Email address?

wanderingbadger44 said: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.

It didn't "slip past me" as you're implying through your trolling; I simply didn't think it was necessary. I am certain you realize that, but this allows you to make your point about how we "evil moderators" are just stupid sadists, voyeurs, or stalkers—whatever you want to call us.
Everything is fine. Just carry on.

wanderingbadger44 said: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.

It's because posting private info is strictly against the rules here, and under the Privacy Act, an email address counts as private data.

Sharing MSN Messenger Handles isn't banned, even if they look like emails, because legally they don't fall under protected private data.

The forum is obligated to prevent anyone from leaking private info, whether it's your own details or someone else's.

Because technically, I could post my own private info right here and then sue the forum for publishing it. 😁
Pretty convenient, right?

Since the moment I hit "send post," the forum owns everything I write and becomes responsible for it.

Paul Green31 said: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."

Look, the regulation law also has provisions about good faith business practices. Based on that, you can't exactly sue a forum when you're the one who went ahead and posted your own email address right there for everyone to see.

All this nonsense about moderators, rulebooks, and electronic signatures would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. 🤣

🙂

From what I can gather, the whole thing boils down to this: the only real difference between posting an email address and an MSN handle is that one is actually against the law while the other isn't. It’s basically a massive loophole, and honestly, our legal system is a complete joke—which, if you ask me, says a lot about how things are run in this country. Of course, a forum is stuck following the rules, no matter how much they resemble a tangled mess of red tape, so they have to block email addresses while letting people post their MSN handles just fine. I know, I know—it sounds totally debatable and makes zero sense to the average person, and frankly, even to a lot of the moderators. 😬 And at the end of the day, who can you even complain to? Just our dear old Jaca & co., I guess. 🤔 Btw, let's just drop all this political talk, alright? 🙂

Where am I getting this wrong?

We really shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the forum member who sparked this whole mess by leaving her email address sitting right there in her signature—which has since been wiped clean and deleted—was actually banned.

If we look at this from a technical perspective rather than a legal one, someone.something(at)gmail.com isn't an email address.

If I recall correctly, that was how the notice was phrased over at the FBI.

I suppose I should clarify: what specific phrasing is actually prohibited on this forum?
For instance, would it be considered acceptable to say my gtalk handle is someone.something@gmail.com?
Or would that count as sharing an email address?
What about someoneDOTsomethingATgmailDOTcom?
Is that technically an email address, making it forbidden?
Or if I were to say someone.something via Google?
Or perhaps mention that my nickname is identical to my Yahoo email?
Would all of those instances be deleted or flagged as private information?

Paul Green31 said:It's because posting private info is strictly against the rules here, and under the Privacy Act, an email address counts as private data.

Sharing MSN Messenger Handles isn't banned, even if they look like emails, because legally they don't fall under protected private data.

The forum is obligated to prevent anyone from leaking private info, whether it's your own details or someone else's.

Because technically, I could post my own private info right here and then sue the forum for publishing it. 😁
Pretty convenient, right?

Since the moment I hit "send post," the forum owns everything I write and becomes responsible for it.

Man, I really love being right. Honestly, nothing beats that feeling of knowing I'm spot on when I'm arguing points on the PŽK.

It feels like the average person posting here would need to be both a high-priced attorney and a computer scientist just to write a single comment without worrying about breaking some rule. ☕

Good grief, she got banned and can't actually talk to anyone anymore, so she left her email address for people to reach out. Honestly, why be so incredibly rigid? For God's sake, have a little bit of empathy for people! 🤦

Bradley Sanders4 said:Look, the regulation law also has provisions about good faith business practices. Based on that, you can't exactly sue a forum when you're the one who went ahead and posted your own email address right there for everyone to see.

All this nonsense about moderators, rulebooks, and electronic signatures would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic. 🤣

Oh, there are other clauses too. And actual laws. When it comes to leaking email addresses, one person is responsible for the other. It seems like you’re having a hard time concentrating on what you’re reading today, but hey, it’s fine—I’ll let it slide.

I won't bother commenting on anything else, because if you think what I'm saying is funny, go complain to the lawmakers.

wanderingbadger44 said:Man, I really love being right. Honestly, nothing beats that feeling of knowing I'm spot on when I'm arguing points on the PŽK.

It feels like the average person posting here would need to be both a high-priced attorney and a computer scientist just to write a single comment without worrying about breaking some rule. ☕

And what exactly are you right about? I mean, maybe you are, but could you explain?

As for needing to be a lawyer... Well, it's the same in real life.

My buddy runs a small auto shop that has a restroom. An inspector came by and hit him with $1667 hygiene violations. There's soap in the restroom, and his wife changes the towels several times a day (it's a small family business). It baffled me, because I know everything there is spotless; even though it's a greasy job, the shop is top-notch.

So he asked for clarification and got it in writing. Apparently, restroom towels have to be paper, and the soap has to be liquid.

The guy left to get more details, basically thinking: why the f***ing hell are you nitpicking over details?

Then he got his answers. For example, if someone with a contagious skin condition washes their hands and dries them on a towel, and that towel isn't paper and the soap isn't liquid, there's a massive chance the next person picks up that infection.

So, not everything written in the law is nonsense (which is what both he and I thought), because some things actually make sense. The fact that we don't know about them is our own problem if someone decides to hold us accountable.

Because the law assumes that if you're on the road, you know the rules of the road. If you run a business with a restroom, you have to know the rules. If you participate in the online world, you have to know the rules. Or rather, you don't *have* to, but the moment someone holds you responsible, "I didn't know the rules" isn't going to help you dodge the consequences of breaking them.

Paul Green31 said: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.

Yeah, I'd be a regular hero. But I can't—or won't, if you prefer—throw my support behind someone I think has completely lost their moral compass.
Less than two years ago, I took two bans in rapid succession straight from Sash. I didn't complain; I deserved it. I was spamming, trolling, going off-topic—the whole nine yards.

But what actually eats at me isn't about my own situation. Honestly, I don't give a damn; the forum isn't going to fall apart just because I'm gone. What really stings is seeing how more and more of those users—the ones who actually made coming here worth it, the ones you could actually read and learn something from—are ending up "on the other side of the fence."

Losing users like that is a direct hit to the community. A forum like this lives on clicks, ads, and sponsored threads. When those people leave, the readers follow. Personally, I can't forgive Sash for what happened with Slavko. As for what's happening now with Lastan and the rest... we'll see how it plays out. It would be a real shame to lose such high-quality contributors, no matter how much of a headache they could be sometimes.

The uproar against the head admin of this forum didn't just come out of nowhere or some delusional fever dream. It was triggered by something. I won't get into that now, though... enough ink has been spilled already.

And besides, we're drifting way too far off-topic. I'm reporting myself.😁

We can talk about all this political nonsense when the time is right.

wanderingbadger44 said:Man, I really love being right. Honestly, nothing beats that feeling of knowing I'm spot on when I'm arguing points on the PŽK.

It feels like the average person posting here would need to be both a high-priced attorney and a computer scientist just to write a single comment without worrying about breaking some rule. ☕

I disagree. I would say the average user is smart enough not to leave their email address—in any format—on a public platform. At least on my PDF.
Those who post their email only to have it deleted usually get the point immediately.
I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Is it just getting too heated?

Alex Cook said:Yeah, I'd be a regular hero. But I can't—or won't, if you prefer—throw my support behind someone I think has completely lost their moral compass.
Less than two years ago, I took two bans in rapid succession straight from Sash. I didn't complain; I deserved it. I was spamming, trolling, going off-topic—the whole nine yards.

But what actually eats at me isn't about my own situation. Honestly, I don't give a damn; the forum isn't going to fall apart just because I'm gone. What really stings is seeing how more and more of those users—the ones who actually made coming here worth it, the ones you could actually read and learn something from—are ending up "on the other side of the fence."

Losing users like that is a direct hit to the community. A forum like this lives on clicks, ads, and sponsored threads. When those people leave, the readers follow. Personally, I can't forgive Sash for what happened with Slavko. As for what's happening now with Lastan and the rest... we'll see how it plays out. It would be a real shame to lose such high-quality contributors, no matter how much of a headache they could be sometimes.

The uproar against the head admin of this forum didn't just come out of nowhere or some delusional fever dream. It was triggered by something. I won't get into that now, though... enough ink has been spilled already.

And besides, we're drifting way too far off-topic. I'm reporting myself.😁

We can talk about all this political nonsense when the time is right.

I just reported myself too. If they actually follow through on my report, I'll be thrilled. 😬

@Nica

Those rules aren't just some American thing; they apply to the entire internet and are pretty much the same everywhere.

We shouldn't overlook the fact that the user who triggered this whole discussion had her email address right there in her signature. Which has since been removed. And deleted.

But how can you be certain that it was actually her email, or why she chose to include it in her signature, or any other reason for it?

(Among other things) that is precisely what these regulation laws are attempting to prevent—protecting against identity thieves and individuals who are either deeply disturbed or purely malicious. In the "cyber world," such people certainly exist.

Nor does the fact that they received a sheet serving as notice and instructions for moderators mean they will actually follow them. Most likely, they will, but there are always those 2% or 3% of weirdos who can cause far more damage than the remaining 97 or 98% who are perfectly fine and here for the right reasons.

rustydrifter10 said:🙂

From what I can gather, the whole thing boils down to this: the only real difference between posting an email address and an MSN handle is that one is actually against the law while the other isn't. It’s basically a massive loophole, and honestly, our legal system is a complete joke—which, if you ask me, says a lot about how things are run in this country. Of course, a forum is stuck following the rules, no matter how much they resemble a tangled mess of red tape, so they have to block email addresses while letting people post their MSN handles just fine. I know, I know—it sounds totally debatable and makes zero sense to the average person, and frankly, even to a lot of the moderators. 😬 And at the end of the day, who can you even complain to? Just our dear old Jaca & co., I guess. 🤔 Btw, let's just drop all this political talk, alright? 🙂

Where am I getting this wrong?

As I understand it, those privacy laws about leaking info are meant to stop people from doxxing others, not from posting their own damn details. Is there a lawyer on this forum who can make sense of this mess?

calm down, calm down 😍

shadowpilot8, check out the hanfu licensing thread 😉 or everyone else can just browse the threads about shopping at H&M (like ordering stuff from Austria) or any similar fashion topic. Honestly—I don't see the big deal in posting an email like steven.reed.whatever@gmail.com or a local provider. It's a whole different story if we're talking full names and surnames—and a completely different story if it's just my forum handle.

And then you’d just have some other person whining about why certain people get to post their email addresses on the forum while everyone else can't.

Paul Green31 said:Oh, there are other clauses too. And actual laws. When it comes to leaking email addresses, one person is responsible for the other. It seems like you’re having a hard time concentrating on what you’re reading today, but hey, it’s fine—I’ll let it slide.

I won't bother commenting on anything else, because if you think what I'm saying is funny, go complain to the lawmakers.

And what exactly are you right about? I mean, maybe you are, but could you explain?

As for needing to be a lawyer... Well, it's the same in real life.

My buddy runs a small auto shop that has a restroom. An inspector came by and hit him with $1667 hygiene violations. There's soap in the restroom, and his wife changes the towels several times a day (it's a small family business). It baffled me, because I know everything there is spotless; even though it's a greasy job, the shop is top-notch.

So he asked for clarification and got it in writing. Apparently, restroom towels have to be paper, and the soap has to be liquid.

The guy left to get more details, basically thinking: why the f***ing hell are you nitpicking over details?

Then he got his answers. For example, if someone with a contagious skin condition washes their hands and dries them on a towel, and that towel isn't paper and the soap isn't liquid, there's a massive chance the next person picks up that infection.

So, not everything written in the law is nonsense (which is what both he and I thought), because some things actually make sense. The fact that we don't know about them is our own problem if someone decides to hold us accountable.

Because the law assumes that if you're on the road, you know the rules of the road. If you run a business with a restroom, you have to know the rules. If you participate in the online world, you have to know the rules. Or rather, you don't *have* to, but the moment someone holds you responsible, "I didn't know the rules" isn't going to help you dodge the consequences of breaking them.

Look, I used to be a moderator on this forum, and the closest thing to the contract you're describing was a PM from a former head moderator that explicitly said, "don't give out anyone's IP address." Honestly, I couldn't care less about the lawmakers, but if you actually believe users have legitimate grounds for a lawsuit because of this, well, hey, who am I to tell you you're wrong? 😁

shadowpilot8 said:I disagree. I would say the average user is smart enough not to leave their email address—in any format—on a public platform. At least on my PDF.
Those who post their email only to have it deleted usually get the point immediately.
I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Is it just getting too heated?

Given that she posted hers (or whoever's it was, I'm not sure) ten times already, as a former moderator, she should know the rule well enough. Let's assume she does.

So what is the actual purpose of insisting on posting it an eleventh time??😁 geez!🙏

Steven Reed, I am perfectly aware of where I permit email addresses to be posted 🙂

What I don't understand is this constant nitpicking and hair-splitting. The address was clearly left there to stir the pot and spark another endless, pointless thread on the PŽK. Sure, the rules are flexible and enforcement is inconsistent—it’s just a forum. Get over it.