Feedback Doxxing: Should we create a new rule prohibiting doxxing?

I think I voiced my concerns as strongly as I can in the post that I assume led to this proposed 'rule change'. But I will repost part of that again, for your convenience.

But I can not overlook the posting of a picture of her. As an AP, privacy is sacred! Real names, pictures, personal info. Because of the nature of AP's relationship with the casino industry and the 'cat & mouse' game most of us are forced to play, this kind of thing effects our livelihood. Now BBB may not be making a living though AP. I don't know if she even engages in any AP. That is not the issue. I will not participate on a site that allows anyone to violate member's privacy like this. And the fact that she allowed herself in a previous group picture is completely irrelevant and no defense.

And here's a note to the management here: I am aware that AP/gambling is not your specialty. You are just running a site under that name. But if you desire to have any legitimate AP's be part of gambling discussions here, you better fix this. Privacy is paramount to AP's and allowing “outings” like this should not be tolerated under any circumstances!

This is just not negotiable to me and doesn't warrant any discussion. As I said, I can and will not participate on a site that allows this....what you call "doxxing" (that's a new phrase to me). I was done when I wrote my last opinion on the topic, but when you made this thread seeming like you were going to address the issue, I stuck around, bidding my time waiting to see what happened. But now it appears that despite overwhelming opinion in one direction that you are dragging your feet and I am back to where I was a week ago. I don't mean that as a threat to you or this site. I am sure you will go on and do just fine or do however you have been doing without me. My presence or lack of, isn't going to make or break this site. But I just can not in good conscience participate at a site which allows this. Besides that I find it morally repulsive, these kind of actions being allowed places my livelihood at some degree of risk.

 

KJ- avatar removed at your request. Sorry man.

 

Thank you How Many.

I don't like being on the side where I am requesting what someone can and can't post be limited, because that goes against what I believe as well as against what my main complaint is with Mike Shackleford (He tried to limit what I can say). It's very hypocritical of me.

BUT, as an AP, privacy is a huge thing to me. TOP PRIORITY. Those of us that are table game AP's fight a battle every day, against not only the casinos, but the database groups like OSN, Grifith, Biometrics, that want nothing more than to identify us, out us and make it difficult to play. I just can't have anything to do with any site that allows any sort of outing and violating anyone's privacy with pictures or personal data that can aid in this.

I hold privacy as absolute sacred and there are no circumstances that I would violate someone's privacy. I obviously have issues with both Mike Shackleford as well as Qfit (Norm Wattenburger) and know the home address of both these 'people' (Shackleford lives less than a mile from me and Wattenburger inexplicably has his home address attached to his emails). No matter what injustice I feel either has done to me I would never in a million years consider revealing personal information and a picture is absolutely no different, maybe even worse. It is a line that just cannot be crossed under any circumstances in my mind.

There is plenty to be critical of concerning BBB. I have been critical of her. She most definitely abuses her authority as a moderator. Severe case of over-moderating. It is more than fair to be critical of that.

I also personally don't like the name calling especially concerning things like weight, when it comes to a female. Maybe that's a double standard or old fashion or whatever, but I just don't think a man should go there. That is just a personal opinion. I can't and won't request that someone be limited in that regard, but posting personal information and/or pictures is way out of bounds IMO.

I thank you for reconsidering your position....tempting as it might be to slam her in that manner.

 

admin:

you being a business person, I dont see the reason for hesitancy on your end.

by allowing that info, you may get sued. And you may win the lawsuit. And in doing so you may lose....money.

As in any cross section of a society, there are crazy people here

And if you give crazy people the roadmap to do crazy things....then u are right there in the cross hares of a legal battle.from an injured party.

you have an imbalanced person like WON who tells freddy that he wants to see him dead on YOUR board......and now you want someone to feed that by putting info out there....a roadmap to his home....and you wouldnt take that down?????

Your kidding.

Your nickname must be....moneybags

as the board becomes more and more populated, you cant read every post and every threat. Then when you see personal info posted you will never know if there are hateful people who have already made themselves known, or others in hiding, just watching in the shadows.

So all those questions that you posed, is trumped by this one

Are you willing to see someone injured via info obtained by this site.......info that you knowingly left up for viewing.......and are you willing to suffer the consequences....as there are consequences to every action/inaction/

 

I don't know what to tell ya. I have voiced my concerns. Most definitely it should apply to pictures as well as personal information. I believe it should apply to all members. I mean are we going to have someone determining who is and isn't an AP? That's crazy. And for me it has to apply to more than just members here. If someone decided they were going to out an AP from another site, WoV for example that wasn't a member here, I still can't be a part of a site that allows that. That is just me. It's an AP thing. It's the battle we fight everyday to make a living in this manner.

Now, people like a Mike Shackleford who uses his real name and for some inexplicable reason, likes to put his goofy mug out there, I guess that's fair game. He has made that choice.

But just because a picture is out there in public, doesn't mean it is fair game (like in the case of BBB). At one time, years ago, I had a facebook account, which had pictures of me. Although that account has been deleted for years, if someone happened to have that picture, that doesn't mean I think it is ok to post it.

 

You have some notable blackjack AP's as founding members. Ask their opinion on this matter. I can't imagine any blackjack type AP, are going to be ok with this Doxxing type thing with all we go through to try to stay anonymous and be able to play.

 

Enforce it aggressively.

It should apply to everyone who isn't publicly known (ie: Write something about Tom Hanks....who cares?)

It should apply to ALL information of those who are not publicly known (ie: famous // wish to be famous). It should apply to personal information of ALL people. Or rather, information that is not publicly known.

Should not apply to people already using their real name/picture. But their non-public information (address, phone number, etc.) should be off-limits. IE: I can say "Mike Shackleford ... X Y Z." or "bob dancer this and that". But not "This is Mike Shackleford's phone number, or Bob Dancer's address".

Scammers -- idk. Part of me says "no, they shouldn't be protected", because I think they should be outted. At the same time, I'd hate for someone to THINK someone else is a scammer and end up posting their personal info etc. (ie: I'm sure LarryS or Freddy could come up with a way to paint anyone as a scammer....or people of the same caliber of LarryS/Freddy....that's scary.)

I don't think anyone's picture should be posted. It's a forum, I don't really see the purpose of that (posting someone else's picture). If you wanna post a picture of yourself....or if you're with other forum members [for whatever reason] and want to post a group shot [and everyone agrees], then have at it. But posting pictures of other people, there's really no reason for that.

Action should be taken whether someone complains or not.

Retroactive - yes.

 

I am glad to see the issue being addressed.

However, I would prefer to see any attempts at doxxing immediately dealt with. Especially obvious ones.

When enforcing a no-doxxing rule, time is of the essence in removing any personal info/pics. The horse is already out of the barn if the info stays up there for hours (or more) while the complainant is registering for the site, making a new linked thread, publicly requesting details be removed, etc., etc. Plus, you will be making the victim of the doxxing publicly admit/confirm that their personal info was indeed correct. I'm sure all of the people who took a screen-shot of the personal info will be pleased to know they have legitimate addresses, phone numbers, etc.

I may be missing something, but I'm just not seeing the potential for a bunch of frivolous/false complaints of people claiming to be doxxed. For that potential to be there, it would mean that there was an abundance of posts containing people's (purported) personal information. And I don't see any reason for anybody to be posting detailed personal information (whether legitimate or fake) on an open internet forum.


Because doxxing is so serious and egregious, I think you should immediately remove (or redact) the personal information in a post that appears to be an attempt at doxxing. And then contact the post author and have them explain to your satisfaction that the info does not qualify as doxxing (pubic figure, etc.). The posting of detailed personal information doesn't really happen that often (unless it is a doxxing attempt), so I can't see you having to spend a bunch of time bird-dogging countless posts trying to sort out if they are doxxing or not.

But I may be wrong.


That's my opinion on it anyway. Take it for the two-cents it is worth.

 

+1 Jeffers' post.

Any attempt at posting private information should be redacted immediately.

 

Yeah, not a good idea to make the casino's job easier by having dox.

But I would ask that people PLEASE spell DOXING correctly.

One X

 

Thank you. Not that you need my approval or blessing, but this is definitely getting much closer to what I personally feel is an appropriate/effective enforcement policy. Especially on the way you propose to handle Case A.

And I am about 90% in agreement on how to handle Case B. The remaining 10% of my hesitancy is (unfortunately) based upon the one thing which appears to matter to you the most: transparency. I still have somewhat of a problem with the doxed person having to publicly acknowledge that the posted info is theirs.

I guess it doesn't matter quite as much if the person isn't already a member here, since they could join the forum under an anonymous user name and request the removal of the pic. But if they are an existing/known member then it isn't quite as easy (in my opinion).

Let's use an example with Case B. Say somebody posted a picture of me (Jeffers) playing blackjack and claimed it was them. Well, since I am really a "nobody" then I wouldn't be hurt by publicly coming on here as Jeffers and asking the pic to be removed. Although I don't want any of my identifiable personal information out there (name, address, phone, SS#, etc.), I wouldn't necessarily be super concerned or lose too much sleep about the casinos (or anybody else) seeing what Jeffers looks like. Primarily because I am dashingly handsome.

But if someone posts a pic of an AP playing blackjack and claims it was them, then to me it is a little different. I don't think KJ or other existing AP members would be super comfortable publicly acknowledging that the pic was of them and that they wanted it removed. Especially since KJ uses his same handle across multiple forums. I'm sure the casinos would probably love to have a confirmed pic of KJ or other AP's.

I definitely get it that you can't (and shouldn't) have to be vetting every picture that gets posted to the forum when it isn't an obvious attempt at doxing. But I would love to see some sort of compromise whereby a complaint would be needed to remove a "fake" picture such as in Case B, but that the complaint could be made directly to the admin versus a public acknowledgement thread.

I guess I'd just rather see the rules enforced a little more to the benefit of the victim, even if it means a small loss of transparency.

I realize that the "uncensored" nature of this forum is very important. And that's ok. I personally feel like a touch of judicious "censorship" can enhance the overall quality of a board. But hey, it's not my forum.


Either way, I applaud your decision to establish and enforce a no-doxing rule! It may end up being a fluid process that takes a bit of time and adjustment before getting into its final form.

 

Yes, to me that would be a fair compromise. I do not think that it is unreasonable for forum admins to require more than just an anonymous request in order to delete/edit the content of a board.

This compromise removes the "public confirmation" of personal info/images, but also hopefully removes the ease in which an illegitimate request could be made.

It does require the doxed person to place trust in the admin since the member will be confirming the personal info to the admin. But that trust may have to be extended if the alternative is having the personal info remain as part of the public content on the board.


That is my take on it anyway. Hopefully other members such as RS, KJ, and/or any additional members will weigh in on how they feel the compromise appears to them.


Thanks again for your willingness to consider members' input as a part of developing your new policy.

 

Haven't done a slow read of the posts in this thread. I don't like censorship and don't like the fact that pictures which are already in the public domain be prohibited. Also you have the idiotic WoN who posted his own phone number, how do you handle that.

If somebody is a total arse and the somebody does a bit of digging, then more fool them for being an arse in the first place, "if ya don't upset people, you should be fine". I think the merits of each incident need to be considered separately and it should be up to the mods. Finally no way should BBB be considered an AP, nothing to protect other than her own vanity, that image will always exist on imgur.

 

I have read this thread with interest because I feel strongly about censorship and freedom of the press. Unfortunately I am having trouble because I do not know some of these terms. Please define Doxing and AP