Clarification on privacy policy

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:19 pm

I got a PM about a discussion regarding privacy policy that I have not participated in, because of my own personal policy of ignoring threads started by someone on my ignore list. The key question needs to be answered to all forum members, not just the one who sent it to me.

I recently deleted a thread that violated the forum's privacy policy. The question is, did I do it at my own initiative, or in response to a specific request? The answer: I did it in response to a specific request in accordance with policy.

There was also a question about how and when words are added to the forum's blocked words list. The answer: if I receive frequent and multiple requests to delete the same words or phrases from posts to the extent that I cannot find the time to do it, I will add those words or phrases to the blocked words list.

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:27 pm

I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:28 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:https://www.google.com/
what's your point?

some old threads were amusing to read.

Anyway, from the search results it looks like starting 2013 admin began deleting threads that were started with FF's name in it. So maybe something happened then.

Now, admin has made it clear many times that if a person reaches out to him regarding personal info or deleting threads, he will do it. but he has not mentioned that he will make that information public. Hence we may want to give a BOD that flimflam made that request. However, seeing FF's behavior it doesn't look like he did.

In that case, I wanna know

- does admin have that right to delete threads in case of repeated offense, and if others have complained to him about it, publicly or privately (we may not know this, but seeing max's response, this can be a possibility).

- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

by MaxEntropy_Man Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:32 pm

Idéfix wrote:I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

good for you. for what it's worth you have my continued support for navigating as best as you can, the morass of dealing with the admin issues of this forum. i am not sure what compels people to allude to private info of others as a means of getting back at them on a forum which they've inhabited for a long time. even dogs know not to poop or pee where they live.

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:43 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:Anyway, from the search results it looks like starting 2013 admin began deleting threads that were started with FF's name in it. So maybe something happened then.

Correct. I received a request to remove some specific posts, which I did promptly.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:Now, admin has made it clear many times that if a person reaches out to him regarding personal info or deleting threads, he will do it. but he has not mentioned that he will make that information public. Hence we may want to give a BOD that flimflam made that request. However, seeing FF's behavior it doesn't look like he did.

I haven't seen what he may or may not have said on the other thread. As far as I am concerned, there was enough in the requests I received that required admin action. Expecting strong proof or confirmation of such requests defeats the very purpose of privacy protection. On this point, members do have to rely on my judgment.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:- does admin have that right to delete threads in case of repeated offense, and if others have complained to him about it, publicly or privately (we may not know this, but seeing max's response, this can be a possibility).

Only if the complaint is from an affected party.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

Yes, if the names have been frequently disclosed requiring you to make multiple requests, and me to intervene frequently as admin.

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:46 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

good for you. for what it's worth you have my continued support for navigating as best as you can, the morass of dealing with the admin issues of this forum. i am not sure what compels people to allude to private info of others as a means of getting back at them on a forum which they've inhabited for a long time. even dogs know not to poop or pee where they live.

Thanks Max. This forum would get a lot better if people stopped posting such private information of others. I just do not understand why regular posters insist on violating the rules.

by confuzzled dude Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:47 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

good for you. for what it's worth you have my continued support for navigating as best as you can, the morass of dealing with the admin issues of this forum. i am not sure what compels people to allude to private info of others as a means of getting back at them on a forum which they've inhabited for a long time. even dogs know not to poop or pee where they live.

Couldn't have said it better. +1

by nevada Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:50 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

good for you. for what it's worth you have my continued support for navigating as best as you can, the morass of dealing with the admin issues of this forum. i am not sure what compels people to allude to private info of others as a means of getting back at them on a forum which they've inhabited for a long time. even dogs know not to poop or pee where they live.
Couldn't have said it better. +1

+2

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:32 pm

From the other thread. Since you said that you do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun, i am posting it here.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:42 pm

Kinnera wrote:From the other thread. Since you said that you do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun, i am posting it here.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

I think he answered that:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

Yes, if the names have been frequently disclosed requiring you to make multiple requests, and me to intervene frequently as admin.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:44 pm

thanks for the explanation caru.

If FF indeed requested caru to delete the postings of his own name, was quite cheeky of him to try posting caru's name and company later especially when he was on a break. What a slimefuck.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:50 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
Kinnera wrote:From the other thread. Since you said that you do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun, i am posting it here.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

I think he answered that:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

Yes, if the names have been frequently disclosed requiring you to make multiple requests, and me to intervene frequently as admin.

I didn't really understand the above. He's only talking about 'disclosing names', which probably mean real names. How about the aggressive black mailing, threatening, slandering, personal attacks, etc that went on rampantly here a few weeks ago?

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:52 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:thanks for the explanation caru.

If FF indeed requested caru to delete the postings of his own name, was quite cheeky of him to try posting caru's name and company later especially when he was on a break. What a slimefuck.

The request and deletions occurred a few days ago, not months ago.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:54 pm

Idéfix wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:thanks for the explanation caru.

If FF indeed requested caru to delete the postings of his own name, was quite cheeky of him to try posting caru's name and company later especially when he was on a break. What a slimefuck.
The request and deletions occurred a few days ago, not months ago.

thanks for the correction.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:58 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
Kinnera wrote:From the other thread. Since you said that you do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun, i am posting it here.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:
- also, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

I think he answered that:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:, say if I send him a note asking him to block certain names and a justification for it, will he honor it. Just like he honored his own request as a regular user.

Yes, if the names have been frequently disclosed requiring you to make multiple requests, and me to intervene frequently as admin.
I didn't really understand the above. He's only talking about 'disclosing names', which probably mean real names. How about the aggressive black mailing, threatening, slandering, personal attacks, etc that went on rampantly here a few weeks ago?

that way guess this is an unmoderated forum and we all sorta agreed to it in the beginning itself. The point here is that if i try to type Caru's real name, the site won't let me. Likewise if someone's posting my real name often enough for me to request him to delete it, then he can apply that rule for my name as well. Not sure if he has applied that rule for FF's name as well. I am not gonna try. Don't care that much.

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:05 pm

Correct. Kinnera, if there is any private info disclosed a few weeks ago, please let me know by PM. As for the remaining aspects like personal attacks, that is par for the course with an unmoderated forum. We should all moderate ourselves when it comes to attaching others. Admin has no role to play in that.

by southindian Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:36 pm

You all take this place way too seriously. Login, read, post... move on. If you live long enough you'll read, post more. If not then so be it.

by truthbetold Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:42 pm

southindian wrote:You all take this place way too seriously. Login, read, post... move on. If you live long enough you'll read, post more. If not then so be it.

+1.

by Guest Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:56 pm

southindian wrote:You all take this place way too seriously. Login, read, post, mind your own business without bothering about others.... move on. If you live long enough you'll read, post more. If not then so be it.

now i'd give it a +1

by goodcitizn Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:44 pm

What was offensive or inappropriate that Huzay posted that prompted its removal by admn?

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:16 pm

goodcitizn wrote:What was offensive or inappropriate that Huzay posted that prompted its removal by admn?

The post that was removed contained the purported real name of a poster.

by goodcitizn Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:21 pm

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:What was offensive or inappropriate that Huzay posted that prompted its removal by admn?
The post that was removed contained the purported real name of a poster.

I thought the link Tracy gave also contained the purported real name (unless I am mistaken) so why wasn't that deleted?

by Idéfix Sat Nov 15, 2014 8:50 pm

goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:What was offensive or inappropriate that Huzay posted that prompted its removal by admn?
The post that was removed contained the purported real name of a poster.

I thought the link Tracy gave also contained the purported real name (unless I am mistaken) so why wasn't that deleted?

My bad, I hadn't caught that. It is fixed now.

by goodcitizn Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:09 pm

Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
goodcitizn wrote:What was offensive or inappropriate that Huzay posted that prompted its removal by admn?
The post that was removed contained the purported real name of a poster.

I thought the link Tracy gave also contained the purported real name (unless I am mistaken) so why wasn't that deleted?
My bad, I hadn't caught that. It is fixed now.

Good to see you back. Hope you stay awhile.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:37 pm

nevada wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I do not intend to participate in the thread started by Rashmun. If there are any other questions about the privacy policy or the specific circumstances of the recent deletion, please feel free to post them here for my benefit. I am happy to answer any questions, just do not want to be dragged back in to a world that I have learned to ignore.

good for you. for what it's worth you have my continued support for navigating as best as you can, the morass of dealing with the admin issues of this forum. i am not sure what compels people to allude to private info of others as a means of getting back at them on a forum which they've inhabited for a long time. even dogs know not to poop or pee where they live.
Couldn't have said it better. +1

+2

+ Infinity

But then pigs can only oink oink and they are simply untrainable.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:21 am

Idéfix wrote:
I recently deleted a thread that violated the forum's privacy policy. The question is, did I do it at my own initiative, or in response to a specific request? The answer: I did it in response to a specific request in accordance with policy.

OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is also true that there is a tea cup orbiting the sun between earth and mars!

it is also true that you never read beatrix's question in this thread concerning adding flimflam's name to the auto-disallow function. it is also true that you added his name when you added yours but the program just refuses to work in his case.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 5:41 am

the forum policy clearly states that only two people can request for deletion of my post: ff and me. no wonder you have given an ambiguous reply by using the words, "specific request."

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:07 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:the forum policy clearly states that only two people can request for deletion of my post: ff and me.

Correct. Now I leave it up to you to figure out who the request came from.

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:12 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I recently deleted a thread that violated the forum's privacy policy. The question is, did I do it at my own initiative, or in response to a specific request? The answer: I did it in response to a specific request in accordance with policy.
OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is also true that there is a tea cup orbiting the sun between earth and mars!

it is also true that you never read beatrix's question in this thread concerning adding flimflam's name to the auto-disallow function. it is also true that you added his name when you added yours but the program just refuses to work in his case.

Beatrix asked about whether I would add other names to the blocked word list. My answer is above.

The first request requiring deleting of names other than my own came in this past week. If the violations continue, I will have no choice but to add some words to the blocked list. Adding words to that list is a last resort measure when forum members can't police themselves.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:13 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
I recently deleted a thread that violated the forum's privacy policy. The question is, did I do it at my own initiative, or in response to a specific request? The answer: I did it in response to a specific request in accordance with policy.
OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it is also true that there is a tea cup orbiting the sun between earth and mars!

it is also true that you never read beatrix's question in this thread concerning adding flimflam's name to the auto-disallow function. it is also true that you added his name when you added yours but the program just refuses to work in his case.
Beatrix asked about whether I would add other names to the blocked word list. My answer is above.

The first request requiring deleting of names other than my own came in this past week. If the violations continue, I will have no choice but to add some words to the blocked list. Adding words to that list is a last resort measure when forum members can't police themselves.

you acted selfishly. you are a liar too (horrible!). you broke your own policy (minor issue). you did not include ff's name in auto-disallow (major issue!) fuck off. be it mutual.

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:17 pm

If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:19 pm

Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:22 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?

The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:31 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.

chal you stand exonerated. but not including, in the function, the name of the gay bastard, also called flimflam, was a selfish action on your part. but it's ok. job is more important that an online forum. you acted in the best of your judgement. no one reads the fine print when applying for a credit card. in any case i was leaving. good to learn that i am leaving with a <3 with you. bye.

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:38 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.

As far as I'm concerned you don't need to answer these silly questions from a grown man who acts like a toddler. I trust your judgment more than this guy's any day. And I'm even OKAY with you removing names that you suspect are real, without anyone's consent or request.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:40 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.
As far as I'm concerned you don't need to answer these silly questions from a grown man who acts like a toddler. I trust your judgment more than this guy's any day. And I'm even OKAY with you removing names that you suspect are real, without anyone's consent or request.

you are absolutely right. but admin refuses to grow up.

edit. but i do not agree with your comment in bold. why? because i never agree to comments made by an idiot (also called chutiya in roman hindi)

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:41 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.

chal you stand exonerated. but not including, in the function, the name of the gay bastard, also called flimflam, was a selfish action on your part. but it's ok. job is more important that an online forum. you acted in the best of your judgement. no one reads the fine print when applying for a credit card. in any case i was leaving. good to learn that i am leaving with a <3 with you. bye.

As I said before, if the violations continue I have no choice but to add other names to that list.

I did not have a request for admin intervention regarding flimflam's name when I first setup that list several months ago. The first request cane a few days ago, and I have had to login thrice so far as admin to enforce the request. If I have to do more, I will move to the last resort measure.

As far as I am concerned, I would hate to see you go. Despite your theatrics, I find you a valuable member of this community, and I personally enjoy interacting with you. The one real problem I have with you is your penchant for disclosing personal information, both yours and those of others, in a community built on anonymity.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:45 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.

chal you stand exonerated. but not including, in the function, the name of the gay bastard, also called flimflam, was a selfish action on your part. but it's ok. job is more important that an online forum. you acted in the best of your judgement. no one reads the fine print when applying for a credit card. in any case i was leaving. good to learn that i am leaving with a <3 with you. bye.
As I said before, if the violations continue I have no choice but to add other names to that list.

I did not have a request for admin intervention regarding flimflam's name when I first setup that list several months ago. The first request cane a few days ago, and I have had to login thrice so far as admin to enforce the request. If I have to do more, I will move to the last resort measure.

As far as I am concerned, I would hate to see you go. Despite your theatrics, I find you a valuable member of this community, and I personally enjoy interacting with you. The one real problem I have with you is your penchant for disclosing personal information, both yours and those of others, in a community built on anonymity.

kindly stop your bullshit as to why you should not have added [name removed]. let it pass. job more important. return to life and let me too.

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:46 pm

I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:48 pm

Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:56 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?

It struck me, but I did not have the power then to add that name because there was no request made by the affected party.

If free speech is restricted in this forum, it will be on the basis of specific requests from affected parties, not by admin making the decision to restrict words randomly.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:57 pm

from what i understand:

1. he has to get a request from the party affected or the party doing the mischief.
2. the offense has to happen repeatedly, and if he is not watching, then get repeated requests.
3. if it is happening too often, he will add the name to the list, coz it's a bother to login in as an admin over and over, especially if he is not around normally.

by confuzzled dude Sun Nov 16, 2014 12:58 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:If you do not want to believe me, unfortunately there is nothing I can do to help you with that. I am glad that the poster whose privacy was being violated repeatedly by you has taken action to get that fixed. As admin, I have to act on those requests. As a poster, I am glad the requests were made.

who complained to you to get my post deleted?
The poster whose purported private information you disclosed in that post.
As far as I'm concerned you don't need to answer these silly questions from a grown man who acts like a toddler. I trust your judgment more than this guy's any day. And I'm even OKAY with you removing names that you suspect are real, without anyone's consent or request.

you are absolutely right. but admin refuses to grow up.

edit. but i do not agree with your comment in bold. why? because i never agree to comments made by an idiot (also called chutiya in roman hindi)

We all are fully aware of it, you don't need to go to the trouble of reminding us of the strongest trait of yours, everyday Razz

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:00 pm

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:from what i understand:

1. he has to get a request from the party affected or the party doing the mischief.
2. the offense has to happen repeatedly, and if he is not watching, then get repeated requests.
3. if it is happening too often, he will add the name to the list, coz it's a bother to login in as an admin over and over, especially if he is not around normally.

Correct, thanks for explaining clearly.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:06 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?
It struck me, but I did not have the power to add that name because there was no request made by the affected party.

BULLSHIT OF THE FIRST ORDER! DID THE CONCERNED PARTY (YOU CLAIM THAT THE AFFECTED PARTY SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR DELETION TO YOU FOR THE LAST VIOLATION BY ME). CLEARLY THE LAST DELETION WAS ON HIS ORDER -- EARLIER WE DON'T KNOW IF WAS INITIATED BY YOU OR HIM (TELL US PLEASE). ARE YOU AN IDIOT, IN RETROSPECT, TO NOT APPRECIATE THAT HIS REAL NAME BE ADDED IN BANNED WORDS WHEN YOU ADDED YOURS?

by Idéfix Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:11 pm

chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?
It struck me, but I did not have the power to add that name because there was no request made by the affected party.
BULLSHIT OF THE FIRST ORDER! DID THE CONCERNED PARTY (YOU CLAIM THAT THE AFFECTED PARTY SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR DELETION TO YOU FOR THE LAST VIOLATION BY ME). CLEARLY THE LAST DELETION WAS ON HIS ORDER -- EARLIER WE DON'T KNOW IF WAS INITIATED BY YOU OR HIM (TELL US PLEASE). ARE YOU AN IDIOT, IN RETROSPECT, TO NOT APPRECIATE THAT HIS REAL NAME BE ADDED IN BANNED WORDS WHEN YOU ADDED YOURS?

Calm down, I will respond to you without all those caps as well. The last deletion, as well as deletions of old violations, both occurred in the past week, and both were in response to specific requests from the affected party. If you don't trust me on this, you may be able to verify it from any caching services out there. In fact Google still throws up some deleted posts because its crawlers haven't got through the site yet since those deletions.

by Guest Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:20 pm

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?
It struck me, but I did not have the power to add that name because there was no request made by the affected party.
BULLSHIT OF THE FIRST ORDER! DID THE CONCERNED PARTY (YOU CLAIM THAT THE AFFECTED PARTY SUBMITTED A CLAIM FOR DELETION TO YOU FOR THE LAST VIOLATION BY ME). CLEARLY THE LAST DELETION WAS ON HIS ORDER -- EARLIER WE DON'T KNOW IF WAS INITIATED BY YOU OR HIM (TELL US PLEASE). ARE YOU AN IDIOT, IN RETROSPECT, TO NOT APPRECIATE THAT HIS REAL NAME BE ADDED IN BANNED WORDS WHEN YOU ADDED YOURS?
Calm down, I will respond to you without all those caps as well. The last deletion, as well as deletions of old violations, both occurred in the past week, and both were in response to specific requests from the affected party. If you don't trust me on this, you may be able to verify it from any caching services out there. In fact Google still throws up some deleted posts because its crawlers haven't got through the site yet since those deletions.

i trust you. you are a good man. i surmise ff complained (i can't stop laughing). you need not post anything more. you did act selfishly by not including his name in the auto-disallowed function. but that is par for the course for you have been blessed with a thankless job and a real job. the real is more important. if you post anything more (or even if you don't) i won't respond. bye you and such.

by Guest Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:09 am

Idéfix wrote:As far as I am concerned, I would hate to see you go. Despite your theatrics, I find you a valuable member of this community, and I personally enjoy interacting with you. The one real problem I have with you is your penchant for disclosing personal information, both yours and those of others, in a community built on anonymity.

i've reached an age where i've decided, by principle, to start avoiding anonymous forums. more so if it is moderated (killing posts). i am taking a stand now. won't participate.

by Guest Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:27 am

Idéfix wrote:
chutiya #1 wrote:
Idéfix wrote:I have said what needed to be said. Can't help you if you think that is bullshit.

why did you not add [name removed]? you acted arbitrarily -- did it not strike you to add his name?
It struck me, but I did not have the power then to add that name because there was no request made by the affected party.

you did not have the power to delete ff's name when you added your name.

1) who told you that you need a power? you made the edit in the forum privacy policy in june 2014. till then there were NO rules on this subject.
2) time and again you have had to step in to delete ff's name at his behest (empowering you) before you inserted your name in the banned list. not power enough to "take action?" does your edit specifically state that you have to be informed via pm (as it does for the other case) to bring it to your "notice?" if you intend to nitpick, did you write a pm to yourself before banning mention of your personal details? and, in any case, how could we have brought it to your notice between your creation of a banned list and your edit?

by Guest Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:40 am

and you made the edit only after you were called out or else it might have taken a longer time (maybe never).

by Sponsored content