Sociopath Community

Lol. That's quite the neutral title.

The general rule is that info that can lead to a dox (including pics) are taken down on request but only if that info has not been posted by the person in question before. We agree on that.

However, we disagree on how this applies to pictures. TC thinks that if someone posts a picture of their face, for example, then no other face pics of that person can be taken down. This means that pictures of that person from other sites can freely be posted here, even if they happen to be reverse-searchable or contain some other doxable information.

The way I have interpreted the dox rule is that people can always request pictures of themselves to be taken down even if they've posted a similar picture before (just as long as it's not the exact same one). I don't think you can say two pictures are equivalent from a dox-risk perspective just because they both happen to look reasonably similar.

Which interpretation do you guys think we should follow?

I'd like to know each mods' stance on it before we all get to arguing

Inquirer said:

 

Lol. That's quite the neutral title.

You guys were discussing how to change policy without consulting the community it was built for, purely over "hypotheticals" as if you had made those mistakes yourself, all the while reassuring us all that you'd never be that dumb. 

It's a community issue, so if it's going to change we can't just play Electoral College and make choices based purely on our own imaginary insecurities. For once I find myself harkening to an old Edvard point of how SC is supposed to be kinda "e-dangerous" in a way, and we as mods shouldn't be their parents or babysitters, but rather a last line of defense or as a mouthpiece towards our admin for real website concerns. 

The general rule is that info that can lead to a dox (including pics) are taken down on request but only if that info has not been posted by the person in question before. We agree on that.

Basically people can show as much as they've shown has been the shorthand, but you're demonstrating a wiggle room clause that is worth discussing. 

However, we disagree on how this applies to pictures. TC thinks that if someone posts a picture of their face, for example, then no other face pics of that person can be taken down.

Bingo, typically a vanity issue. 

This means that pictures of that person from other sites can freely be posted here, even if they happen to be reverse-searchable or contain some other doxable information. 

Have you ever tried a reverse search tool? They don't even link to shit like Facebook anymore, and you can control how private your information is. 

We're in the modern age of the internet, people ought to be doing safe practices instead of expecting these protections to come from some sort of overlording Big Brother. 

The way I have interpreted the dox rule is that people can always request pictures of themselves to be taken down even if they've posted a similar picture before (just as long as it's not the exact same one).

Then you weren't paying attention to years of debates on this subject during the old culture, where I kept insisting on finding where the lines are to be drawn and us finding where the middle was between SC pro-dox old culture and the fearful party. 

I don't think you can say two pictures are equivalent from a dox-risk perspective just because they both happen to look reasonably similar. 

Why not? It's about how much it reveals about the person if you were to spot them on the street. 

Whorechata said: 

I'd like to know each mods' stance on it before we all get to arguing

Same actually, this would be very helpful and revealing about who and what we're working with. 

Everything Inq said has been my understanding too, I think it a good policy. I don’t think our discussion is about changing the dox rule, the title seems dramatic lol but it’s a good attention grabber. It’s more about what we believe it already is. Perhaps Inq and I are wrong, idk but this has been our interpretation.

So I guess another question is what people believed the dox rule to be? 

PalePeach said: 

If she's posting pictures of herself, she cant claim other people posting pics of her is doxxing, just because it's a less flattering pic.

^ Peach gets it. 

It's a shame we've lost years of Luna records, we debated this to death until this compromise rose from it's ashes. 

(is this becos Med's mug is everywhere? )

My understanding of the dox rule was:

If it is your dox, you may request a mod to take the dox down. The dox was open to be anything covering pictures, addresses, phone numbers, social media of that particular person.

However if it was a dox of that persons family member or friend, then that family member or friend must register and ask for it to be taken down but that's easy to fake as well looking back at what happened with Pink01; she asked for her dad's dox to be taken down and when called, her dad had no issues with it being up.

So are we changing the dox rules? Why are we changing them now- what was the catalyst for this?

Whorechata said: 

My understanding of the dox rule was:

If it is your dox, you may request a mod to take the dox down. The dox was open to be anything covering pictures, addresses, phone numbers, social media of that particular person. 

However if it was a dox of that persons family member or friend, then that family member or friend must register and ask for it to be taken down but that's easy to fake as well looking back at what happened with Pink01; she asked for her dad's dox to be taken down and when called, her dad had no issues with it being up.

So are we changing the dox rules? Why are we changing them now- what was the catalyst for this?

Family member details are a close enough link to still be a dox, while a friend can basically be anybody. 

This is how a certain 'Russeled' party was within the rules while taking down posts about his family, as well as other past dox removals.