IMPORTANT: Expansion on Sin #6

[Arnox]

#6 - Breaking into and/or attempting to deface and/or damage the site or its host in any way.

^ This was the past sin before, but I feel as of now, I'll have to add a large expansion to that rule that I probably should have added in the past. The addition is:

Anyone who publicly admits to breaking into and/or attempt to in any way unlawfully manipulate a site that's unrelated to Sanctuary will be banned IF the staff from that site ask the admins of Sanctuary to crack down on such.

I was really torn on making this rule because I want this place to be as free as possible, but at the same time, if it were MY site getting broken into and/or manipulated from members on another site, I'd like the admins to at least TRY to do something. Having said that, NO ONE HERE WILL BE BANNED AT THE MOMENT. All posts before this one will be grandfathered in and I won't ban any members here for anything said before this announcement, period, so don't worry about that. But from now on, everyone please be aware of this new rule. Be aware that sharing things does NOT fall under this new addition. On the other hand, admitting to using a malicious app on another site without permission from that site's team falls under it. Also remember that while you may not be banned at all for admitting such things at first, if I ever get word from a site team member asking me to take action, you will fall under the crosshairs.

TL;DR - Just as before, do not admit to malicious activities. Cover your ass because we won't cover it for ya'. That is all.

 

[Houseman]

I feel like there's a story here.

You're not talking about Dissenter, are you?

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Let me guess..It's about Dissenter?

Escapist's Jojo heard it in Vallorn's Discord that people from Arnox's Sanctuary is using Torba's Dissenter?

If so, then it wouldn't be breaking any rules. Dissenter is not "breaking into" or would be considered "malicious" in terms of spreading viruses or hacking. It is simply using a third party to post about something. It should not be considered any different than posting about the Escapist here, and referencing it with an URL.

 

[Houseman]

I want to give Arnox the benefit of the doubt that Dissenter is not what's being alluded to here... but the timing on this is too suspicious.

Please say it ain't so.

 

[Arnox]

Regardless of whether Dissenter is legit or not, this is a hole in the rules that I should have covered. I thought I got all the bases but I did not. I apologize for that. Honestly though, guys, this rule expansion is really easy to get around. Just be smart, OK? That's all I'm asking.

As to whether Dissenter itself is actually fair or not, it's hard to say. It looks like it makes it much easier to post anonymously and to post en masse (which is a double-edged sword), but at the same time, it looks like it's using non-malicious methods to do so. One thing is for certain though. If Escapist staff complains to me about it,

1. Past admitted use is NOT going to be punished as per the ruling.
2. There is a solid case to be made that Dissenter is not an actual issue anyway or at least is a very avoidable one. It's not like the LOIC which is solely used for malicious purposes.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

So...to break it down..

In this forum, we are not allowed to talk about using another forum to talk about a third forum?

This forum being a local free speech one, and the second being a wide web spanning free speech one, all being beholden to a third non-free speech one?

 

[Houseman]

Regardless of whether Dissenter is legit or not, this is a hole in the rules that I should have covered. I thought I got all the bases but I did not. I apologize for that. Honestly though, guys, this rule expansion is really easy to get around. Just be smart, OK? That's all I'm asking.

As to whether Dissenter itself is actually fair or not, it's hard to say. It looks like it makes it much easier to post anonymously and to post en masse (which is a double-edged sword), but at the same time, it looks like it's using non-malicious methods to do so. One thing is for certain though. If Escapist staff complains to me about it,

1. Past admitted use is NOT going to be punished as per the ruling.
2. There is a solid case to be made that Dissenter is not an actual issue anyway or at least is a very avoidable one. It's not like the LOIC which is solely used for malicious purposes.

I'm not hearing you say that this ISN'T about Dissenter.

I'm so very disappointed in you.

Please, explain yourself in clear, unambiguous terms. Say it ain't so.

 

[Arnox]

Alright. For one, yes, this is kinda about Dissenter because that's what got me thinking about this whole subject. But at the same time, it's not, because I have no idea if Dissenter is actually a problem or not. Their damn site isn't clear about what exactly it's all about, and Escapist's comment system is weird. It's using Disqus or something... I don't even know. Don't really care.

So, the expansion isn't going to change, but feel free to keep using and talking about Dissenter and admitting use without fear of punishment because I haven't actually found a problem with it. If I do find one, I will make another announcement.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

I can understand you being cautious, but I think you jumped the gun on this one.
Dissenter will face heavy resistance going forward, bearing all kinds of blame and accusations being directed at it.
Simply because it allows you to use Free Speech to comment on any page on the internet, without being beholden to any rules but Dissenters.
This site is also for Free Speech, but doesn't have the same clout as Dissenter, so I'm thinking you decided to sacrifice liberty for security. ,)
An understandable and very human mistake.

 

[Houseman]

that's what got me thinking about this whole subject.

I can understand that. It's only being used as a jumping-off point into further "what-if" scenarios. This is fine.

But at the same time, it's not, because I have no idea if Dissenter is actually a problem or not.

But I mean, you should learn how something works before firing warning shots, don't cha' think?

edit: oh, yeah, like that. Great.

 

[Signa]

Looks like this was resolved before I jumped in here, but I take an issue with this expansion, even before anyone mentioned it could have anything to do with Dissenter. All it would take is some admin/mod from The Escapist to say we all did something to their site, and you would have all the means you need to ban each and every one of us. Now, I know you're not a robot, Arnox, but the rules should be clear and fair that even a robot won't wreck them. This is a gaping loophole for abuse.

 

[Arnox]

Looks like this was resolved before I jumped in here, but I take an issue with this expansion, even before anyone mentioned it could have anything to do with Dissenter. All it would take is some admin/mod from The Escapist to say we all did something to their site, and you would have all the means you need to ban each and every one of us. Now, I know you're not a robot, Arnox, but the rules should be clear and fair that even a robot won't wreck them. This is a gaping loophole for abuse.

I'm a little confused as to what you mean. In order for this new addition to actually have any effect whatsoever, a member or members on this site must directly and public admit on the forums that they launched an attack or did some other malicious act that is in line with the complaint that I had received. That is to say, even if there was a thread made which, for example, distributed the LOIC and the Escapist went down, unless anyone in that thread actually confessed to attacking the Escapist, the complaint I would have received wouldn't actually have an effect besides perhaps me penning a sternly-worded announcement.

 

[Signa]

I guess I'm not understanding the actual wording as much as the spirit of the rule. I know you're not going to ban us, but what I thought I read was that if you get complaints about us, you would ban us.

 

[Arnox]

I guess I'm not understanding the actual wording as much as the spirit of the rule. I know you're not going to ban us, but what I thought I read was that if you get complaints about us, you would ban us.

If I get complaints about one or more of our members committing the aforementioned actions against a site or it's host AND the members have publicly confessed to such, they will be banned. Simple as that.

 

[Signa]

Ok, that's reasonable. I was taking the latter part of the clause to mean that the self incrimination was generally a bad idea all around, not that it was part of the requirement for being banned.