2018 in a nutsack.

[odeon]

It's what he does.

Getting fairly sick of it, me.

Shut up tyrant

This has been your MO since forever. You caused more of this than Dunc or I ever did.

[odeon]

If you reveal information about yourself as "Calandale" and then someone posts "Calandale is Boris Gnuginski", then they have revealed more than just your name. They have also revealed online any unsavoury details about yourself that you have shared under the pseudonym "Calandale".

It is different from me going to facebook and saying "I had dinner with Boris Gnuginski last night".

It's pedantry. Arguing pointlessly over semantics.

As I stated, if there are effects, it ain't pointless, it ain't pedantry, and something should be changed
so that the staff stops confusing people with the misuse.

And there ARE effects. The simple fact that there are people in this thread who know it's
not the standard definition of doxing means that others will likely also be confused who aren't
already engaged in this conversation.

The simple fact that you can never ever shut up is the actual problem here.

[Pyraxis]

Doxing is revealing personal information. Stop being such a pedant.

It's not pedantry, if people commit the act because the word is being used in a manner
which is non-standard. That makes the problem more likely to occur, whether or not someone
is held accountable for it.

Ok that makes sense. I agree with MOSW's definition but clearly not everyone shares it.

How specific do you think it needs to be? Is "revealing people's personal information" enough?

On specificity in general, though - there comes a point where it's nonfunctional. As in, what you see with legalese, where it takes a degree in law just to understand what some laws are requiring of you, and where for example most members of congress don't read through new proposed laws in full before voting yay or nay, because there's thousands of pages of specificity and nobody has the time.

[Pyraxis]

My name is posted publicly online on my facebook account.

That doesn't mean it's okay for people to reveal my name on I^2.

“Not ok” doesn’t equate to d0xxing. If I posted someone phone number and social security number, I’d be in a lot of hot water.

How do you define doxxing? Why does a phone number qualify but a full name doesn't? Both can get you in different kinds of trouble, the first with stalkers and the second with employers (for example).

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

It comes down to whether you think a name is information or not.

Guess what. It is information.

[Pyraxis]

My own experience has shown that abusing power with a reasonable explanation is better than being
hidebound about standing up for principles - at least for the health of the community.

This is an interesting point. Any thoughts as to why?

The great corruption - that for most, the ends justify the means.

That's circular logic though. Abusing power to a degree leads to a healthier community than hidebound defense of principles, therefore if one wants a healthy community, one should abuse power to a degree. Aside from the vague label of great corruption, that doesn't answer anything about human nature, sociology, psychology, or any other factors that lead to that result.

Where does the 'within reason' apply?

Because, from what I see, it's: Free Speech (within reason) zone - unless it hurts the webmonkey's feewings.

The degree to which the webmonkey can mess around with things due to hurt feelings before getting backlash from those outside the conflict.

[Al Swearegen]

My own experience has shown that abusing power with a reasonable explanation is better than being
hidebound about standing up for principles - at least for the health of the community.

This is an interesting point. Any thoughts as to why?

The great corruption - that for most, the ends justify the means.

That's circular logic though. Abusing power to a degree leads to a healthier community than hidebound defense of principles, therefore if one wants a healthy community, one should abuse power to a degree. Aside from the vague label of great corruption, that doesn't answer anything about human nature, sociology, psychology, or any other factors that lead to that result.

Where does the 'within reason' apply?

Because, from what I see, it's: Free Speech (within reason) zone - unless it hurts the webmonkey's feewings.

The degree to which the webmonkey can mess around with things due to hurt feelings before getting backlash from those outside the conflict.

Which changes things?

[Calandale]

It's what he does.

Getting fairly sick of it, me.

Shut up tyrant

This has been your MO since forever. You caused more of this than Dunc or I ever did.

OF course I 'caused more' of 'this'.

THIS is calling your fucking abuses of power out. Though Dunc (I think) was aware
that what he was doing was wrong. Probably why he couldn't stick around.

[Calandale]

If you reveal information about yourself as "Calandale" and then someone posts "Calandale is Boris Gnuginski", then they have revealed more than just your name. They have also revealed online any unsavoury details about yourself that you have shared under the pseudonym "Calandale".

It is different from me going to facebook and saying "I had dinner with Boris Gnuginski last night".

It's pedantry. Arguing pointlessly over semantics.

As I stated, if there are effects, it ain't pointless, it ain't pedantry, and something should be changed
so that the staff stops confusing people with the misuse.

And there ARE effects. The simple fact that there are people in this thread who know it's
not the standard definition of doxing means that others will likely also be confused who aren't
already engaged in this conversation.

The simple fact that you can never ever shut up is the actual problem here.

No. The problem is that you can't answer the charges, but are too
afraid of just accepting them.

[Calandale]

Doxing is revealing personal information. Stop being such a pedant.

It's not pedantry, if people commit the act because the word is being used in a manner
which is non-standard. That makes the problem more likely to occur, whether or not someone
is held accountable for it.

Ok that makes sense. I agree with MOSW's definition but clearly not everyone shares it.

How specific do you think it needs to be? Is "revealing people's personal information" enough?

On specificity in general, though - there comes a point where it's nonfunctional. As in, what you see with legalese, where it takes a degree in law just to understand what some laws are requiring of you, and where for example most members of congress don't read through new proposed laws in full before voting yay or nay, because there's thousands of pages of specificity and nobody has the time.

So, the standard definition is enough information that they can be identified. First and Last name
is seldom sufficient to do so. I could present definitions of PII (the core issue in doxing) if that is
of any value.

I think, to fit what is done here, it sounds like "revealing any personal information about a person
that is not already present in their profile or posts?"

Though that may be too broad - it's safer to be broad than not. You don't HAVE to ban someone
for mentioning that they have kids, some illness, or whatever, that is not already contained in
the site.

Or, maybe it's not broad enough. Because, if they post something, then delete it, they could charge
some sort of retroactive posting? So ANY personal information at all? We couldn't converse then.


Anyhow, the big point is once you stray from PII, 'personal information' gets very broad.

[Calandale]

It comes down to whether you think a name is information or not.

Guess what. It is information.

So is whether you ate soup.

What it's NOT is personally identifying information. Which is what Doxing about.
A name is generally not considered such. Full street address is.Telephone number is.

Here's the NIST definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information#NIST_definition

[Calandale]

My own experience has shown that abusing power with a reasonable explanation is better than being
hidebound about standing up for principles - at least for the health of the community.

This is an interesting point. Any thoughts as to why?

The great corruption - that for most, the ends justify the means.

That's circular logic though. Abusing power to a degree leads to a healthier community than hidebound defense of principles, therefore if one wants a healthy community, one should abuse power to a degree. Aside from the vague label of great corruption, that doesn't answer anything about human nature, sociology, psychology, or any other factors that lead to that result.

No. It's just not spelling out every step in the thinking.

Situations come up which the adherence to principle will result in negative effects for
the majority of people, When that happens, they will likely prefer someone who does
not adhere to some Kantian rules-based system, but that is indeed 'the great corruption.'
It is a corruption because the habit of sliding on imperatives, even when they seem to
harm no one, undermines their very bedrock status.

The degree to which the webmonkey can mess around with things due to hurt feelings before getting backlash from those outside the conflict.

So, just what are the limits to that? Other than the tolerance of people to stick around for abuse -
especially of others.

[Pyraxis]

So, the standard definition is enough information that they can be identified. First and Last name
is seldom sufficient to do so. I could present definitions of PII (the core issue in doxing) if that is
of any value.

I think, to fit what is done here, it sounds like "revealing any personal information about a person
that is not already present in their profile or posts?"

Though that may be too broad - it's safer to be broad than not. You don't HAVE to ban someone
for mentioning that they have kids, some illness, or whatever, that is not already contained in
the site.

Or, maybe it's not broad enough. Because, if they post something, then delete it, they could charge
some sort of retroactive posting? So ANY personal information at all? We couldn't converse then.


Anyhow, the big point is once you stray from PII, 'personal information' gets very broad.

Maybe first and last is safe for John Smith, but I think "seldom" is an incorrect estimation of the percent of people who have unique names. Mine is unique enough that when googled, the first page of results are all about me. Out of curiosity, I googled five IRL friends and acquaintances that I know well enough to identify whether their results are for them, and this is what I got.

A - 10/10 relevant
B - 6/10 relevant
C - 0/10 relevant
D - 10/10 relevant
E - 10/10 relevant

So in this case I think the USA legal definition of PII hasn't caught up to the practicalities of information spread on the internet.

"revealing any personal information about a person that is not already present in their profile or posts" is fairly accurate to the way I operate, but I also don't tempt myself and others by connecting on Facebook or other social media with people from communities where I want to remain anonymous. And I know there are a significant number of members here who do connect on Facebook and haven't had any issues with it.

I wouldn't advocate banning anyone for breaking that unspoken contract. However it can be an issue in the Elders forum where people will post things there that they expect to be kept off the rest of the board, and not everyone understands or follows that. So it could be grounds for considering de-eldering someone.

[Pyraxis]

So, just what are the limits to that? Other than the tolerance of people to stick around for abuse -
especially of others.

Uh, that's pretty much it. The tolerance of people to stick around.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

It comes down to whether you think a name is information or not.

Guess what. It is information.

So is whether you ate soup.

What it's NOT is personally identifying information. Which is what Doxing about.
A name is generally not considered such. Full street address is.Telephone number is.

Here's the NIST definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information#NIST_definition

Now I know that you are taking the piss. There are actually people on this forum who are stupid enough to make that sort of argument. You are not one of them.

Please don't feel clever that you have drawn me into what you already know is a pointless discussion. I like explaining obvious shit, even to someone who is taking the piss.

So have you ever opened a bank account? Guess what the first piece of personally identifying information you need to give them is? Is it "did you have soup last night" or is it "First name/middle name/surname"?

It might be useful to work backwards from what information is designed for. Unlike fucking soup, names are designed to personally identify you. Now that we live in larger communities, though, we often need more than just a name to identify someone. But have you ever tried to track someone down just knowing their name and what city or town they live in? I have. It's not that fucking hard to do as long as their name isn't something like "John Smith".

Even the word "anonymous" means "without name". Or something like that. I can't be arsed looking it up.