The New Rules (Currently in Beta)

[Umbrella Corp]

Because PI that is posted here is free game.  Once you post your PI you can't take it back.  As it should be.

[Tokolosh]

Because PI that is posted here is free game.  Once you post your PI you can't take it back.  As it should be.

I wasn't talking about self-inflicted PI. If someone goes out their way to dox you and build an associative bridge of your offline life to your online sanctuary pseudonym, then you should have the option to wipe your posts from here. That account deletion segment has an eerie 'Whatever you post is now sanctuarys proprietary so tough' attitude.

PI aside, a user should have every right to request their account/posts to be deleted from a forum of this nature.

[Umbrella Corp]

Well arnox is human, I'm sure he will take all issues on a case by case basis and if someone is being tormented by a PI abuser, he will work with them.. He ain't a robot and it even said in his OP:

"We do not have a solid set-in-stone list of rules because of the nature of this forum. The rules below have been developed to address issues that commonly arise in the forum. This is not a catch all and is meant to be used as a guideline. "

Meaning the rules aren't like laws, they can be enforced strictly, loosely, or not at all based on the situation.

I can see why you have concerns tho.  Have a little faith.

[Nasheeds and Lesbians]

Mormonism: Life in the key of Beta

A story by Arnox

[SupremeGentleman]

But I thought half of the purpose of HB was drug-fueled incoherency

We're going to make HB a funny SG pretty much and make a spam forum as well to counterbalance that.

As with CP, I don't think we need to be that strict.

You brain dead morman scum, are you too stupid to see the premise behind halfbaked?

[Gollumkip]

Arnox- what's the reason for having posts, essentially "property of the site". Why the hell can't we delete our own posts? Why this rule? What's your objection to giving users this power?

[Lanny]

^^Yeah seriously, account deletion is the one thing that would actually help people who got doxed. At least then they could do some damage control as opposed to the PI rule which doesn't help anyone.

[Arnox]

As mentioned above, that excludes the Nevermind album cover, but what jumped to my mind was the famous photograph from the My Lai Massacre. No shortage of classical art either. Perhaps a caveat is in order stating that if something could be considered CP according to the above rules, but clearly isn't treated that way culturally, get mod approval first.

Isn't there a marketplace subforum? How does that relate?

No problem with the first sentence. But the rest of it... Where to obtain such information includes pretty much any website that teaches coding or networking. Links to software or instructions could possibly come up in context of discussions on security measures. As they say, the best way to see how security works, is to see how security fails.

1. Hm. That could work. However, the definition is already getting a little lengthy. Eh, oh well. I'll put it in.

2. Yeah, I'm thinking about getting rid of the Marketplace. Or perhaps make a rule to where you need to have at least 100 posts to make a thread there.

3. This is true. I'll get rid of the rest of the sentences after the first.

As to account deletion, it creates huge gaps in a bunch of threads that make them confusing and potentially downright unreadable. And actually, if someone's posting your PI, how would deleting your account do you any good?

[Lanny]

And actually, if someone's posting your PI, how would deleting your account do you any good?

Because the only reason people care about PI is because people who know them IRL can see their shit. Go into BI or BLTC and tell me anyone there wouldn't want to delete their posts if their handle here got posted on facebook or something. Also this (what you posted) is the exact argument I made against the PI rule which you haven't addressed, so apparently being helpful to people who had their PI leaked isn't actually criteria for making a rule with respect to PI in your eyes.

[Arnox]

Because the only reason people care about PI is because people who know them IRL can see their shit. Go into BI or BLTC and tell me anyone there wouldn't want to delete their posts if their handle here got posted on facebook or something. Also this (what you posted) is the exact argument I made against the PI rule which you haven't addressed, so apparently being helpful to people who had their PI leaked isn't actually criteria for making a rule with respect to PI in your eyes.

Even if we wanted to, we can't get rid of someone's posts entirely because account deletion won't delete other people's quotes of their posts. And even further, how would anyone on Facebook know it was their account and not actually someone elses? Unless they deliberately posted their PI all over their profile/the website in which case, doing such is their fault. Why should we have to take the hit and butcher our threads for someone else's dumb mistakes?

[Lanny]

Even if we wanted to, we can't get rid of someone's posts entirely because account deletion won't delete other people's quotes of their posts.

Sure but account deletion would make looking up the users posts much more difficult since there would be not index as well as the fact that only some of what you post gets quoted.

And even further, how would anyone on Facebook know it was their account and not actually someone elses?

You could probably identify most people on here if you knew them IRL. I know I'd be identifiable by the content of my posts if you knew me.

Unless they deliberately posted their PI all over their profile/the website in which case, doing such is their fault. Why should we have to take the hit and butcher our threads for someone else's dumb mistakes?

Why should you have to take the hit in the case of the PI rule? Why should the userbase take the hit of getting banned for PI because of someone else's stupid mistake?

[-SpectraL]

It ain't rocket science. You allow member PI to be posted in any way, shape or form and you get an empty forum for your troubles.

Next.

[theKit]

And actually, if someone's posting your PI, how would deleting your account do you any good?

Because the only reason people care about PI is because people who know them IRL can see their shit. Go into BI or BLTC and tell me anyone there wouldn't want to delete their posts if their handle here got posted on facebook or something. Also this (what you posted) is the exact argument I made against the PI rule which you haven't addressed, so apparently being helpful to people who had their PI leaked isn't actually criteria for making a rule with respect to PI in your eyes.

And actually, if someone's posting your PI, how would deleting your account do you any good?

Because the only reason people care about PI is because people who know them IRL can see their shit. Go into BI or BLTC and tell me anyone there wouldn't want to delete their posts if their handle here got posted on facebook or something. Also this (what you posted) is the exact argument I made against the PI rule which you haven't addressed, so apparently being helpful to people who had their PI leaked isn't actually criteria for making a rule with respect to PI in your eyes.

Lanny, why are you so dead set on allowing the posting of personal information? What legitimate reason would a user have to post another users personal information? If you can think of one it could and should be requested as a special exception to mods on a case by case basis.  The no posting PI rule prevents that very scenario.

Deleting accounts should also be only permissible by moderators on a case by case basis as arnox said, it could make threads unreadable.

I would like to know why there is a need for a no bestiality rule? I don't recall ever seeing an influx of furries arriving at Totse or Zoklet, it just seems like a waste of rule space.

What is the logic behind the no advertising rule? I could imagine someone who is aggressively trying to promote something could get annoying with posts about their thing but that could easily be covered by the no spam/flooding rule.

You should remove the rule explaining the 20 post limit, again though necessary - a waste of rule space. just let it exist no need to spell it out. I could see some fags preparing 50 accounts knowing they only has to post 20 times on each one to be able to spam CP for an entire day.

[Arnox]

Sure but account deletion would make looking up the users posts much more difficult since there would be not index as well as the fact that only some of what you post gets quoted.

You could probably identify most people on here if you knew them IRL. I know I'd be identifiable by the content of my posts if you knew me.

Why should you have to take the hit in the case of the PI rule? Why should the userbase take the hit of getting banned for PI because of someone else's stupid mistake?

1. Not very much at all. Not enough to make a difference anyway. All it takes is just one mention of your username anywhere on this forum for someone to confirm that they posted here.

2. That's stretching it honestly and there's still a lot of deniability there even if a particular user does look suspicious.

3. Why should we take the hit for any rules at all? Because the good of doing so outweighs the bad. And as Mr. High just proved, there are a lot of methods one can gain someone else's PI that are beyond ones control.

[DaGuru]

Lanny, why are you so dead set on allowing the posting of personal information? What legitimate reason would a user have to post another users personal information?

He's been asked this before and refuses to answer, because obviously there is ZERO reason. Instead he just continues to stomp his foot and cry like a bitch..."cuz I WANT TO!".