Email address?

shush, honestly, you've got it way better than I do

wanderingbadger44 said:I never actually said it was allowed; I just phrased it as a question of whether it's possible.

Your comment actually prompted me to go hunting through the classifieds, and I noticed people offering contact via Skype, MSN, Yahoo, and all sorts of other platforms, which I assume requires an email address to get things moving. I hadn't really given it much thought before, so I didn't bother looking, and honestly, I just don't know.

That’s why I’m asking you: if...

And later on, I'll bring you back to the points you seem to be overlooking or dodging: how posting photos of oneself—especially when it involves minors or children—is considered acceptable, and by what logic those images are somehow less private than a simple email address. I also want to know how anyone verifies they are even authentic.

Just because someone uses a weird format that looks like an email doesn't mean it's legally an email address.
As you can see, there’s no actual email listed anywhere.

Instant Messaging
You may enter your registered identity for the instant messaging networks if you would like other visitors to be able to contact you using that medium.

ICQ number
AIM Screen Name

MSN Messenger Handle
Yahoo! Messenger Handle

Skype Name

Look, if someone's MSN is something@hotmail.com, that's legally their MSN Messenger Handle, not an email. If they choose to use it like an email? Hey, not my problem.

And later, I'll remind you again about what you're overlooking, dodging, and refusing to answer: how posting photos of yourself—especially minors and children—is allowed, and why those photos aren't considered any less private than an email address. And how they verify they're authentic.

If you think I'm defending the kind of stuff you're talking about, you're dead wrong. I don't even have a Facebook account (except for the business one I'm forced to use), I don't post photos anywhere, and I certainly don't authorize anyone to post them on forums.

Take Facebook, for example; they got sued over this issue once, and now when you upload a photo, you're signing a disclaimer saying it's yours and that you take full responsibility for it.

Maybe forums will follow suit, but honestly, pretty much everywhere on the internet is going to evolve toward that level eventually.

As for everything else, people have the court system for a reason. Just because nobody around here ever sues anyone over this stuff doesn't mean it isn't f***ing well-regulated by law.

If someone were posting pictures of my kid on a forum, I'd know exactly how to stop them—and how to pay for my kid's first two years of college.

Paul Green31 said:So, what exactly can she even post on her profile?

Oh, so you've gone and become all holy and sanctimonious now, have you?

Jobs? Does anyone here actually have a real employment contract or even just a volunteer gig?

Are you absolutely certain there isn't?
Don't they just email the mods a Word doc containing all the code of conduct? You know, the stuff that actually lays out the rules for this kind of thing under the regulation law...
I don't know, honestly. But based on my experience dealing with other places, I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Email is part of it too, especially under the digital signature laws. That’s why you register everything with an email address—by clicking that confirmation link, you’re basically digitally signing the terms and conditions. Legally speaking, that carries the exact same weight as your actual handwritten signature. You really think they aren't watching?

By emailing over a formal code of conduct when someone signs their "moderator agreement," you’ve effectively covered your bases. It's basically a verified, legally binding contract at that point. The moderator can't claim ignorance—they've been officially notified of exactly what they're responsible for. Simple as that.

Look, buying a copy of Story at a newsstand is still a legally binding contract with clearly defined rights and obligations. You don't need to sign anything for it to be treated as a contract under the law. Simple as that.

Wherever you feel like. You could even publish your own website if you wanted to.

Well, I suppose you've decided to take the high road and act all saintly about it.

For heaven's sake, please don't go violating my privacy.

Are you absolutely certain there isn't? I mean, I suppose it's possible, but one can never be entirely sure about these things, I guess.
I mean, wouldn't it be more efficient if the moderators were actually sent a single, cohesive document via email—something formatted in Word that clearly outlines all the rules of conduct? It feels like everything regarding this specific issue should already be regulated within those guidelines.
I honestly don't know; I suppose, based on my past experiences with other places, that I might be right.

Yeah, I'm aware they don't have any formal employment or volunteer contracts in place.
I suppose I've also heard the claim that by checking some little box on a forum—you know, the kind you click during registration—you can somehow just wipe your entire existence clean.

Email plays a significant role in this too, particularly under the provisions of the electronic signature laws. That’s why you end up registering everything via email; by confirming that registration through your inbox, you are essentially providing an electronic signature for the terms and conditions. Legally speaking, that action is considered just as binding as if you had signed the document with a pen in your hand. I guess that's just how the legal framework operates these days.

You know, I suppose there are various different categories of emails.
Anything that doesn't include your private details—or information that could be used to figure out someone's identity—doesn't actually qualify as private data. If you want the technical breakdown, the definition of what constitutes private information is right there in the link to the Privacy Act (you can find it on that website you posted earlier).

I suppose sending over a formal code of conduct via email when someone signs their "moderator agreement" should technically cover all the bases regarding behavior. In my view, that process serves as a way to ensure they've been properly briefed on their responsibilities, effectively acting as a verified and legally binding contract. It’s a way to make sure every moderator is officially aware of what's expected of them under the regulation law.

I suppose I should clarify how that works. Under which specific regulation law are the obligations of someone working without a formal contract actually governed? Please, enlighten me.

I suppose, if you really think about it, buying a copy of Story at a newsstand is technically a legally binding contract with clearly defined rights and obligations for both parties. You don't actually need to sign anything for it to be treated as a formal agreement under the law, I guess.

A bit of an off-topic tangent here, but I have to ask—which specific regulation law are you actually referring to, and what kind of obligations are you talking about?

Tyler Grant76 said:Well, wherever she wants.🤷 Some people just put them there.

If we’re going to be consistent about this, then you’d have to delete entire threads—like, say, all those Fashion Critique posts meant for the brave ladies here—simply because they’re packed with links to blogs where girls write under their real names and show their faces (even if they stay anonymous on the forum). You could also wipe out tons of threads from the Random stuff or Recreation sections since there are plenty of photos there too. And Weddings. Even the LJES threads.

Look, once again, a blog isn't protected under the Privacy Act. Your full name, home address, email—that's what we're talking about.

The forum is legally obligated to protect private data and prevent it from being leaked, and that's exactly what they do. The forum doesn't allow the posting of private info, and since an email is part of that equation, it's strictly off-limits.

P.S. I already explained the difference between an MSN handle and an email address, so the fact that "many people post them" doesn't change the rules.

I mean, Paul Green31, I honestly can't tell if you're acting as a double agent or what. You're out here feeding people these incredible ideas to sue the forum and the moderators over their day-to-day tasks 🙏

Paul Green31 said:The point is: let's all take a turn looking for the speck in Sasha's eye.

It feels like this forum is doomed to stay backwards if we let a handful of people vent their hatred and resentment toward the admin every single chance they get—including using threads like this one as an excuse.

And frankly, it looks like they’re trying to paralyze hollowtrucker77 by applying constant passive pressure. He's forced to overthink every single move just to avoid waking up to two new threads dedicated to dragging his name through the mud.

Bottom line? It’s impossible to run things under these conditions. It would be great if the rest of the staff—the mods and especially the supermods—stepped up and took over some of the heavy lifting. If someone else handled the technical side of Sasha's decisions, maybe we could stop these attacks from the forum's "left wing," who clearly can't handle the fact that someone with conservative views is actually keeping this place running.

It’s funny, isn't it? Once again, the leftists and liberals are showing how rigid and dangerous they actually are to democracy, both here and in the real world. If you aren't strictly following "their line," they’ll come for you. This kind of "thread tactic" is just more proof of that.

That's it, then. We've officially hit rock bottom, dragging comparisons to fascists and communists into a thread about private data. Lock up the forum, kill the internet, just end it all. 🙏 🙏

Don't even bother trying to play me; I'm not the guy I come across as in 9/10 of my other posts... I've been keeping a close eye on the PŽK over the last few weeks and I know exactly who is doing what, to whom, and why.
And look, while I've definitely been annoyed by hollowtrucker77's rhetoric on this board before—you know, the condescending tone, the personal attacks masked as "forum discussion" and all that—the whole circus surrounding the ŽK was honestly nauseating for a minute there.
But this little defense you're putting up isn't any better. If I’m being blunt, it looks like you're just sucking up to try and score points for "your side" and your buddies... because apparently, it's more important to have the rules on your side than to be the one getting jerked around by the moderator, right? 🙂
Elections coming up soon, you say? 🙂

shadowpilot8 said:Yes, dear forum user, the point of a ban is to stop you from interacting with other members for the duration of the penalty. If you choose to communicate privately with users through other means without creating clone accounts, that is your business.
A ban is a punishment for inappropriate behavior. It prevents you from communicating with the community here. There is nothing to debate; it is simply a fact.

Bolded text usually jumps out at you, but somehow, it seems to have slipped right past you.

The ban keeps me from talking to them here on the forum, but the part I had bolded was outside the forum.

Paul Green31 said:Look, they don't own the content itself, but they *do* own the posts you published on their site. In other words, the forum is legally the publisher of your posts. But since you clearly can't grasp that, I guess everything in this thread just feels "fluid" to you.

Sure, they're the 'publisher,' but that doesn't give them any exclusive rights to my intellectual property, nor are they permitted to use it for anything else.

I guess you just don't get it. 😁

Paul Green31 said:Look, once again, a blog isn't protected under the Privacy Act. Your full name, home address, email—that's what we're talking about.

The forum is legally obligated to protect private data and prevent it from being leaked, and that's exactly what they do. The forum doesn't allow the posting of private info, and since an email is part of that equation, it's strictly off-limits.

P.S. I already explained the difference between an MSN handle and an email address, so the fact that "many people post them" doesn't change the rules.

Let me try rephrasing my question to see if I’m following: does this mean you can't type out "My email is ljubicica@neki.com" in a thread, but it's perfectly fine to put a link in your signature to a blog or a personal site where your email is front and center? Or maybe list an MSN contact that functions exactly like an email address, even if it technically isn't one according to the letter of the law?

Man, at this rate, we’ll all need to be lawyers just to post on this forum.
?

Anthony Collins4 said:Wherever you feel like. You could even publish your own website if you wanted to.

Well, I suppose you've decided to take the high road and act all saintly about it.

For heaven's sake, please don't go violating my privacy.

Are you absolutely certain there isn't? I mean, I suppose it's possible, but one can never be entirely sure about these things, I guess.
I mean, wouldn't it be more efficient if the moderators were actually sent a single, cohesive document via email—something formatted in Word that clearly outlines all the rules of conduct? It feels like everything regarding this specific issue should already be regulated within those guidelines.
I honestly don't know; I suppose, based on my past experiences with other places, that I might be right.

Yeah, I'm aware they don't have any formal employment or volunteer contracts in place.
I suppose I've also heard the claim that by checking some little box on a forum—you know, the kind you click during registration—you can somehow just wipe your entire existence clean.

Email plays a significant role in this too, particularly under the provisions of the electronic signature laws. That’s why you end up registering everything via email; by confirming that registration through your inbox, you are essentially providing an electronic signature for the terms and conditions. Legally speaking, that action is considered just as binding as if you had signed the document with a pen in your hand. I guess that's just how the legal framework operates these days.

You know, I suppose there are various different categories of emails.
Anything that doesn't include your private details—or information that could be used to figure out someone's identity—doesn't actually qualify as private data. If you want the technical breakdown, the definition of what constitutes private information is right there in the link to the Privacy Act (you can find it on that website you posted earlier).

I suppose sending over a formal code of conduct via email when someone signs their "moderator agreement" should technically cover all the bases regarding behavior. In my view, that process serves as a way to ensure they've been properly briefed on their responsibilities, effectively acting as a verified and legally binding contract. It’s a way to make sure every moderator is officially aware of what's expected of them under the regulation law.

I suppose I should clarify how that works. Under which specific regulation law are the obligations of someone working without a formal contract actually governed? Please, enlighten me.

I suppose, if you really think about it, buying a copy of Story at a newsstand is technically a legally binding contract with clearly defined rights and obligations for both parties. You don't actually need to sign anything for it to be treated as a formal agreement under the law, I guess.

A bit of an off-topic tangent here, but I have to ask—which specific regulation law are you actually referring to, and what kind of obligations are you talking about?

Look, I’m really not in the mood to explain things that have already been explained. Sorry.

The rule is called the regulation law, and it covers absolutely everything, including moderation. If a moderator receives a set of rules via email, they’ve essentially signed a contract with an electronic signature. That carries the exact same weight as signing four physical copies in front of a notary public.

If you don't get that, I feel for you, but I am not dragging myself back to the 90s to teach you how electronic signatures work. And if that doesn't click, then it’s pretty obvious why you think this whole email topic is so "fluid."

melloworca6 said:And how can you actually be sure you're leaking your own data instead of someone else's?

Look, you have access to the email address I used to register. Just go compare them.

goldengull3 said:I have nothing further to add here. 🙂

An email address constitutes personal information. Since we lack a robust user identification system—unlike the rudimentary methods used back in the BBS era, where a sysop would at least know a user's handle for authorization purposes—we have no way of verifying that person XY is actually the individual who chose to make their email public. Therefore, email addresses are not posted. Websites, blogs, and similar platforms are inherently public. Similarly, handles for Skype, ICQ, and other services are public; they can be easily retrieved through service searches.

The only exception might be business addresses such as: "Contact that firm at reklamacije@example.com", but even then, personal addresses like ante.antic@example.com are off-limits.

If anyone finds this unacceptable, they are under no obligation to post on this Forum. Most other communities operate under the exact same rules.

So, it’s actually a pretty easy fix. If a user wants to put their email out there, they could just link to their own website or blog where their address is listed. Cookie, you reading this?

Paul Green31 said:Oh, sure, I just had to insist on risking being called in as a court expert for hollowtrucker77 and ZgSashovina, just so he could bury me under a mountain of technical jargon.

So, what exactly makes you think your sudden appearance shifted anything toward your "winning" side?

(Sorry if that sounded blunt, but I don't get this whole "counter-effect" theory of yours. I'm here to argue—that's why I'm on this forum. And I love having opponents, especially when I know I'm right. At the end of the day, isn't that the whole point of being online?)

We are drifting pretty far into off-topic territory now—since the actual subject here is whether or not users are allowed to post email addresses on the forum—but fine, I'll risk a warning just to give you an answer.
Basically, by using inaccurate quotes and backing up misinformation about what is legally prohibited, you've triggered my urge to prove you wrong with actual facts 😉 (which is the entire essence of forum culture: when someone presents false info, you correct them using their own logic)
So, go ahead and check out the thread regarding Hanfu licenses, or better yet, pull up the PDF of the site rules or the announcements 😉
and I honestly can't wrap my head around how you can act like this rule is universal across the whole site when a moderator told you just a few posts ago that there are exceptions to it 😉
Since I'm expecting you to start trolling—and I really don't have the energy to take a warning for both off-topic rambling and trolling—I'll just say, sincerely, goodbye. 😍

melloworca6 said:Joshua Jones13 I don't own forum.org, so I’m not the one calling the shots on the rules here. If things go south and someone decides to file a lawsuit over some bullshit, that’s on the owner, not me.

Look, I can agree or disagree with a rule all I want, but at the end of the day, it's my job to enforce it.

What you're saying now is a completely different thing. It’s one thing to say—this is the rule and it applies to everyone—but it's another to say, "I'm not sure if this email actually belongs to chocolatecookie." Because if the point is the rule itself, then it applies whether we know for certain someone leaked their info or not, I guess.

feralpilot6 said:Some of us use a single email address for everything (like me), and obviously, I used that same one to sign up for this forum. Naturally, my full legal name is attached to it. And of course, any of you creeps can see it. So when a moderator reaches out via PM and addresses me as an actual person using my real name, what’s the deal? Who is actually protecting my privacy then? 🤷
There is a massive difference between voluntarily posting a photo or an email address and the other, shady stuff you guys have agreed to. If I decide to post pictures of my tits on this forum, that's my choice. Right?

Keep in mind, this forum gives you the option to change the email address you used during registration at any time after you've signed up. 😉

wanderingbadger44 said:Let me try rephrasing my question to see if I’m following: does this mean you can't type out "My email is ljubicica@neki.com" in a thread, but it's perfectly fine to put a link in your signature to a blog or a personal site where your email is front and center? Or maybe list an MSN contact that functions exactly like an email address, even if it technically isn't one according to the letter of the law?

Man, at this rate, we’ll all need to be lawyers just to post on this forum.
?

Why would the forum even care what you post on your own blog, where you're the one legally responsible?

anything where an email address is clearly displayed

Give me a break. Pretty soon, this forum is going to be exclusively populated by lawyers.
?

Why should the forum give a damn about anything just because an email address is posted there?

The forum only cares if that address is embedded directly within the site's body tags, because that's the only thing they're actually liable for under the Privacy Act.

So, here’s the reality: users aren't allowed to post their email addresses, which essentially cuts off their ability to maintain any meaningful connection with people. It leaves a massive loophole wide open—what stops someone from simply spinning up a fake account and feeding a fraudulent email address to the very people this user was building rapport with, just so they can dig up private info or cause absolute chaos?

Furthermore, permitting people to drop their Skype, MSN, or ICQ handles is actually a much larger security headache. A good portion of those services feature public web profiles that used to display a wealth of personal data, including full names and emails. You could easily deduce, for instance, that Sash isn't currently logged into Skype or even active on the forum at all.

But here is the real kicker: if you happen to click on someone's ICQ icon, the site passes your own email address directly to the ICQ network 😁 Pretty interesting, wouldn't you say? I learned that lesson the hard way by clicking one of those icons, and now ICQ has linked my forum handle to my actual email address, so please, don't make my mistake. I’d bet anything that the spam is going to start hitting my inbox shortly.

At the very least, let the permanent bans have some way to leave contact information.

Paul Green31 said:Why would the forum even care what you post on your own blog, where you're the one legally responsible?

anything where an email address is clearly displayed

Give me a break. Pretty soon, this forum is going to be exclusively populated by lawyers.
?

Why should the forum give a damn about anything just because an email address is posted there?

The forum only cares if that address is embedded directly within the site's body tags, because that's the only thing they're actually liable for under the Privacy Act.

So, I guess I see your point now. It’s fine to list an MSN contact via email in my profile settings, but I can't just go out and write "my email address is..." directly in a discussion thread.

Fair enough, I'm learning the ropes here.

But the whole reason I even started this thread was to figure out where the line is drawn regarding posting an email address, so please don't shut down the conversation before we get to the bottom of it.

Alex Cook said:That's it, then. We've officially hit rock bottom, dragging comparisons to fascists and communists into a thread about private data. Lock up the forum, kill the internet, just end it all. 🙏 🙏

Don't even bother trying to play me; I'm not the guy I come across as in 9/10 of my other posts... I've been keeping a close eye on the PŽK over the last few weeks and I know exactly who is doing what, to whom, and why.
And look, while I've definitely been annoyed by hollowtrucker77's rhetoric on this board before—you know, the condescending tone, the personal attacks masked as "forum discussion" and all that—the whole circus surrounding the ŽK was honestly nauseating for a minute there.
But this little defense you're putting up isn't any better. If I’m being blunt, it looks like you're just sucking up to try and score points for "your side" and your buddies... because apparently, it's more important to have the rules on your side than to be the one getting jerked around by the moderator, right? 🙂
Elections coming up soon, you say? 🙂

Man, imagine how much of a coward you'd be if you actually sided with him. You know, it's easy to be part of the mob throwing stones, but it's a hell of a lot harder to stand right between the crowd and the target they're hitting. Especially when you've got your back turned to the guy getting pelted—it makes it pretty easy to get hit yourself.

So, you think it's important to have criteria on your side? Hmm...

I say it's important to have the *right* criteria, but not as a weapon for a side—it's something you carry within yourself. If you actually live by that, then standing between the mob and the victim isn't an issue.

And by the way, I'm sticking up for the guy the mob is targeting, the guy who's going to get crushed if they keep this up. Am I some kind of suck-up? Instead of riding the wave with Bradley Sanders, who's clearly just chasing the scent of new power and "change," I'm siding with the guy who's losing.

Your "logic of interest" is flawed. There's no self-interest at play here. Criteria matter, sure, but they aren't the goal—they're the starting point.

And I've got nothing to gain from any outcome here, except maybe a wasted afternoon. Unlike some people, I don't actually have an agenda.

wanderingbadger44 said:Thanks. It's truly refreshing to see such a well-meaning and polite response.

However, the conclusion you're drawing feels a bit ambiguous to me, to say the least.

Think of it this way: the profile settings don't ask for or show details like your marital status or how many children you have. Following that exact same line of reasoning, one could argue that none of that personal information should ever be mentioned anywhere in a discussion thread.🤷

Thanks. wanderingbadger44🙂

Look, there’s actually a specific field right under the "required at registration" section where you enter your email and password. That part isn't visible to any other users, which really drives home how much we prioritize data privacy and keeping sensitive info under wraps. From what I know about how most online forums and message boards operate, that's pretty much standard practice. At the end of the day, your email address and your marital status are two completely different things—one is private data, and the other is just personal info. My point was simply that people choose not to share certain details specifically because of those security measures.

Joshua Jones13 said:What you're saying now is a completely different thing. It’s one thing to say—this is the rule and it applies to everyone—but it's another to say, "I'm not sure if this email actually belongs to chocolatecookie." Because if the point is the rule itself, then it applies whether we know for certain someone leaked their info or not, I guess.

Look, Joshua Jones13, this whole email situation is a total gray area to me. I'm genuinely curious about which specific cases are allowed and if people should even be posting emails on the forum at all.

I saw some emails left in a PDF earlier where people were just dropping their contact info, so this topic is definitely worth digging into. I don't want someone coming after me tomorrow because I left someone else's email in a post and they ended up getting harassed because of it.