Today. Has been. Ridiculous.
It's more than clear how much info is too much info needs to be defined instead of just left ambiguous, as I'm now being steered to clearing even tiny details. If this keeps up I'll likely be stuck deleting way too much, and if it's in the first post of a topic the entire topic falls with it (keep that in mind when posting in such topics, your replies might disappear until Forum 2.0).
So, instead of drawing the line myself and being accused of abusing my power, I figured I'd ask you all where you think this line ought to be. For those who think there should be no line, that anything should be allowed... sadly your answer is likely to fall on deaf ears right now, so helping define where the line ought to be is the closest to a compromise as we can muster right now.
So, now's the chance to let your opinion on that be heard since it's largely your forum, not mine. If there has to be a line, where ought it be drawn? I thought this place as a whole would be mature enough to not abuse making requests, but now that they're flooding in it must either be defined or left as is if that's the general consensus with me dealing with it.
At the very least we'll all be on the same page.
by Turncoat
Even so, it links to their friends lists. Do they deserve to be dragged into this madness just because they know someone from here?
Nope, they don't.
A prepared person would set everything on their Facebook to be private, but not everyone is "net savvy". Facebook has just recently begun to make a point of teaching their users about how their privacy functions work.
I'm not on Facebook (or any such venue) so i have no idea of how they work, but i'm surprised how there's anyone not keeping their profiles as private as possible.
(My sister is on FB though, to promote her small business - she hates the guts of it. i should be too probably, for the same reason, just can't bring myself to take up all that extra work maintaing it would take.)
by Turncoat
"Social media (FB etc.) i don't count as "real life" info. Anyone who uses those should blame themselves if things leak."
This portion's much more debatable, as it carries a lot of real life data.
(pulling it over from the other thread)
Yes, it can carry a lot of real-life info. The difference is, however, that it's voluntarily shared on a public venue, as opposed to clandestinely sussed out.
Even so, there are distinct differences. Many people (even large businesses) use social media to promote their trade / business, in those cases the personal info is clearly public and real. In those cases malicious tinkering can indeed mess with the individual's real life.
Again, common sense would dictate IF your personal data's availability can make you (your trade / finances / whatever) vulnerable in any way, then make sure to cover ALL tracks which could lead to your identity if you partake in online socialisation - esp. on potentially confrontative platforms (like this place or political forums & the likes). It's not the bogeyman with a big axe slitting your throat to settle some forum squabble you need to watch out for, but the possible breach of your work-life security.
"Yes, it can carry a lot of real-life info. The difference is, however, that it's voluntarily shared on a public venue, as opposed to clandestinely sussed out."
Even so, it links to their friends lists. Do they deserve to be dragged into this madness just because they know someone from here? A prepared person would set everything on their Facebook to be private, but not everyone is "net savvy". Facebook has just recently begun to make a point of teaching their users about how their privacy functions work.
Unlike myself where I've told people in my life about this place, this isn't the case for everyone.
I think if it's something one member told another, of their own free will, then it should be fair game. Information sussed out by someone, clandestinely, should probably be off limits. Unless, perhaps, the information freely given is followed to other information about said person. I'll leave it to those smarter than me to make the distinction. Personally I don't see what the big deal is. 
Just one man's opinion.
I respect that.
Preferably there'd need to be no rules, but if I don't do anything I'm likely to lose this intendant's spot. It'd just mean someone else stepping in and imposing until somehow no rules can become accepted.
I honestly have no idea how to go about getting rid of the two rules in place now. Setting the line however is an attempt to lessen the severity of the "doxing clause".