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:
threats of violence
exposing personal information
harassment
Rather than:
This includes threats of:
violence
exposing personal information
harassment
(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.
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
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.
Doxing or doxxing (originally spelled d0xing ) is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet.
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.
Whatever dude. If we’re going to tie the ban to a rule, I think we should improve the wording of that rule. Maybe I’ll go start an RFCBBQFML and stop nitting up this thread.
