Indefinite Bannings

[TinCow]

The only privacy violated was Secura's

Incorrect

[KukriKhan]

It also appears that the mods have a chronic context deficiency.

Yeah... it's that pesky iron-y deficiency.

Prescribed treatment: Persistent Privacy Protection.

[CountArach]

The circumstances of AP's ban are nowhere near bad enough to warrant a perma-ban. The only privacy violated was Secura's, and that wasn't by AP. Once again, the assertion that the mods have one rule for some Orgahs and another for the others has been proved true. It also appears that the mods have a chronic context deficiency.

So AP was openly stating ALL OVER THE SITE that he was violating the privacy of members, that he openly stated that he had dirt on at least one member (not Secura, as you claim) and made a point of singling Secura out as one whose privacy could easily be breached (thus at the very least implying that he had some experience in the field) and yet he had nothing at all to do with it? We weighed everything up for as long as we felt necessary and in that time the evidence continued piling up. AP joined the forum fully aware that breaching the privacy of members was a bannable offence and the fact that he did this so flagrantly clearly warrants a ban.

As much as it may appear at times that we pick on the EB Taverners, it is only because they are the ones so consistently breaking the forum rules. Constant violations of rules means harsher crack-downs and this has always been the case across the entire board, even before the group was formed. When so many individuals of a related group are constantly making a game out of toeing the line and trolling the entire forum, harsh measures are called for against that group. Several of the members seem to feed off each other's trolling and attempt to outdo each other and this is not at all the sort of behaviour that this site wishes to have amongst its members.

NOTE: This is not me speaking for all moderators, this is my own opinion. As much as you may like to think it, we are not some group-think program and we do disagree on several things.

EDIT: Oh, and if you really do believe that AP had nothing to do with the breaching of Secura's privacy would you care to tell me how he knew that her privacy had been breached and, if he knew, why he did not raise the issue directly with Moderators so we could take steps to ban the real culprit?

[Husar]

"We are the mod, resistance is futile!"

[Subotan]

Incorrect

Criticism is not a violation of privacy.

That he openly stated that he had dirt on at least one member

There is no way of knowing whether that was a violation of privacy.

and made a point of singling Secura out as one whose privacy could easily be breached

How does warning a forum member about the vulnerabilities in their internet security and privacy, and telling them how to resolve it translate into "singling out"?

(thus at the very least implying that he had some experience in the field)

So knowledge about the inherenet safety flaws of Photobucket and other image hosting sities is enough to get you banned? Wow, just wow.

AP joined the forum fully aware that breaching the privacy of members was a bannable offence and the fact that he did this so flagrantly clearly warrants a ban.

Did Secura raise any complaints? I genuinely don't know, so I can't comment on this until I know whether the individual involved was actually concerned.

When so many individuals of a related group are constantly making a game out of toeing the line and trolling the entire forum, harsh measures are called for against that group. Several of the members seem to feed off each other's trolling and attempt to outdo each other and this is not at all the sort of behaviour that this site wishes to have amongst its members.

Examples, please.

NOTE: This is not me speaking for all moderators, this is my own opinion. As much as you may like to think it, we are not some group-think program and we do disagree on several things.

Likewise, exactly the same for the EB Tavern. But then, this isn't even about that.

EDIT: Oh, and if you really do believe that AP had nothing to do with the breaching of Secura's privacy would you care to tell me how he knew that her privacy had been breached and, if he knew, why he did not raise the issue directly with Moderators so we could take steps to ban the real culprit?

Because as I said before, he had some knowledge of the vulnerabilities of Photobucket and was aware that they could abuse. He contacted Secura directly to let her deal with it, so as not to get some middlemen involved which would be an, er, invasion of privacy.

[pevergreen]

If he thinks he is innocent, why isnt he on here defending himself with an alt account?

Or was that someone else. My memory is bad nowadays.

[Subotan]

Nah, that was me

[TinCow]

Criticism is not a violation of privacy.

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

There is no way of knowing whether that was a violation of privacy.

You seem to be mistaking the Org for a court of law. His statements clearly demonstrated that he had used software to view private photobucket accounts for at least one member of the Org, likely more, as well as numerous classmates of his who are not on the Org. That is sufficient evidence for us, even if it's not good enough for a criminal conviction.

So knowledge about the inherenet safety flaws of Photobucket and other image hosting sities is enough to get you banned? Wow, just wow.

AP confessed to using that knowledge on multiple people who didn't have accounts on the Org, as well as at least one who did. He also made statements indicating that he was looking at the private sections of other Org members who had posted pictures on the forums. Try and get your facts straight if you want to defend him, because you're just making yourself look ridiculous.

[pevergreen]

Nah, that was me

[Subotan]

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

This is more than cancelled out by the fact that AP provided Secura with the information required to make her account more secure (Heh, Secure Secura), and prevent someone accessing that account for malicious reasons.

AP confessed to using that knowledge on multiple people who didn't have accounts on the Org

Your point?

He also made statements indicating that he was looking at the private sections of other Org members who had posted pictures on the forums. .

Did you give him a chance to inform the said members of their vulnerability?

[Cute Wolf]

Who is "Secura?"
And what? did using other's account is an offense..... *thanks God, I clarify that when I accidentally logged in as Sonic*

[TinCow]

You're not seriously arguing that AP was helping people by breaking into their private accounts, are you?

[Husar]

Correct, using software to view private photobucket accounts is a violation of privacy.

Hmm.
so if anyone could PM me as to how this could be prevented as I'm not the kind of guy who constantly explores all of the internet's exploits and hacks, I'd appreciate it.
And I'll kill you if you come into my home at night...

[Subotan]

Who is "Secura?"
And what? did using other's account is an offense..... *thanks God, I clarify that when I accidentally logged in as Sonic*

Secura is a new member of the .Org. And yes, using someone else's account should be punished, but AP didn't do that. We're talking about viewing private Photobucket accounts.

You're not seriously arguing that AP was helping people by breaking into their private accounts, are you?

"Breaking in" is the wrong phrase (As it implies that AP did some damage), but yes.

Hmm.so if anyone could PM me as to how this could be prevented as I'm not the kind of guy who constantly explores all of the internet's exploits and hacks, I'd appreciate it.

Sure, I'll just PM you what AP told me and Secura to stop people snooping around in one's Photobucket account once I get home from college.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This is more than cancelled out by the fact that AP provided Secura with the information required to make her account more secure (Heh, Secure Secura), and prevent someone accessing that account for malicious reasons.

Then the injustice of AP's ban is cancelled out by the valuable lesson about respecting people's privacy he recieved

AP confessed to using that knowledge on multiple people who didn't have accounts on the Org

Your point?

If you are really that interested, just try fuskering yourself. It takes some skill to carry out efficiently with good results, but even with the bare minimum of knowledge and something like Nav.Net, you could wreak havok. Check the albums of your sluttiest classmates, after finding a single image from their album.

...

In lingerie? Every single female classmate of mine had those. I swear, there is some irrational, collective urge in a girl's mind to snap a photo of her barely-clothed reflection in the mirror. But as I said, this was a problem which paled in the face of the more serious stuff.... To be fair, all but one were just breasts, but disturbing nonetheless. Why would they take those photos and why in the bloody hell would they upload them on the Net? Seriously. It makes no sense. They are not obsessed with their own assets. The males are. So why do they take those photos?

[Beskar]

Who is "Secura?"
And what? did using other's account is an offense..... *thanks God, I clarify that when I accidentally logged in as Sonic*

Secura is the forum member mainly in the Gameroom and Frontroom, what is must notable, is that they secured their photobucket with a password (so typical access cannot be done) but even then, Secura's photobucket was made and explicitly used for the ORG anyway, so only Phoenix Wright sprites for Mafia game, etc were on it. AP started going on in visitor messages saying how he could view all the other pictures, etc, sort of in an overzealous multiple message way. I only found out about it after AP's banning because Secura commented how Tosa, Lemur, and a bunch of other mods, etc have all recently visited the visitor page.

Here some of the messages, I am not sure if any got deleted.

Just wondering, how much do you want your personal photos to be private?

What I mean is that you posted some pics on the Photo Album Thread. You were prudent enough not to show your face and to set your album as private. However, you took the photos from your Photobucket album. Knowing how lascivious some of the Orgahs here are,they could easily fusker the other photos of you . That may or may not be palatable for you .

"Some of the Orgahs they easily fusker the other photos of you " - This is code for "I can get other pictures of you" enforced with a tongue, which also hints that he most likely have as well.

[TinCow]

And yes, using someone else's account should be punished, but AP didn't do that. We're talking about viewing private Photobucket accounts.

People are punished when they violate Org rules. Viewing private Photobucket accounts is a violation of Org Rules:

Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs, or insults -- addressed to either an individual or a group -- is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.

Since you apparently think that viewing private Photobucket accounts is acceptable behavior, I suggest that you consult with a Mod before committing similar actions. We will be happy to let you know whether anything you want to do is a violation of the rules, thus avoiding any undesirable consequences on your part.

[pevergreen]

It gets a bit iffy when you punish someone for actions taken off site, but is slightly redeemed when the person they do it to is also a member. Were those comments on the org? if so, then there is a reason, but if all communication took place offsite (which i think did not happen) then i would be strongly against any punishment.

Feel free to ignore me as usual.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And it is not the first time this kind of comes up in connection with AP. One would've thought that his ban round 1 would've given him something to reflect upon?

@ Beskar: your phrasing makes it all the more disturbing: ‘This is code for "I can get other pictures of you" enforced with a tongue’

[TinCow]

It gets a bit iffy when you punish someone for actions taken off site, but is slightly redeemed when the person they do it to is also a member. Were those comments on the org? if so, then there is a reason, but if all communication took place offsite (which i think did not happen) then i would be strongly against any punishment.

To be clear, AP was not punished for off-site actions. However, his statements about what he was doing with non-member accounts were factored in when determining whether he had done the same thing to Org member accounts. As he had already said he had viewed at least one Org account (a Moderator's account), his statements about doing it to off-site accounts were sufficient to convince us that he had indeed done it to multiple Org member accounts, especially when combined with other posts he made indicating that he was attempting or planning to do it to other Org member accounts.

[Subotan]

"Some of the Orgahs they easily fusker the other photos of you " - This is code for "I can get other pictures of you" enforced with a tongue, which also hints that he most likely have as well.

No it doesn't. AP is a very literal person, and he meant exactly what he said. He was referring to certain other members of the .Org.

People are punished when they violate Org rules. Viewing private Photobucket accounts is a violation of Org Rules:

Would my privacy be violated if any of you visited my private Photobucket without my knowledge iif I retrospectively gave my consent? No, it wouldn't, because the whole point of privacy is that consent is not given. Of course, if I didn't then give my consent, then that would be a violation of privacy, and AP should not have done what he did, as he didn't have prior permission. But if Secura gave her consent afterwards (I don't know if this occurred, as I haven not seen a direct statement from her, but from the VM conversation seen it would not be unreasonable to assume so temporarily), then it is not possible to use "violation of privacy" as justification for this disproportionate punishment.

@ Beskar: your phrasing makes it all the more disturbing: ‘This is code for "I can get other pictures of you" enforced with a tongue’

That's gross slander. Even if we ignore the fact that AP is asexual, it still doesn't mean that at all. As I explained above, he was referring to other members, and his tongue emoticon is one that he commonly uses. He even made a thread about himself a few weeks ago complaining about his own overuse of that particular emoticon.

To be clear, AP was not punished for off-site actions. However, his statements about what he was doing with non-member accounts were factored in when determining whether he had done the same thing to Org member accounts. As he had already said he had viewed at least one Org account (a Moderator's account),

his statements about doing it to off-site accounts were sufficient to convince us that he had indeed done it to multiple Org member accounts, especially when combined with other posts he made indicating that he was attempting or planning to do it to other Org member accounts.

So, AP has had a pre-emptive ban tio prevent him from doing actions which you're not even sure he was going to do? I thought that was the whole point of warnings.

[TinCow]

Would my privacy be violated if any of you visited my private Photobucket without my knowledge iif I retrospectively gave my consent? No, it wouldn't, because the whole point of privacy is that consent is not given. Of course, if I didn't then give my consent, then that would be a violation of privacy, and AP should not have done what he did, as he didn't have prior permission. But if Secura gave her consent afterwards (I don't know if this occurred, as I haven not seen a direct statement from her, but from the VM conversation seen it would not be unreasonable to assume so temporarily), then it is not possible to use "violation of privacy" as justification for this disproportionate punishment.

Secura is not the person whose account he admitted to breaking into. That person was a Moderator, and most certainly did not consent.

So, AP has had a pre-emptive ban tio prevent him from doing actions which you're not even sure he was going to do? I thought that was the whole point of warnings.

No, AP has a ban because he admitted to breaking into 1 private Org member photobucket account (a Moderator's), implied that he had already done so to several other Org members' accounts, and implied that he was going to do so to more Org members' accounts. As for the warning, someone who's received 29 warnings/infractions in the last 12 months does not need further warnings.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That's gross slander. Even if we ignore the fact that AP is asexual, it still doesn't mean that at all. As I explained above, he was referring to other members, and his tongue emoticon is one that he commonly uses. He even made a thread about himself a few weeks ago complaining about his own overuse of that particular emoticon.

No it's a “I don't care about your privacy” [I can get pictures of you] bordering on the blasé (“so what, who does?”) [tongue smiley] attitude. It's apparently not gossipy curiosity but “for the heck of it”. That is (even more) disturbing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not sure what exactly happened.


As a general comment:
I've got holiday pictures up on the net, I've got social sites I'm active on. These are a)private, and b)visited by real life friends and colleagues. I also enjoy my games, and visiting games sites to discuss them and talk bollox in general.
I don't need somebody on some game site hacking my accounts or my pictures. I can't have that. I don't need my picture appearing all over the net, or suddenly have some pr0n picture or burning kittens appear in my photo albums.

[Subotan]

Secura is not the person whose account he admitted to breaking into. That person was a Moderator, and most certainly did not consent.

The only person whose account I am aware of that was "broken into" (to use terrible hyperbole) was Secura's. Of course, if there were others, then that changes the situation, but assuming that others have been accessed is not enough justification for a perma-ban.

As for the warning, someone who's received 29 warnings/infractions in the last 12 months does not need further warnings.

Perhaps.

No it's a “I don't care about your privacy” [I can get pictures of you] bordering on the blasé (“so what, who does?”) [tongue smiley] attitude. It's apparently not gossipy curiosity but “for the heck of it”

No, it really isn't. I notice how everybody is taking the opportunity to character assasinate AP when he's not here to defend himself.

That is (even more) disturbing.

Well duh, of course a constuction of a fantasy personality designed to read only the worst interpretations of someone's speech is going to be disturbing.

I'm not sure what exactly happened.

Secura posted some pictures which were hosted on Photobucket on the .Org. AP (presumably) viewed them, and informed Secura both that he had viewed them, and how to prevent other particular individuals on the .Org from viewing them. AP stated that he could view pretty much any Photobucket account that has sequential filenames, regardless of the privacy settings (Which is a fact, and possible for anyone to do, in theory). AP did not "hack" or "break into" anyone's account. He just bypassed the crummy "privacy feature" which was in place on Photobucket. He then stated that he had done it to people who were not members of the .Org. He also had some joky banter with Cent1, hence my comment that the mods have a "context deficieny". Whether he acessed the account of a mod, I have no idea, but otherwise this is a pretty comprehensive description.

[TinCow]

The only person whose account I am aware of that was "broken into" (to use terrible hyperbole) was Secura's. Of course, if there were others, then that changes the situation, but assuming that others have been accessed is not enough justification for a perma-ban.

Apparently your knowledge is limited then, because AP definitely accessed a Mod's photobucket account. That's not an assumption, AP admitted to doing it.

[Lemur]

Subotan, perhaps it would be helpful if you phrased your concern differently. What would you like to see happen? What would you like the mods to do? What should AP do, and what is his level of responsibility in this situation? Some? None? Lots?

[Cute Wolf]

Apparently your knowledge is limited then, because AP definitely accessed a Mod's photobucket account. That's not an assumption, AP admitted to doing it.

Well...did he will be banned forever?

[Andres]

.Org members post pictures they want to share here at the .Org. Those pictures are often in a photobucket album. By posting one picture of that album at the .Org, said member does not intend to have his entire photobucket accessible by another .Org member.

AP used shady (illegal) software to go the photobucket albums of .Org members to view the pictures those members never intended to share. Said software apparently also allows to see pictures that are put to "private" in the privacy settings of a photobucket album.

He should be very, VERY, VERY grateful that a perm ban is the only punishment he got...

Privacy = holy. Don't touch it. Don't even think about touching it. Don't even think about something that resembles like something that smells like something that could be interpreted as something that looks like touching other people's privacy.

[Secura]

Ummmm, I had wondered why AP had been banned, and had hoped that it wasn't anything to do with me. I noticed that he had been teasing Centurion1 regarding some posts in the Frontroom, commented on his own Visitor's Board and he passed on some advice regarding Photobucket.

I should explain that the Photobucket account I used for hosting the pics I added in the Frontroom and for hosting my mafia game was created solely for .Org. It doesn't contain any personal pictures or anything of that sort, they're safely in a different PB account. I had set it onto Private in the belief that nobody could access it, although AP warned me that people would still be able to access it through fusking or something like that.

I have to ask though; what are sequential filenames? Is that simply naming pictures like "DE1", "DE2" and so-on? All pictures on my PB account have been personally named depending on what the picture is, such as "Bimbo Burgers" or "Angry Edgeworth" anyway. There's seventy or eighty pictures on there (mostly from my mafia hosting) and they're all named as such; no sequential naming at all.

AP just appeared to be offering me help, which I was grateful for; I'm not the most savvy person about internet safety or security and thought setting my PB to Private would be the end of any nosy parkers. I apologise if I got him into any bother. :<