Indefinite Bannings

[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

[pevergreen]

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.

[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*

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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’