(2017-09-21, 09:15 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I'm wondering what the policy might be for members who make claims about themselves which can't be verified or which they refuse to verify. I'm thinking, in particular, about claims of expertise, qualifications or professional standing which might be used to back up arguments but which are bogus.
Are we saying that in such a case, if information is available to counter such claims, it would not be allowed?
I'm not offering an opinion either way - just wondering whether this needs clarification too.
If information is available to counter claims then the counter doesn't amount to defamation, because the counters are true and substantiated. But in any case, even if false, such counters wouldn't amount to serious/egregious defamation, and would not be policed by moderators.
OK, I was asking because I had to look up the term "doxxing" which is new to me.
(2017-09-21, 09:24 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]OK, I was asking because I had to look up the term "doxxing" which is new to me.
Oh, right - well, yes, if the counters to the claims required identifying an otherwise-anonymous member, then that would be doxxing and would not be allowed.
Have there been any cases of doxxing* on this forum? Have otherwise anonymous members been identified publicly? Would that be a breach of the rules or not?
*since I'm new to that term, I'm not sure of its nuances or scope - or even its meaning, come to that.
The only reason I reported (first time ever) Steve's post was because of the wording of his "example" using rapist etc.
Using language like that to hypothetically make a point is potentially (at least) giving some unknown troll the means to copy it and stick it up somewhere else just for the hell of it. I don't know why he couldn't just have used ....such and such a body is a 'poo poo head' or something.
(2017-09-21, 10:26 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]Have there been any cases of doxxing* on this forum? Have otherwise anonymous members been identified publicly? Would that be a breach of the rules or not?
*since I'm new to that term, I'm not sure of its nuances or scope - or even its meaning, come to that.
The only case of doxxing on this forum that I'm aware of is the (my) doxxing of Oliver Smith, who had created over half a dozen sock-puppet and impersonation accounts, including the "Leuders" account impersonating the RationalWiki editor, with which he racked up more than a few posts. I think that doxxing a malicious troll who has persecuted a friend of this forum (Rome Viharo) mercilessly, and who tried have banned another innocent user by pinning his sock-puppets on that user, is fair game: this sends a message to the troll that we know who he is and that his activities will not be tolerated. "Internet criminals" like Oliver do not deserve the privilege of anonymity. It also sends a message to the general internet community that this person has a history and to look out for him.
But as for ordinary forum members: no, I'm not aware of any doxxing as yet on this forum.
Since you're new to the term: doxxing is generally regarded as a serious sin on the net. It refers to the act of revealing the real identity behind an otherwise-anonymous internet account, including the person's real name and/or contact details (including address, phone number, etc).
(2017-09-21, 10:26 AM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]The only reason I reported (first time ever) Steve's post was because of the wording of his "example" using rapist etc.
Using language like that to hypothetically make a point is potentially (at least) giving some unknown troll the means to copy it and stick it up somewhere else just for the hell of it. I don't know why he couldn't just have used ....such and such a body is a 'poo poo head' or something.
I think the point was to provide a realistic example that "hits home", to encourage introspection as to how one would feel were one to be confronted with
actual words along those lines. I offered a similar example to Max earlier in the thread re mental illness and pathological lying.
(2017-09-21, 10:55 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think the point was to provide a realistic example that "hits home", to encourage introspection as to how one would feel were one to be confronted with actual words along those lines. I offered a similar example to Max earlier in the thread re mental illness and pathological lying.
Of course, Laird I get that. It's just there's now a potential (however unlikely) to copy that statement and for some troll to stick it up somewhere else.
(2017-09-21, 11:07 AM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, Laird I get that. It's just there's now a potential (however unlikely) to copy that statement and for some troll to stick it up somewhere else.
I take your point, Tim, but... well, trolls gonna troll - with or without statements to copy. Not much we can do about that except to call them out and ban them when they appear on our forum. I don't think we should self-censor based on what trolls might do with our statements. I appreciate though that you are concerned for the reputations of forum members - it's an admirable concern.
(2017-09-21, 10:47 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]The only case of doxxing on this forum that I'm aware of is ...
Thanks for the clarification.Yes, I was indirectly alluding to that, I wasn't sure how that fitted within this context. I've nothing further to add here.