is the issue that his name was there at all (allegedly) or was there and connected to the online persona he’s been using for more than a decade?
it’s lolpoker, but cuse is a public figure who’s been on the teevee and whose name easily discoverable in a number of poker databases. he gleefully had a (former) member of this community live stream his appearance at a final table while we all rooted him on. the Streisand effect is real
Ty
I’d assume all this is due to me not cuse being doxxed by the same person last night, and then someone finding out he doxxed cuse in his profile too. I don’t want my real name googlable from posts here which happened yesterday.
How about just don’t be dicks? Or put people you don’t like on ignore? Its not that hard to not be a dick. There’s many days I am successfully not a dick.
Ok. Great knowing you and great modding. Thank you for your service.
Not to be that guy, but this isn’t clear grammatically that it is referring to doxxing, or just threats of doxxing. I assume it is intended to mean:
This includes:
Rather than:
This includes threats of:
(Obviously doxxing is bad if threats of doxxing are bad, just making a stupid nitty point.)
Where we draw the line with public figures, what constitutes a public figure, etc, is probably a separate question. My personal opinion is that since cuse prefers not to have his IRL name associated with that screen name on this site we should honor that under the “don’t be dicks” rule.
that’s not what’s in ota’s note above (edit: or Johnny’s note either). this seems entirely about cuse.
you can’t ignore a mod (lol at cuse still being a mod btw, but that’s a different issue i guess).
but more importantly, can you really not see why the “no dick” rule of common courtesy might not be extended to this one guy in this one situation considering what he’s directly responsible for in the forum?
I think it’s obviously the linking of the screen name to the real life information. That seems like clear doxxing to me. And, imo, I don’t think it’s relevant how many breadcrumbs the user might have left that would enable someone else to make that connection, particularly when the user in question has made it clear that they do not want that connection made publicly. In the CW case, admittedly, it was a large trail of breadcrumbs with the FT event. But I’ve certainly left enough personal tidbits around here to link my username to my real identity, and I’d still want someone banned if they started posting “spidercrab is XYZ ABCD who works at JKLKM” out of sheer malice.
Do we really need to “well actually” this? How about just don’t doxx your fellow users?
Yes, it’s related as your situation is what caused me to view AQ’s profile. He’s had that name for a few weeks, but I had not noticed it.
This is something I’ve not paid attention to (because I don’t view myself as a mod or having any other kind of authority), but I think you’re right. I don’t think there’s any reason to have a non-user with mod status, and I’m inclined to revoke it. I’ll give the rest of the day for anyone to suggest otherwise.
don’t disagree at all. in this case though, there is a real difference between him and you (and virtually all of the rest of us) that shouldn’t be ignored
Ignoring the asshole means you don’t see when he doxxes you.
A better analog would be Watevs, who is a well known public figure in the poker world.
If someone updated their name here to say “[Full name] is Watevs” after Watevs changed their screen name and made an attempt to distance their screen name from their real name I think we’d all agree that’s a dick move, even if we had sweated him at a FT before.
Did you actually read my post or just the first five words? Let me rephrase. This rule as written may not clearly prohibit doxxing, so we may want to clarify that in the future and be more explicit about not allowing doxxing.
100%, but it’s not doxxing
no one can argue (succesfully at least) that this isn’t a dick move. It wouldn’t be doxxing though. it’s being a dick.
Doxing or doxxing (originally spelled d0xing ) is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet.
Sure seems to meet that definition.
you can’t provide identifiable information on someone we all know. you can just be a dick to him after he asked not to repeat the information he shared publicly.
being a dick could, especially in this instance, be a bannable offense.
That rule implies the person shouldn’t already have been identifiable, which in c*** rounder’s case clearly isn’t the case because he deliberately announced his real name here, in person, himself, and what’s more other poker players all know him by both his c*** rounder name (under which he’s released videos of himself) and by his real name.