Sociopath Community

That lynch-rule is a giant loophole.

Just reading about Pink's case is very transparent how easy it would be to abuse it.

"You expect Pink to confirm to you if that was her residence or not ? She was freaking out and begging for it to be taken down, and you expect her to say yes it's her place ?"

Yes.  That's the rule.

"I doubt you told them someone in their household is being doxed on sociopath community"

He did.

"and how their daughter is losing her breath over it, and there's some guy who's trying to intimidate their kid, and will be sending some packages."

None of that happened until after the call.  It's also irrelevant information.  They knew the site, they knew that their address, phone number, and photos were posted.  He offered to take it down.  They said no.  That's all that matters.

"Pink did not confirm or deny it being her residence"

She denied it many times.

"For the other doxes, less is required for you to take it down. That's what I was pointing out last time we had this discussion."

No, the same thing was required.  The only thing.  That the doxxed party request that it be taken down.  All other doxxed people did exactly that.  They shot him a PM saying it was their info and they'd like it taken down, and he did so promptly.  That's all that was required of Pink, which was reiterated to her many times.  She continued to insist it wasn't hers.

Nope, I only stated that I know more than I should, and it wasn't you who told me, I thought I made that point clear??? I fail to see where the hypocrisy comes in at for this one. I think maaaaybeeees its you talking in word circles for lack of a clear response to my question about you having any sort of legitimate reason to be weary of me. Admit it woman! You don't think I'm that bad! Admit it!!!!

TC doesn't have spite for anyone on this forum. XD

That aside, here's a basic breakdown.  The rule about doxxes is that they can be taken down at the request of the person doxxed.  Pink insisted it wasn't her information.  Therefore, she was not in a position to have it taken down.  TC responded accordingly, by going to the source.  He called the doxxed number.  The people on the other end confirmed it was their info, and said they didn't care that it was up.  Therefore, at the request of the actual doxxed party, it was left up.

Tony is saying he would have taken it down in spite of this.  Which would have meant going against the rules the community agreed upon.  If he's so openly willing to abuse the rules at his own whims, we're left to wonder what else he might do as a mod.  You see where I'm coming from?

No, it's not about the conscience of the mod.  And it never should be.  It's about adhering to the rules, plain and simple.  Moderation is not what you think is right or wrong.

Can we just poll it with an option for no new member?

This is too long a commercial break.

Yes, I do believe that.  As I previously stated.  However, it's not about what I believe.  Nor is it about doxxing.  It's about following the rules as a moderator.  TC followed the rules that were laid down.  If you, Rass, and Tony think those rules should be changed, feel free to restart the discussion on it.  However, how you feel about that rule does not change that it exists, and that TC followed it.  He did his job as a moderator.  What I'm trying to draw attention to in Tony's case, is that he blatantly said he would disregard the rules in favour of his own opinions on the matter.

"You expect Pink to confirm to you if that was her residence or not ? She was freaking out and begging for it to be taken down, and you expect her to say yes it's her place ?"

"Yes.  That's the rule."

LOL. No it isn't the rule. Who told you that's the rule ?

.

.

.

"No, the same thing was required.  The only thing.  That the doxxed party request that it be taken down.  All other doxxed people did exactly that.  They shot him a PM saying it was their info and they'd like it taken down, and he did so promptly.  That's all that was required of Pink, which was reiterated to her many times.  She continued to insist it wasn't hers."

She begged him to take it down in the forum, but now, if only she PM'd him the request it would have been done as easily as angee's Smith's and Mee's.

Brilliant.

"It's not silly.  It's reasonable.  Otherwise, anyone could have all sorts of info removed, even if it had nothing to do with them.  It opens the door for everyone on this site to abuse moderation.  Something we have more than enough of already."

A doxing is pretty obvious from other types of information. There's no valid reason to leave someone's personal information up, whether they admit it's theirs or not. It is still someone's personal information either way that can be abused and exploited.

It's all fun and games when it's someone else being doxed, but when it happens to you it's not so funny anymore.

I have no idea where you actually stand on this matter, but if you believe it's okay to leave someone's personal information up, then you also believe it's okay to leave yours up if it happens to you.