97
Veteran Member
RIP Telnet
Posts: 889
| Likes: 679
|
Post by 97 on Jul 3, 2020 1:28:00 GMT
but why is caleb giving wilee his ip? It was a trackdown of you-know-who. But was executed terribly. |
|
fionn
Club 4000 Member
Admin Officer
elmon sucks
Posts: 6,157
| Likes: 4,775
|
Post by fionn on Jul 3, 2020 1:29:46 GMT
but why is caleb giving wilee his ip? To obtain information regarding Nathaniel in order to get him "help" |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:32:05 GMT
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." The dictionary states to publish private information about someone. It states it is usually with malicious intent, but that's not the rule. As the word publish determines communications between parties, then your actions fall under this sites definition of dox. Also the person doxed was a player of the server. All non admin players on this server are ops, regardless of their state of ban. Don't be disingenuous wilee.  |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:34:08 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. From my perspective, Video contacted me outside of this community's channels seeking assistance. I provided with him what he requested (I did not personally obtain the information, and I believe I told that to Video as well) and nothing more and no, I do not think that has anything to do with this community as it was entirely outside of this community's channels and also does not violate any rules here. I also do not regret doing so at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:38:51 GMT
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." The dictionary states to publish private information about someone. It states it is usually with malicious intent, but that's not the rule. As the word publish determines communications between parties, then your actions fall under this sites definition of dox. Also the person doxed was a player of the server. All non admin players on this server are ops, regardless of their state of ban. Don't be disingenuous wilee. That was weird mental gymnastics. The definition of the word happens to include the word publicly but you skimmed past that, and you can find plenty of definitions which agree that it is based on doing so publicly, that's kind of the entire point of the term. To give you a real life example, Trump released Lindsey Graham's number publicly. It was agreed upon that it was doxing as he was publicly identifying and publishing that information. If Trump had told some campaign staffer or some random person Lindsey Graham's number, nobody would have considered that doxing especially under the actual definition of the word. At the time of this, they were permanently banned with accounts deleted just as they still are. I don't think that can be considered somebody who is still part of this community and an "operator," and to assert so is actually really strange to me. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:41:24 GMT
The dictionary states to publish private information about someone. It states it is usually with malicious intent, but that's not the rule. As the word publish determines communications between parties, then your actions fall under this sites definition of dox. Also the person doxed was a player of the server. All non admin players on this server are ops, regardless of their state of ban. Don't be disingenuous wilee. That was weird mental gymnastics. The definition of the word happens to include the word publicly but you skimmed past that, and you can find plenty of definitions which agree that it is based on doing so publicly, that's kind of the entire point of the term. To give you a real life example, Trump released Lindsey Graham's number publicly. It was agreed upon that it was doxing as he was publicly identifying and publishing that information. If Trump had told some campaign staffer or some random person Lindsey Graham's number, nobody would have considered that doxing especially under the actual definition of the word. At the time of this, they were permanently banned with accounts deleted just as they still are. I don't think that can be considered somebody who is still part of this community and an "operator," and to assert so is actually really strange to me. Wilee, this is not mental gymnastics. Did you miss the word OR in the definition? The word OR declares that while it may be to publicly identify, it is not always so. I ignored it because your case does not fall upon the first part of the definition, but it falls upon the second. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:45:10 GMT
That was weird mental gymnastics. The definition of the word happens to include the word publicly but you skimmed past that, and you can find plenty of definitions which agree that it is based on doing so publicly, that's kind of the entire point of the term. To give you a real life example, Trump released Lindsey Graham's number publicly. It was agreed upon that it was doxing as he was publicly identifying and publishing that information. If Trump had told some campaign staffer or some random person Lindsey Graham's number, nobody would have considered that doxing especially under the actual definition of the word. At the time of this, they were permanently banned with accounts deleted just as they still are. I don't think that can be considered somebody who is still part of this community and an "operator," and to assert so is actually really strange to me. Wilee, this is not mental gymnastics. Did you miss the word OR in the definition? The word OR declares that while it may be to publicly identify, it is not always so. I ignored it because your case does not fall upon the first part of the definition, but it falls upon the second. I don't think you know what you're talking about. See the etymology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing#EtymologyDoxing is about publicizing that information, publishing being a word used interchangeably. As you can see, it originates from people in the 90s dropping information about people, publicly exposing them. To assert that me giving somebody in a private one-on-one channel some contact information is doxing, you are being semantically incorrect and objectively so. |
|
|
|
Post by zekurt on Jul 3, 2020 1:47:42 GMT
Wilee, this is not mental gymnastics. Did you miss the word OR in the definition? The word OR declares that while it may be to publicly identify, it is not always so. I ignored it because your case does not fall upon the first part of the definition, but it falls upon the second. I don't think you know what you're talking about. See the etymology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing#EtymologyDoxing is about publicizing that information, publishing being a word used interchangeably. As you can see, it originates from people in the 90s dropping information about people, publicly exposing them. To assert that me giving somebody in a private one-on-one channel some contact information is doxing, you are being semantically incorrect and objectively so. You gave me a definition, and when I proved that it disagrees with your own point, you go and find more definitions? You're grasping at straws. Enjoy your ban. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:47:49 GMT
Just an FYI for anyone following the thread www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261AThe one law that can make "Doxing" illegal. Imagine being a kid and some random stranger on the internet from a minecraft server found out where you lived. Would you not be under fear or emotional distress? Doxing is not cash money lol. I don't see how this is relevant? I have literally never talked to the person in question (though I think I poked fun at them on a thread once), and me giving that information to somebody else and doing nothing more has little to do with the law that you linked. |
|
|
|
Post by MrDicty/DrJenal on Jul 3, 2020 1:48:02 GMT
I hope you do realise that all messages that are sent on Discord are effectively pieces of data uploaded to Discord's servers and so anyone who has the ability to view Discord's databases will now have the possiblility of viewing it and so as far as definitions go you could potentially have published it to them. And lets not mention you published it to Video who is a third party as Zekurt said and therefore qualifies as "publishing". Keep in mind that I am not necessarily accusing you of "Doxing" as "Publishing" and "Doxing" are not the same and have different meanings.
The way I see it is that you are clearly trying to dig out loopholes in the conduct policy like "Owner, OP, or Admin of Total Freedom" or "The data wasn't published" for example so that you can evade your punishment for your wrongs rather than being truthful which is what any reasonable person would have done in your circumstances, you know or at least should know full well that it is highly inappropriate to start passing around confidential information without the persons permission and yet you are trying to blag yourself as innocent by being soley dependant on policies and digging out loopholes rather than having actual morals. And rule 1n may cover up you're loopholes if 1c didn't already due to the "criminal offences" that are involved that Zevante mentioned above. I would have been more than happy to forgive you had you not have tried to evade the fact that you were in the wrong by disclosing personal information to others without their permission.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 1:49:48 GMT
I don't think you know what you're talking about. See the etymology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing#EtymologyDoxing is about publicizing that information, publishing being a word used interchangeably. As you can see, it originates from people in the 90s dropping information about people, publicly exposing them. To assert that me giving somebody in a private one-on-one channel some contact information is doxing, you are being semantically incorrect and objectively so. You gave me a definition, and when I proved that it disagrees with your own point, you go and find more definitions? You're grasping at straws. Enjoy your ban. I didn't link you a definition just now, I linked you an etymology which actually explains the meaning of the word and how it came into existence. The original definition that I gave you still falls under what I'm saying with that etymology as evidence, your argument is changing the meaning of the word and denying its actual etymology based on an invalid semantics interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 2:02:04 GMT
I hope you do realise that all messages that are sent on Discord are effectively pieces of data uploaded to Discord's servers and so anyone who has the ability to view Discord's databases will now have the possiblility of viewing it and so as far as definitions go you could potentially have published it to them. And lets not mention you published it to Video who is a third party as Zekurt said and therefore qualifies as "publishing". Keep in mind that I am not necessarily accusing you of "Doxing" as "Publishing" and "Doxing" are not the same and have different meanings. The way I see it is that you are clearly trying to dig out loopholes in the conduct policy like "Owner, OP, or Admin of Total Freedom" or "The data wasn't published" for example so that you can evade your punishment for your wrongs rather than being truthful which is what any reasonable person would have done in your circumstances, you know or at least should know full well that it is highly inappropriate to start passing around confidential information without the persons permission and yet you are trying to blag yourself as innocent by being soley dependant on policies and digging out loopholes rather than having actual morals. And rule 1n may cover up you're loopholes if 1c didn't already due to the "criminal offences" that are involved that Zevante mentioned above. I would have been more than happy to forgive you had you not have tried to evade the fact that you were in the wrong by disclosing personal information to others without their permission. The rule is about doxing. If you can't come to the conclusion that I doxed somebody then how could I have violated that rule even regardless of its other stipulations? You're simultaneously saying that it's a "loophole" (it isn't) but also that publishing is not the same thing as doxing and therefore cannot accuse me of doxing, which makes little sense. Nobody here is a lawyer, and so nobody has the qualifications to connect contact information being posted to one other person and nothing more as a "major violation of law" (though it really isn't). What does it matter if I do something that you think is highly inappropriate on a channel completely apart from TF if it doesn't even violate our rules? The entire point of us having specific rules is so that we don't go after people for whatever they do away from this community, and like I said opening that door is not a wise decision because I'm afraid that I'm easily capable of bringing up other people part of this community that could be accused of doing the exact same crap that is being dredged up. Are we going to ban all of the people that have name dropped Savnith (whoops, that's doxing as it's in public and on an actual TF platform!) on the Discord (there are 4 pages of people doing this)? I can bring up specific people but I don't want to because I don't believe in dredging this type of stuff up. I'm not looking to be forgiven, I just think that we should be objective with how we enforce our rules. |
|
Video
Forum Admin 
An op's rights activist
Posts: 5,585
| Likes: 5,894
IGN: VideoGameSmash12, videogamesm12
Old IGN: https://namemc.com/profile/VideoGameSmash12.2, https://namemc.com/profile/videogamesm12.1
Discord: Video#9801
Birthdate (MM/DD): 07/16
Timezone: UTC-07:00
Member is Staff. Need immediate assistance? Send a PM
|
Post by Video on Jul 3, 2020 2:05:06 GMT
The one thing I have campaigned for to happen for months is to have everyone held accountable (including administrators), and it looks like it's my turn.
I take responsibility for my actions and accept my suspension, which I believe is legitimate. I did indeed obtain Nathaniel's personal information through illegitimate means. My intentions were to use the information I obtained only to contact his parents or authorities in his area to get him the help I thought he needed. They were never malicious. However, what I did was wrong regardless of intention. I have nobody to blame but myself.
To every member of the community (especially Nathaniel): I'm sorry. I failed you. I should have never gotten involved in any of that, and yet I did. I hope you can forgive me.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrDicty/DrJenal on Jul 3, 2020 2:17:26 GMT
I hope you do realise that all messages that are sent on Discord are effectively pieces of data uploaded to Discord's servers and so anyone who has the ability to view Discord's databases will now have the possiblility of viewing it and so as far as definitions go you could potentially have published it to them. And lets not mention you published it to Video who is a third party as Zekurt said and therefore qualifies as "publishing". Keep in mind that I am not necessarily accusing you of "Doxing" as "Publishing" and "Doxing" are not the same and have different meanings. The way I see it is that you are clearly trying to dig out loopholes in the conduct policy like "Owner, OP, or Admin of Total Freedom" or "The data wasn't published" for example so that you can evade your punishment for your wrongs rather than being truthful which is what any reasonable person would have done in your circumstances, you know or at least should know full well that it is highly inappropriate to start passing around confidential information without the persons permission and yet you are trying to blag yourself as innocent by being soley dependant on policies and digging out loopholes rather than having actual morals. And rule 1n may cover up you're loopholes if 1c didn't already due to the "criminal offences" that are involved that Zevante mentioned above. I would have been more than happy to forgive you had you not have tried to evade the fact that you were in the wrong by disclosing personal information to others without their permission. The rule is about doxing. If you can't come to the conclusion that I doxed somebody then how could I have violated that rule even regardless of its other stipulations? You're simultaneously saying that it's a "loophole" (it isn't) but also that publishing is not the same thing as doxing and therefore cannot accuse me of doxing, which makes little sense. Nobody here is a lawyer, and so nobody has the qualifications to connect contact information being posted to one other person and nothing more as a "major violation of law" (though it really isn't). What does it matter if I do something that you think is highly inappropriate on a channel completely apart from TF if it doesn't even violate our rules? The entire point of us having specific rules is so that we don't go after people for whatever they do away from this community, and like I said opening that door is not a wise decision because I'm afraid that I'm easily capable of bringing up other people part of this community that could be accused of doing the exact same crap that is being dredged up. Are we going to ban all of the people that have name dropped Savnith (whoops, that's doxing as it's in public and on an actual TF platform!) on the Discord (there are 4 pages of people doing this)? I can bring up specific people but I don't want to because I don't believe in dredging this type of stuff up. I'm not looking to be forgiven, I just think that we should be objective with how we enforce our rules. My point wasn't about how well the rules are enforced. If it were small little things like for example, griefing other servers or ingame related things I'd agree with you. But when it get's to the extent of causing online distress to users, regardless of whether they are a member of the community, who they are or anything of that matter. Why should we have welcome users who cause cyber attacks against other users in general, forget about within the community. Even if "publishing" is not a criminal offences, I still believe that it should constitute as a form of harassment as you would have to be totally oblivious as to whether the user felt harm or upset as you have failed to optain their permission to pass it on to third parties, in this case Video. And if you read the policy closely it said "Threats or evidence of DOX (publishing personal information of others without their permission)". Even if that doesn't confirm the wrongs, it still could constitute as harassment if the user feels distress over their personal information being passed on which could become a 1n offence. I don't want to look like a lawyer here as you said, because I am not one. If you think that policies should in anyway come before moral standards then I deem that as downright ignorant. Video even fessed up, saying that he was in the wrong and here you are telling me about how "you didn't punish" or "it was outside the community", the fact is that we shouldn't be welcoming those who conduct cyber attacks on other users, especially when they are failing to understand why it is wrong and that a senior admin from this community is heavily involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Polaris Seltzeris on Jul 3, 2020 2:18:12 GMT
The interpretation is that I have doxed a member of this community. A Google search of the etymology and definition of the word dox shows how it is in reference to actual publication of information. Yet no information was publicized. The individual was also not a member of this community and has been banned and had their forum account deleted. I think even viewing it from a common sense perspective shows how it isn't a violation of the rules. Again Wilee, the definition of the word publish disagrees with your interpretation. The basis of you giving information to video was in regards to events that happened on this server, and they are a player of the server even if they have been banned for a few days. You're going in circles and calling it an interpretation when I have literally cited the etymology of the word itself. Any interpretation of doxing which is not in relation to publication is semantically incorrect. How do I know this? Because of the actual meaning of the word and how it exists, it's not hard to look up. They aren't a player of the server if they are permanently banned and had their forum account deleted, again mental gymnastics to come to very strange conclusions. I would've helped Video regardless of who he was asking about, though I do admit that the particular case was certainly compelling. |
|
- OPAS by 
- Not Yet
- Not Yet
