This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 212
331
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:02:03 PM »
332
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:01:37 PM »
Can you fucking drop this already.
what did you think I would do though
Not this.
It's just a stupid forum. Who the hell cares. If you're gonna share PM's expect a ban. Whether or not Verbatim deserves to be banned is irrelevant to your almost obsessive behavior about this.
It's not worth the time and energy. Just drop it and move on. Nobody cares.
but without drama I don't have a reason to post
333
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:00:47 PM »
Privacy is a right. A right that only criminals need.
So journalists abroad reporting on oppressive governments don't deserve security (the lack of which would get them killed/arrested/disappeared). Gotcha. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
334
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:44:20 PM »
Can you fucking drop this already.
what did you think I would do though
335
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:39:03 PM »
This isn't VDF
If it were any other member, it would be the same course of action.
That's demonstrably untrue.
Care to list any people that have done it post-rules updates that were explicitly told not to share pms? Or are you referring to that hiccup in Anarchy where Cheat mistakenly said posting PMs was ok? People weren't banned because that was the staffs fault, not theirs.
I mean sure, you could talk about people who have shown their PMs offsite or probably via pm to each other. But if it's not on Sep7 and it's not being reported then there's not much we can do about it.
I'm only really talking about this silly PM-gate. I wouldn't have a clue about Anarchy.
Everything I said is related to "pm-gate". If you can prove that people who have been explicitly told not to share pms after our rule revision however long ago that was you'll be correct in your assertion that you are the only one here that gets banned for this. Provided of course that the staff here was in the know about it happening.
That's an awfully specific requirement. The problem that I and a lot of folks saw with PM-gate is that a user can admit they were not actually bothered or otherwise 'injured' by the thing that they got someone banned for (aka exploit a loophole), then go for about two whole threads shitflinging and only get a verbal. I don't remember a single time that that was ever a policy on this site until now. Oh vey, it's reaching the Roman Saga in installments.
he's an inspiration
I heard rumors of a crossover. Is PMgate going to cameo in the next Roman chapter?
If Roman ever realizes that he should date dudes, nah I ain't hittin' that, sorry.
336
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:36:13 PM »
Your name is weird
This song is all I can think of
which is funny because you LIKE DICK AND NOT BOOBIES
oh that's funny because my name is supposed to be a reference to 
337
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:34:29 PM »
Oh vey, it's reaching the Roman Saga in installments.
he's an inspiration
338
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:33:12 PM »
You very well know that that was in reference to people getting away with stuff that they probably shouldn't have due to either mistakes on the staffs part or ignorance on the staffs part. That's exactly my point. I also touched on earlier on how going back and punishing someone after they've already complied with the request of a different mod doesn't make anything better, it just makes things worse.
what's wrong with fixing mistakes? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ double jeopardy doesn't apply here I don't think.
339
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:28:27 PM »
This isn't VDF
If it were any other member, it would be the same course of action.
That's demonstrably untrue.
Care to list any people that have done it post-rules updates that were explicitly told not to share pms? Or are you referring to that hiccup in Anarchy where Cheat mistakenly said posting PMs was ok? People weren't banned because that was the staffs fault, not theirs.
I mean sure, you could talk about people who have shown their PMs offsite or probably via pm to each other. But if it's not on Sep7 and it's not being reported then there's not much we can do about it.
I'm only really talking about this silly PM-gate. I wouldn't have a clue about Anarchy.
340
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:25:25 PM »
This isn't VDF
If it were any other member, it would be the same course of action.
That's demonstrably untrue.
prove it
stop
341
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:25:01 PM »
Oh man, cause Verb and I have such a buddy buddy history together.
So are you purposely trying to misconstrue peoples posts by conveniently leaving out chunks of them to waste our time at this point?
I'm a bit confused, to say the least.  My thoughts are basically: 
342
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:21:59 PM »
This isn't VDF
If it were any other member, it would be the same course of action.
That's demonstrably untrue.
343
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:20:05 PM »
If people were smart, like me
LOL
344
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:15:25 PM »
I think you are confusing the order of events there, I was in a bad mood because I'd blacklisted you for two weeks.
I had said last time, if you posted the PMs again the ban would be double the previous - which it was.
>.> I didn't know much about the bad mood thing so I guessed
Yeah, well now you do.
It's ridiculous, all of this. You knew exactly what would happen if you posted the PMs but you did it anyway, to then try and make it out as some horrendous mod abuse is beyond me.
If someone is breaking the rules, report them for christs sake. The thing is though, you have to bear in mind that if your actions are what's caused someone to respond rudely to you then how are we meant to smack them in the same manner as an unprovoked attack?
I'll say it here now for clarity and future reference, if you post the PMs again then it'll be double the last ban as with the previous one and that's about a month.
I don't understand this VDF attitude here: Posting PMs is against the rules regardless of the sender's personal feelings about it Not necessarily true.
Consistency was never the staff's strong suit, and I would know firsthand. (Especially considering verb's a repeat offender, for some reason his moderation history gets reset after every verbal. I've demonstrated that this only applies to him and not other users, like myself) This whole incident has shown that what Verb's done is not against the rules, which makes reporting a moot point. It doesn't get anything done, which is exactly why you keep giving that excuse.
345
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:08:56 PM »
I will seriously post a video of myself crying on camera if you post those PMs again. DO NOT do it.
I'm technically not posting these again: http://sep7agon.net/the-flood/wait-so-why-was-kupo-blacklisted/msg1165271/#msg1165271I can override staff and I've done it before, but I have to wonder why I'd override a staff member that was enforcing the rules correctly.
Do I need to screencap the Skype convo?
Which one? I have lots of skype conversations. I honestly don't remember all of them either. If you're referring to the one where I said yeah, it might be a bit of a grey area because it wasn't explicitly stated that pms count as personal information then yeah I did say that, but you'd also be discounting the fact that you've been explicitly told multiple times that they do and proceeded to post them anyway.
There's more to that than your screencap. I believe I also said that there was no reason to afterwards because after Psy's verbal everything calmed down and got back on track.
Any more random potshots you want to take?
That's also not what you said on Skype. 
346
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:05:10 PM »
Hey Kupo, want me to get the lid off that bottle of pills for you?
I'd prefer a belt.
347
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:03:00 PM »
I think you are confusing the order of events there, I was in a bad mood because I'd blacklisted you for two weeks.
I had said last time, if you posted the PMs again the ban would be double the previous - which it was.
>.> I didn't know much about the bad mood thing so I guessed
348
« on: March 08, 2016, 03:01:20 PM »
I can override staff and I've done it before, but I have to wonder why I'd override a staff member that was enforcing the rules correctly.
Do I need to screencap the Skype convo?
Which one? I have lots of skype conversations. I honestly don't remember all of them either. If you're referring to the one where I said yeah, it might be a bit of a grey area because it wasn't explicitly stated that pms count as personal information then yeah I did say that, but you'd also be discounting the fact that you've been explicitly told multiple times that they do and proceeded to post them anyway.
349
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:56:05 PM »
The release of other user’s personal information, including full names, addresses, social media accounts, images, private messages, etc. without their consent is not tolerated.
If the person is given permission then it's ok.
Way to cut out an important bit.
'Not caring' is implicit consent.
If I recall correctly he said he didn't want them posted in the pm.
Nothing else he did indicated that.
350
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:53:26 PM »
I can override staff and I've done it before, but I have to wonder why I'd override a staff member that was enforcing the rules correctly.
Do I need to screencap the Skype convo?
351
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:51:08 PM »
The release of other user’s personal information, including full names, addresses, social media accounts, images, private messages, etc. without their consent is not tolerated.
If the person is given permission then it's ok.
Way to cut out an important bit.
'Not caring' is implicit consent.
352
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:48:09 PM »
(borrowing the title from that old fabled thread of yore) Psy was in a bad mood and blacklisted me for about two weeks. Verb hardly got so much as a verbal warning, despite shitflinging in the PMs in question, this thread, and this thread, among other instances. For some reason, the top staff *cough*LC*cough* can't just override the staff below them. Staff, this doesn't mean much when it's never practiced. Posting PMs is against the rules regardless of the sender's personal feelings about it Not necessarily true.
Psy later scoffed at the notion that he got tricked. Ha ha. Well, folks, I leave you all with this picture of a dingo: This dingo has been redacted by the Elegiac Defense Force. Please contact your local EDF chapter for further information.
353
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:47:35 PM »
What are you even trying to say here?
I couldn't have possibly made it more clear.
You're contradicting yourself.
354
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:44:10 PM »
That's rich, coming from you.
It's merely the principle of the matter, guy. PMs should be special communication channels. If someone wanted to publicly reveal information, they wouldn't publicly revealed it. There's an unspoken trust pact, and if you violate that, you should be punished. Thanks for describing the Fourth Amendment.
Caring about other people's right to privacy =/= Caring about my OWN right to privacy.
Just because nobody is as rational as I am doesn't give me the right to impinge upon their rights.
You're still irrational if you care AT ALL about your privacy.
You have the right. But you're irrational to care about it.
What are you even trying to say here?
355
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:39:12 PM »
this is the golden age of surveillance.
Haha, no. It hasn't even started.
How long do you think it will be until Brits start going to jail for having dissident opinions?
mass surveillance =/= automatic North Korea we can still save ourselves from that
356
« on: March 08, 2016, 02:34:02 PM »
- Right to privacy and freedom from surveillance, especially online.
lmao
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE:
"OH GOD I SURE HOPE NO ONE EVER FINDS OUT WHAT KIND OF PORN I WATCH"
That's rich, coming from you. It's merely the principle of the matter, guy. PMs should be special communication channels. If someone wanted to publicly reveal information, they wouldn't publicly revealed it. There's an unspoken trust pact, and if you violate that, you should be punished. Thanks for describing the Fourth Amendment.
357
« on: March 08, 2016, 01:13:33 PM »
I can't attempt to order these so I'll just list them: - mass surveillance/national security
- net neutrality
- infrastructure
- civil rights
- tax reform
358
« on: March 08, 2016, 01:08:06 PM »
back in the day I got a few Ghost Recon games for about $2 a pop
359
« on: March 08, 2016, 01:04:28 PM »
k just stopping by to fact check this It's trivially easy to connect the dots.  A paper by two Stanford students gives a more elaborate explanation of what's happening here, but with phone calls instead (similarly applicable). An excerpt: The dataset that we analyzed in this report spanned hundreds of users over several months. Phone records held by the NSA and telecoms span millions of Americans over multiple years. Reasonable minds can disagree about the policy and legal constraints that should be imposed on those databases. The science, however, is clear: phone metadata is highly sensitive. Removing a name or account number is a meaningless act. The ability to ID an "anonymous" entity also extends (and is not limited) to credit cards, hospitalization data, Netflix history, and taxi rides. I might follow this up with an Apple vs. FBI post if I feel like it, and explain how metadata and the like plays into that. Don't be fooled: encryption is not leaving intelligence agencies "in the dark"--this is the golden age of surveillance. (PS chally pls)
360
« on: March 06, 2016, 07:41:09 AM »
Pages: 1 ... 101112 1314 ... 212
|
Show Posts
