Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Ah, righto. I did put that in there then. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423554/#p423554 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423537/#p423537 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-29
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423527/#p423527 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423508/#p423508 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-29
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/423504/#p423504 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422879/#p422879 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422794/#p422794 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422758/#p422758 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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 argumentbecause 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 itBob: Cool, I got a cracked versionMod warns Bob for breaking the rulesCharlie: Hey PM me a linkAlice: *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 rulesMaybe 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 topicsit 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422744/#p422744 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-26
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback The official rules now in effect, if I'm not terribly mistaken, are to be found in post 1, which is edited as needed. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422697/#p422697 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback It's been edited as recently as this morning, but it's been edited silently. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422687/#p422687 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-26
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Slender via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Which post has the most up to date rules? The first post doesn't seem to have been edited for a while. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422671/#p422671 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/422651/#p422651 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/419146/#p419146 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/418234/#p418234 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-12
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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 = Trueelse: ForumMember.ironcross32.behavior_moderation = False ForumMember.ironcross32.ReplyWithSmartAssComment(random_number) URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/418215/#p418215 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. Disclaimer: the above scenario was meant for demonstrative purposes only on how the forum-wide deletion of an accounts post
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. Disclaimer: the above scenario was meant for demonstrative purpose of only on how the forum-wide deletion of an accounts posts
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/417174/#p417174 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/417174/#p417174 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/417075/#p417075 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-08
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/417071/#p417071 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/417070/#p417070 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416979/#p416979 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : ironcross32 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416960/#p416960 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416934/#p416934 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @mahdi, it is spammy and unnessisary wen you can just ask in a new topic URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416908/#p416908 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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 beHope I did the code for that right. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416906/#p416906 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : mahdi-abedi via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback hi6. 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? URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416894/#p416894 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416884/#p416884 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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 l
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : TheGreatCarver via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416865/#p416865 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : TheGreatCarver via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback The forum stores a user's data, therefore it collects the user's data. 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416865/#p416865 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : cartertemm via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416856/#p416856 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416852/#p416852 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-03-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : TheGreatCarver via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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/ URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416845/#p416845 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/416841/#p416841 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2019-02-03
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : cartertemm via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback 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. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/409370/#p409370 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Rules have been updated as of the making of this post. There isn't a lot changed, but in particular I added a guideline about thread necromancy because it was not covered specifically. URL: https://forum.audiogames.net/post/409243/#p409243 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-12-10
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : defender via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I think you might want to consider basing our piracy rules around the discussion on this topic.http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394552/#p394552Either way they need some kind of clarification what ever you take from it, because this just keeps coming up and will continue to.Just make sure you keep in mind the limitations of a small volunteer staff. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/397875/#p397875 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @147 I know, right? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/396790/#p396790 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-12-03
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : redfox via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback as I've said multiple times, tmstuff000 is just being an entitled little kid, and I just say ignore him until he does something stupid, again, and gets banned. Let's just ignore him and let him learn that the world doesn't revolve around him.O and you never explained why bills are blackmail roflmao! URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/396600/#p396600 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback In the system I'm talking about, a lot of production won't have to be set up the way it is now, as 3d printing will mean that much production will be able to be done by individuals. Property is iffy, but I'm definitely a big fan of things like tool libraries, which are already a thing in some places. (i.e., you pay a nominal fee, and you can rent a tool for a specific time rather than buying your own; just for example, you might have to pay thirty bucks a year, and that's unlimited rentals.) Somebody would obviously have to govern social programs, mind you.And as far as word about the rules? I haven't heard much from the list lately. It's been pretty quiet. I've also been fairly busy, honestly. End of the semester, and all that. But I'm trying to keep abreast of what's going on. If I hear anything, you guys will know, I promise. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395749/#p395749 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-28
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Jaseoffire via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback And besides, rolling out a system that major would be a disaster if done too quickly. Oh, one clarification I should ask. Are you advising a more social system (major social safety nets and programs of that sort, while property and production are mostly untouched), or socialism in which the control of production is controlled by the government? Also, as a more on-topic question, how is the rules writing thing going? Any word from the web masters? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395746/#p395746 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Ah. Yeah, that's definitely true. And even if you do strive for a more socialist society, I doubt it'll happen in our lifetimes. Change, especially with societies as large as Americas, never goes that fast. No, if it ever starts, it'll slowly -- very, very slowly -- trickle through about 3-5 generations before catching on. Or perhaps it never will. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395709/#p395709 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @141, you raise very valid arguments. I don't really see your point of posting that though, since I can't really see how it validates, or invalidates, any arguments I, Mads, or tmstuff000 gave. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395653/#p395653 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @138Inflation. If money becomes an unlimited resource, it will lose all it’s value. Try this:If we say you can get 1000 dollars for the original charizard pokemon card, because it is so rare. If everyone had an original charizard pokemon card, you wouldn’t even get a dollar for that thing.The same will happen with money too and it has happened before with devistating consiquences, so no, they can’t “just” make more money. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395498/#p395498 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-27
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback We are getting way of topic. I've already said the reason why cracks should be allowed.Ok, maybe I went to far by saying selling software should be illegal... I was angry.But to answer your other question, the government claimes it controls everything and can there for do everything. So why taking money from people when they can just grab a printer and make more of those paper things?Best regardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395477/#p395477 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @136, please state, for all of us curious on your reasoning, a logical, knowledgeable, and intelligent reason why:* cracking should not be a ban-able offense under the forum rules;* selling software should be illegal; and* bills are blackmail?I'll remind you that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, one of the sections it adds to title 17 of the United States Code, in particular section 1201, says:(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.(3) As used in this subsection—(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.(b) Additional Violations.—(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.(2) As used in this subsection—(A) to "circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure" means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and(B) a technological measure "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.In other words: You can't "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" a program or feature (and so on) that is designed to circumvent systems like activation systems, encryption systems, and so on, without the authors consent first, if the feature was not written by the author (or a contributor to the program) and the author strictly approved the integration of that feature. For example, you can't write a program that decrypts game save files, unless the author either gave you permission to provide that tool, or the author included the tool along with the original program.There are exceptions, set forth below, and in section 1201 (a)(1)(B):(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-26
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback No, I'm not. But we are way of topic so let's stop this. However, since you mentioned bills, I think bills are blackmail.RegardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395223/#p395223 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-25
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : defender via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Your a child until your paying your own bills and looking for a job in my book. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/395068/#p395068 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-24
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @132, Actually, I'm a teen, not a child. And how do you know that?RegardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394898/#p394898 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-23
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Jaseoffire via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @128 I can understand that. I do believe the rule right now does state something about this being for legal as well as the philosophical purposes stated, but I wouldn't mind a bit more detail written down on the legal stuff if someone knows enough to be able to write it out. Illegal is illegal, after all. As for the philosophical point, while it is helpful, I don't think it needs to stand as the only reason in this circumstance. Not while a legal argument can be made for the rule. After all, some philosophies tend to find IP laws distasteful. Communism comes to mind if I am remembering correctly. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394796/#p394796 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-23
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : robomastr42 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @jayde, just don’t waste your breath. Children will always be children, as seen in last post. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394787/#p394787 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-23
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback The only one cracks hurt are the developers. I think personally, it should be illegal to sell software, rather than illegal to crack it, if you get banned from as awesome sites as this forum, just for sharing them with the public.Best regardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394764/#p394764 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-23
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : nidza07 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Remember, it's not just a legal issue. Audiogame developers are a part of this forum. Now, would a developer like cracks of his games publicly going around? Certainly not. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394702/#p394702 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-23
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @127, I agree with you that iit is important that the forum survives on and isn't taken down. However, why isn't that reason in the rules?You should then state something like it isn't only your fault that cracks aren't allowed or something.And you take the rule seriously? Yes, because else someone could find a lawyer and shut the forum down. That is a good reason.However, just saying it without any reason makes people think it's just your opinion on cracks which led this rule forward.Remember, this isn't a personal attack, just an opinion.Best regardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394688/#p394688 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-22
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Yep, the problem with Draconis is fixed. Dad bought Silver Dollar for me.However, stealing software is very different from stealing physical things. The owner still has it, and it isn't possible to damage it. And people like me are not making money out of it.This is my opinion.I didn't quite understand rule 8. What kind of punishment is this "clause" thing about?Best regardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394559/#p394559 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Unfortunately, cracking is stealing. Whether it's 30 dollars for an audiogame or a thousand dollars for a popular screen reader, it's still robbing the developer of a legally purchased copy. Wouldn't it be better to ask if someone can buy something for you, or wait for a response from the developer, I know that Dark has contacted Draconis and they are looking into the issue with keys not generating at the moment. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394554/#p394554 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-22
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : tmstuff000 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I probably don't need to say this, but I really don't agree with rule 3, the one about cracks.Many people like to crack and you should at least be allowed to post cracks in the off topic room.I've received 2 warnings because of this rule which I don't like.And I follow the other rules almost always.Best regardsT-m URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394520/#p394520 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You know what? You're absolutely right. That deserves to be a guideline. The sort of thing you may be advised of, but won't be punished for unless you're a long-time repeat offender with absolutely no regard for the other members of the forum. Lemme go do that. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394353/#p394353 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-20
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Jaseoffire via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I think I would agree with Aaron about making that a guideline, though, I wonder, would it be practical or even possible to introduce spoiler tag functionality so that spoiler/very windy information can be collapsed? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394285/#p394285 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I'd consider that more of a guideline than a rule though, although it's an interesting and quite important one. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/394176/#p394176 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-18
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I know this is a relatively old/inactive topic, but one thing I was surprised not to see is something about not posting game puzzle/plot/story spoilers without extremely clear warning that spoilers follow. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/393905/#p393905 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-10
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : UltraLeetJ via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback well, I have read the updated set of rules and while probably they are not perfect, I have noted a balance, and that is good. I like the examples instead of the analogies, but if someone speaks English as a second language (I was lucky to know indictment because I am a language bookworm) they would probably have no idea what that would mean, so A post with simpler rules or more examples would be better. I also have yet to see something which could have a bit of containment when mods or ex mods try to stab at each other in public, (there are some examples of that in here, of course) so its est if some impartiality is maintained in some way. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392568/#p392568 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback That'd be Firefox cutting off my post. I was going to quote the requirements to be certified for safe harbor...butthey're on that link. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392503/#p392503 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-10
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Jaseoffire via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You know, this is the second time I've seen this happen. Did JaceK cut off the post, or did the forum do that...Again... URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392500/#p392500 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback For the legality of audio only movie tracks. They are still created and copyrighted by a rights holder. At least, acording to one attorney's interpretation of copyright law.Link with citations and sources: http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/DMCA_Safe_HarborsNow. Whether the forum is a service provider is a big point. Next up would be, assuming it is one, meeting the requirements. Reading on those, the forum does not, in my mind, qualify for safe harbor. THe hosting company, however...does. WHich leads to another point. THe hosting company can lose the safe harbor if one of its customers iss caught out with copyright infringement.The second safe harbor category limits ISP liability when its engages in “caching” of online content for purposes of improving network performance. Caching[14] helps to reduce the service provider’s network congestion and increase download speeds for subsequent requests for the same data. For example, URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392495/#p392495 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You're right, of course. Rule 3 has tricky bits in it. I don't know if the audio only track of a movie would be illegal or not, honestly. I should go and find that out. If it turns out that it's technicaly illegal though, that'll close the loophole. Generally the forum has been vague on this point of legality except in very clear-cut cases. It's taken a firm stance against straight-up torrenting programs or software or copyrighted material, but has tended to go for a don't-ask-don't-tell take on all the rest. We've never faced any legal complications yet, as far as I can tell, but if you allow one thing, under what conditions is it safe, and under what conditions is it not? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392097/#p392097 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-08
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : zakc93 via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Rule 3 in its current form will probably lead to lots of arguments as to what is considered illegal. E.G., some people thinking that the movie vault movies are illegal, and others don't. So maybe just restrict it to audiogame cracks to avoid this, I'm sure that has near universal support as being bad.Apparently unlike many other people I'm fine with rule 8, it makes sense especially the example jayde gave of someone causing trouble everytime their warning expires. And it does have the requirements that several moderators must agree, which should help. I'm less sure about rule 6 though, but I don't feel like arguing about it at the moment, I'll might make a proper post about it later. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/392091/#p392091 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Example A: Direct personal attack, would receive a caution or a warningExample B: same as aboveExample C: This isn't attacking a forum user, and would only be issued a caution or warning if the post was really, really ugly; in its current state, it wouldn't raise any eyebrowsExample D: Same as example CI believe I've reworded rule 8 to suggest that a staff majority, including at least one admin, has to agree to invoke community failure. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391806/#p391806 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Apologies for the promotion on this, but I did open a topic which discusses this sort of thing. It's a longer read, but I wanted to get my thoughts and feelings down.http://forum.audiogames.net/topic/26456 … oderators/ URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391769/#p391769 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback It's always been that way, even from the start. It was never intended to be usable by one person with no checks. The checks are far more clearly stated now, however. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391752/#p391752 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Majority of staff, yes. I'd be okay with that. And I have no truly strong feeling on whether or not an admin should be involved, but I can see your point, Ethin. I think any staff should be able to bring it to the table, but if at least one admin has to sign off on it, that's fair enough. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391744/#p391744 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I've been saying all along that it should require a majority vote, or as Ethin put it. a quorum. I thought quorum was meat substitute for vegans? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391739/#p391739 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback @101, yes. If you seriously are determined that a rule like this should exist, then we need as many checks in place as possible. If all the checks fail, then the rule isn't invoked; but if they all pass, they rule is invoked. (Or do I have the roles reversed?) URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391727/#p391727 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Why can't we change the community clause invocation requirements to require a quorum? and to also require approval by at least one admin? That seems like the most foolproof logical step right now. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391724/#p391724 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Aaron. First you say.aaron wrote:Hi Jayde,I am wondering if putting the platformer analogy might help. I also can't think of any more game analogies to help with other rules though.Then you say.aaron wrote:Agreed, it was just an example. It wouldn't be a good idea to implement game analogies for everything.These statements are completely contradictory. You can not have it both ways. I find this very concerning as I am curious what if any dialogue has actually been going on behind the scenes. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391716/#p391716 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Agreed, it was just an example. It wouldn't be a good idea to implement game analogies for everything. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391714/#p391714 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Jade is correct that most sites are far more strict in the language department; however, the comparison doesn't really work. Take the following source, from a document similar to the rules, called a 'Terms of Service'/'Terms of use':(e) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIESYou may not access or use the Site for any purpose other than that for which we make the Site available. The Site may not be used in connection with any commercial endeavors except those that are specifically endorsed or approved by us. As a user of the Site, you agree not to: (i) Systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database, or directory without written permission from us; (ii) Make any unauthorized use of the Site, including collecting usernames and/or email addresses of users by electronic or other means for the purpose of sending unsolicited email, or creating user accounts by automated means or under false pretenses; (iii) Use the Site to advertise or offer to sell goods and services, unless explicitly authorized; (iv) Circumvent, disable, or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Site, including features that prevent or restrict the use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on the use of the Site and/or the Content contained therein; (v) Engage in unauthorized framing of or linking to the Site; (vi) Trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users, especially in any attempt to learn sensitive account information such as user passwords; (vii) Make improper use of our support services or submit false reports of abuse or misconduct; (viii) Interfere with, disrupt, or create an undue burden on the Site or the networks or services connected to the Site; (ix) Attempt to impersonate another user or person or use the username of another user; (x) Sell or otherwise transfer your profile; (xi) Use any information obtained from the Site in order to harass, abuse, or harm another person; (xii) Use the Site as part of any effort to compete with us or otherwise use the Site and/or the Content for any revenue-generating endeavor or commercial enterprise; (xiii) Decipher, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer any of the software comprising or in any way making up a part of the Site; (xiv) Attempt to bypass any measures of the Site designed to prevent or restrict access to the Site, or any portion of the Site; (xv) Harass, annoy, intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Site to you; (xvi) Delete the copyright or other proprietary rights notice from any Content; (xvii) Copy or adapt the Site’s software, including but not limited to Flash, PHP, HTML, _javascript_, or other code; (xviii) Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) viruses, Trojan horses, or other material, including excessive use of capital letters and spamming (continuous posting of repetitive text), that interferes with any party’s uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the Site or modifies, impairs, disrupts, alters, or interferes with the use, features, functions, operation, or maintenance of the Site; (xix) Upload or transmit (or attempt to upload or to transmit) any material that acts as a passive or active information collection or transmission mechanism, including without limitation, clear graphics interchange formats (“gifs”), 1×1 pixels, web bugs, cookies, or other similar devices (sometimes referred to as “spyware” or “passive collection mechanisms” or “pcms”); (xx) Except as may be the result of standard search engine or Internet browser usage, use, launch, develop, or distribute any automated system, including without limitation, any spider, robot, cheat utility, scraper, or offline reader that accesses the Site, or using or launching any unauthorized script or other software; (xxi) Disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site; or (xxii) Use the Site in a manner inconsistent with any applicable laws or regulations.In contrast to this, rule 10 is quite loose. However, for a forum like this, a TOS is probably not entirely necessary (though I'd argue that a TOS is necessary anywhere). Either way, I am still of the opinion that rule 10 is very unclear what qualifies as what, and it is still interpretive: Jades definition of a "Caution" (which is a term I have never seen used on any forum until now, leading me to consider it improper language for a forum of all things) may be different from what the community as a whole considers a caution. By the way, community does mean the entire forum, correct? The rules do state multiple times the term "community". URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391702/#p391702 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Aaron, I understand what you're saying about rules and formality and all, but I'm afraid I just don't agree. Many sites actually use far more complex language than we're using here. I think this is, for instance, far simpler than my post about trying to start the healing process; that, admittedly, was quite dense and carefully worded. These rules are not nearly so difficult to parse, at least not in comparison to other places.And regarding your idea, it's virtually the same as the community failure clause, except instead of all staff having access, only admins do. If people think there is a chance that the community failure clause goes off the rails, they are apt to think it doubly bad if there's just admin making decisions on that score. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391701/#p391701 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Actually, no. I think if you reread more carefully you will find that this is not, in fact, the case. You're free to tell me that you don't support the NDP in Canada, or that an assumption I'm making about it is wrong. You're free to tell me that macs are expensive, or that if you want the best bang for your buck you should go for something else. These are not personal attacks.Using the NDP example, a personal attack would be "You're an idiot if you support the NDP", while a criticism is "I don't think you're right to support the NDP, here's why.". See how one involves name-calling or straight-up using some sort of epithet to prove your point while the other is a clear statement of belief without rancour? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391698/#p391698 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-07
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback If it had been proposed by a mod who'd proved him or herself to be fair and level-headed over a reasonable period, it wouldn't look so bad. The mod team just looks a bit rudderless at the moment. So honestly, why not just clarify the existing rules, appoint a new head admin, quietly establish some trust, then make any additions for problems that actually exist when people have faith in the team. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391659/#p391659 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : jaybird via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I'm somewhere in the middle with regard to rule 10. The wording seems a bit odd to me, and it could definitely be abused by a moderation team hell bent on abusing it. But imho we do need a rule, guideline, or clarification which in effect says, "While the rules listed above are the main forum rules, common sense should prevail. If you are considering doing something which seems outright wrong or at odds with this forum, just because this specific case isn't listed in the rules doesn't make it okay." That wording is probably way off base, but you get the idea. Another thing rule 10 probably tries to get across is something I saw on a MOO once. It said something like, "If you test our limits, or if we think you are testing our limits, you risk being punished and that is your problem, not ours." URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391634/#p391634 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback So I'm going to throw out a hypothetical situation. Hopefully it's not this way, but let's just say it was.Let's say there absolutely had to be a community clause. Like. No way to avoid it. Has to happen.What would make you comfortable in such a clause. I know Flackers mentioned the importance of all mods speaking up and Jayde not driving everything.What else would make it more comfortable for people. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391603/#p391603 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Here's a thing: if this forum had no rules, you wouldn't have to look far to find spam, cracks, abuse, and all the other stuff the rules are there to prevent, so why aren't we seeing any of this behaviour talked about in 10? It's because it's not a problem. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391602/#p391602 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I've gone cold on the vote idea for the reason that it might be possible for some people to vote more than once. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391599/#p391599 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : Jaseoffire via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I remember Aaron bringing up earlier about rule 10 as it is a community failure clause, whether or not we could involve the community in such instances. If it is indeed meant to be a rare use, is their a way for the community to indeed confirm whether or not they have indeed been harmed by said behavior? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391601/#p391601 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Orko was too aggressive in the way he argued his points sometimes, but there are other people like that on here. How you perceive these people is pretty dependent on whether or not you agree with their fundamental point. If they're really aggressive and you agree with them, they tend not to appear to be such a problem. Orko was just at odds with most people that's all. He wasn't deliberatley trying to disrupt the forum. He rarely even attracted a settle down reminder from Dark. If you read all his posts, I bet most would be just normal non-aggressive comments. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391594/#p391594 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Orko was too aggressive in the way he argued his points sometimes, but there are other people like that on here. How you perceive these people is pretty dependent on whether or not you agree with their fundamental point. If they're really aggressive and you agree with them, they tend not to appear to be such a problem. Orko was just at odds with most people that's all. He wasn't deliberatley trying to disrupt the forum. He rarely even attracted a settle down reminder from Dark. If you read all his posts, I bet most would be just normal non-aggressive comments. He had a much higher karma than me, and I'm mostly very polite. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391594/#p391594 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Again. If the rule seems easy to abuse, I feel the best way to handle that is to require it to have checks and balances.I've been there for about well hell. Since the mid 0's I guess, and there were times, when it would have probably been helpful to have something mods could use to cool things down with when it got crazy. The thing is. I actually agree with everyone here. I'd rather see a rule exist and never need it than to need it and it not exist.But I also do see how people feel it could be abused. That however brings in to play trust and transparency. It's my hope that if action needs to be taken, the rule plus why the action was taken will always be cited.I'm in full favor of a vote if that will ease people's mind. It's a very polarizing issue, so I'm not sure how the mod staff could best compromise on this. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391597/#p391597 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I have read it, and I have explained why it's flawed. You admit it could be abused. The difference between it and the other rules is that they're not so easy to abuse, and unlike the others, it exists to protect against a non-existent scenario you won't provide any evidence for, and one I've never witnessed in 18 months of being on here almost every day. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391592/#p391592 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Orko was too aggressive in the way he argued his points sometimes, but there are other people like that on here. How you perceive these people is pretty dependent on whether or not you agree with their fundamental point. If they're really aggressive and you agree with them, they tend not to appear to be such a problem. Orko was just at odds with most people that's all. He wasn't deliberatley trying to disrupt the forum. He rarely even attracted a settle down reminder from Dark. I don't see people like Orko as a big problem. Not ones that require updating the rules anyway. There are people who just have personalities that rub you up the wrong way. You can't banish them from society because they get on your wick, but you can ignore them. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391594/#p391594 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Orko was too aggressive in the way he argued his points sometimes, but there are other people like that on here. How you perceive these people is pretty dependent on whether or not you agree with their fundamental point. If they're really aggressive and you agree with them, they tend not to appear to be such a problem. Orko was just at odds with most people that's all. He wasn't deliberatley trying to disrupt the forum. He rarely even attracted a settle down reminder from Dark. I don't see people like Orko as a big problem. Not ones that require updating the rules anyway. There are people who just have personalities that rub you up the wrong way, you can't banish them from society because of it, but you can ignore their posts. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391594/#p391594 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback Orko was too aggressive in the way he argued his points sometimes, but there are other people like that on here. How you perceive these people is pretty dependent on whether or not you agree with their fundamental point. If they're really aggressive and you agree with them, they tend not to appear to be such a problem. Orko was just at odds with most people that's all. He wasn't deliberatley trying to disrupt the forum. He rarely even attracted a settle down reminder from Dark. I don't see people like Orko and Ironcross as a big problem. Not ones that require updating the rules anyway. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391594/#p391594 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback I have read it, and I have explained why it's flawed. You admit it could be abused. The difference between it and the other rules is that it exists to protect against a non-existent scenario you won't provide any evidence for, and one I've never witnessed in 18 months of being on here almost every day. I know nothing I say would ever change your mind. I'm not sure there's anyone who could on this right now. That's another part of the trouble. This is just the most interesting thing to talk about right now otherwise I'd be wasting my time somewhere else. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391592/#p391592 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback This rule and that rule are just more placeholders for things that don't yet exist though. It's just another imaginary scenario. If someone were to behave in a way that the existing hard and fast rules can't cope with, sure, you need to have a rethink, but if it hasn't happened in all the time the forum has been here, then what's the point of having a clause that covers a non-existent problem. And I know you find it unlikely to ever happen, and you may be right, , but it's one that has a massive loophole for potential abuse. Remember it was just the other day that Aprone was effectively accused of causing more harm than good for telling the truth. And bear in mind, on the whole, I've been supportive of Dark, so I have no axe to grind in that department. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391587/#p391587 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You know that person who dances around the rules. No I don't, that's the trouble. I know exactly how I could behave the way you mean if I were a self indulgent pratt, but I haven't seen anyone behave like that on here over a prolonged period. I know a few argumentative people who blow their top now and again, but that's the web. If they cross the line into abuse, the proper rules will deal with them. I'm sure the archives are filled with examples of people who've been banned for breaking all the concrete rules, but you don't seem to be able to provide a single example of anyone who's ever behaved in the way you describe. Rules normally get drawn up to prevent actual existing problems not fantasy scenarios. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391577/#p391577 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You know that person who dances around the rules. No I don't, that's the trouble. I haven't seen anyone behave like that on here. I know a few argumentative people who blow their top now and again, but that's the web. If they cross the line into abuse, the proper rules will deal with them. I'm sure the archives are filled with examples of people who've been banned for breaking all the concrete rules, but you don't seem to be able to provide a single example of anyone who's ever behaved in the way you describe. Rules normally get drawn up to prevent actual existing problems not fantasy scenarios. URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391577/#p391577 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback
2018-11-06
Thread
AudioGames . net Forum — Site and forum feedback : flackers via Audiogames-reflector
Re: Proposed New Rules: Discussion and Feedback You know that person who dances around the rules. No I don't, that's the trouble. I know a few argumentative people who blow their top now and again, but that's the web. If they cross the line into abuse, the proper rules will deal with them. I'm sure the archives are filled with examples of people who've been banned for breaking all the concrete rules, but you don't seem to be able to provide a single example of anyone who's ever behaved in the way you describe. We don't even have proper trolls on here. The amazon book forum of all places had more trolls than we have round here. Rules normally get drawn up to prevent actual existing problems not fantasy scenarios. But why not host a pole anyway? It can't be a popularity contest in terms of cliques voting for their friends, so why not. Are you worried that too many people on here aren't fit to vote? URL: http://forum.audiogames.net/post/391577/#p391577 -- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
