX'ing or DDoS'ing others? This needs to be revealed if you have any information, and the offenders need to be banned. If what you are saying is true and other people in this community are actually doing this, this should not be tolerated and someone needs to act immediately. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:08:15 GMT
"Threats or evidence of DOX (publishing personal information of others without their permission) an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom." I did not publish personal information of an OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom, so not a relevant provision. The dox was published to Video without the permission of the victim party. Semantics regarding the word publish is irrelevant, because the dox was given out to separate parties, which is what the conduct attempts to declare. I disagree that it is irrelevant, because there are multiple ways in which you can interpret publishing. Am I publishing information onto a website (a very typical form of doxing, content is important here)? Am I spreading it around on social media? No, and to interpret giving somebody's basic contact information to somebody on a completely private channel, apart from this community's channels entirely, as a rule violation is bizarre to me. Additionally, we aren't talking about an "OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom," which still makes it not a violation even under your interpretation. If we extend the rule to mean sharing anybody's contact or personal information with anybody, then I'm afraid many people would also have to be banned from here. Regardless, based on an objective view of the rules, this is not applicable. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:11:21 GMT
However, if you were to apply this rule to me on an uncharitable interpretation, you'd also have to ban several other people from this community. If you don't mind me asking, what other members of the community have been DOX'ing or DDoS'ing others? This needs to be revealed if you have any information, and the offenders need to be banned. If what you are saying is true and other people in this community are actually doing this, this should not be tolerated and someone needs to act immediately. I didn't suggest that people are actively "DOXing and DDoSing others," I'm just saying that based on how these rules are being uncharitably applied to me, we'd also have to purge other people for doing any similar activities in the past (which also would likely not qualify as rule violations) and I doubt we want to open up a door where we dredge that up based off of strange interpretations of these rules. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:12:35 GMT
The dox was published to Video without the permission of the victim party. Semantics regarding the word publish is irrelevant, because the dox was given out to separate parties, which is what the conduct attempts to declare. I disagree that it is irrelevant, because there are multiple ways in which you can interpret publishing. Am I publishing information onto a website (a very typical form of doxing, content is important here)? Am I spreading it around on social media? No, and to interpret giving somebody's basic contact information to somebody on a completely private channel, apart from this community's channels entirely, as a rule violation is bizarre to me. Additionally, we aren't talking about an "OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom," which still makes it not a violation even under your interpretation. If we extend the rule to mean sharing anybody's contact or personal information with anybody, then I'm afraid many people would also have to be banned from here. Regardless, based on an objective view of the rules, this is not applicable. Legally, publishing a dox would imply that you are communicating it to a third party. The word is platform agnostic.  |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:18:26 GMT
I disagree that it is irrelevant, because there are multiple ways in which you can interpret publishing. Am I publishing information onto a website (a very typical form of doxing, content is important here)? Am I spreading it around on social media? No, and to interpret giving somebody's basic contact information to somebody on a completely private channel, apart from this community's channels entirely, as a rule violation is bizarre to me. Additionally, we aren't talking about an "OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom," which still makes it not a violation even under your interpretation. If we extend the rule to mean sharing anybody's contact or personal information with anybody, then I'm afraid many people would also have to be banned from here. Regardless, based on an objective view of the rules, this is not applicable. Legally, publishing a dox would imply that you are communicating it to a third party. The word is platform agnostic. Where is this definition of dox coming from? I'm going off of what is stated in our conduct policy and not a dictionary because the former is what's actually important in discussing this, and based off of that I'm not seeing a charitable interpretation. But if we do want to use dictionaries, this is contradictory to what you are saying: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dox |
|
Darth
Veteran Member
Server Liaison
Posts: 2,534
| Likes: 1,826
|
Post by Darth on Jul 3, 2020 1:20:26 GMT
If you don't mind me asking, what other members of the community have been DOX'ing or DDoS'ing others? This needs to be revealed if you have any information, and the offenders need to be banned. If what you are saying is true and other people in this community are actually doing this, this should not be tolerated and someone needs to act immediately. I didn't suggest that people are actively "DOXing and DDoSing others," I'm just saying that based on how these rules are being uncharitably applied to me, we'd also have to purge other people for doing any similar activities in the past (which also would likely not qualify as rule violations) and I doubt we want to open up a door where we dredge that up based off of strange interpretations of these rules. Why the fuck should we be "charitable"? You tracked down someone, and gave their personal info to another person on the internet without their consent. Video intended to use this information to contact Nathan in an IRL capacity. I'm also going to assume you used some ethically questionable methods to obtain that information. So no. I'm not going to be "charitable" with you. You could have admitted what you did was wrong, but you didn't and instead tried to worm your way out of punishment by misinterpreting the conduct policy and claiming some sort of technical legality of your actions. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:20:32 GMT
Legally, publishing a dox would imply that you are communicating it to a third party. The word is platform agnostic. Where is this definition of dox coming from? I'm going off of what is stated in our conduct policy and not a dictionary because the former is what's actually important in discussing this, and based off of that I'm not seeing a charitable interpretation. But if we do want to use dictionaries, this is contradictory to what you are saying: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doxI wasn't discussing the word dox, I was discussing the word publish. You published (communicated to a third party) a dox (personal information of a user) to Video against the persons permission. |
|
super
Veteran Member
Among Us
Posts: 1,282
|
Post by super on Jul 3, 2020 1:24:26 GMT
if anyone knows anymore about this i'd like to see some context? it seems as if wilee literally just said this out of the blue.
|
|
fionn
Club 4000 Member
Admin Officer
elmon sucks
Posts: 6,157
| Likes: 4,775
|
Post by fionn on Jul 3, 2020 1:26:18 GMT
if anyone knows anymore about this i'd like to see some context? it seems as if wilee literally just said this out of the blue.  |
|
super
Veteran Member
Among Us
Posts: 1,282
|
Post by super on Jul 3, 2020 1:27:29 GMT
if anyone knows anymore about this i'd like to see some context? it seems as if wilee literally just said this out of the blue. <img snip -Cow> but why is caleb giving wilee his ip? |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:27:36 GMT
I didn't suggest that people are actively "DOXing and DDoSing others," I'm just saying that based on how these rules are being uncharitably applied to me, we'd also have to purge other people for doing any similar activities in the past (which also would likely not qualify as rule violations) and I doubt we want to open up a door where we dredge that up based off of strange interpretations of these rules. Why the fuck should we be "charitable"? You tracked down someone, and gave their personal info to another person on the internet without their consent. Video intended to use this information to contact Nathan in an IRL capacity. I'm also going to assume you used some ethically questionable methods to obtain that information. So no. I'm not going to be "charitable" with you. You could have admitted what you did was wrong, but you didn't and instead tried to worm your way out of punishment by misinterpreting the conduct policy and claiming some sort of technical legality of your actions. What a terrible question. Yes, why should we be charitable in enforcement of rules, we should be open to exploring the least charitable interpretations of rules and enforcing them in such way. I read off the rules for you; I'm afraid an objective reading of them simply does not match up to what you're talking about. I'm not admitting what I did is wrong because it isn't. Rules are rules, are we now going to ignore the actual provisions and just execute whatever we want? Where is this definition of dox coming from? I'm going off of what is stated in our conduct policy and not a dictionary because the former is what's actually important in discussing this, and based off of that I'm not seeing a charitable interpretation. But if we do want to use dictionaries, this is contradictory to what you are saying: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doxI wasn't discussing the word dox, I was discussing the word publish. You published (communicated to a third party) a dox (personal information of a user) to Video against the persons permission. If we're going to go off of the dictionary definition of the word publish then we also have to go off of the dictionary definition of the word dox. The definition of the word suggests that the information must have been publicly released, it was not. Additionally, this was not against an "OP, Admin, or Owner of Total Freedom." |
|
"
