Doxing on the forum

Eric Newman75 said:I honestly can't be bothered to hunt for it right now—just peeking over at the game during this timeout—but just search for something like "LJES's most beautiful legs and toes" or whatever. And hey, maybe factor in their "expert" grammar skills too... they might have even written it as "most beautifullest." 😁

Thanks, man. I thought the thread had been nuked.

Kate Foster12 said:Not really—but at the end of the day, once you post a photo on Reddit, you can't complain when someone else decides to comment on it over in a different thread. This reminds me of that one debate where some guy tried to claim dainty had no right to share info he'd already leaked about himself elsewhere. 🤣

Obviously you can't, but claiming the forum owns the image is just idiotic. By that logic, Google basically owns half the internet just because they have links to almost everything ever posted.

Jeremy Rodriguez3 said:Look, if you really want to get even, just hijack an admin's cookie. Pretend to be them and then ban the entire group of moderators who are giving you a hard time. 😍 😁

Nah, that’s not really my style, but thanks anyway. 😁

Whenever someone pulls some shady stunt on me and I finally realize the whole thing was driven by nothing but pure malice, manipulation, or just plain old self-interest, the pieces usually fall into place pretty fast—mostly because people on the internet always leave these digital breadcrumbs that they're too lazy to clean up. 😍
You just have to be persistent, sharp, and maybe a little more observant than the average person drifting through life.

It’s honestly kind of wild how easy it is to find the truth when you actually know where to look. 🤣

Eric Newman75 said:It’s just not working. At least, it isn't for me.

I swear, I misspelled her name twice—she completely drove me up the wall. And me? The guy who never makes a mistake? It’s embarrassing. Honestly, I'm just taking one for the team at this point. 😬

Don't think I'm falling for those obvious tricks of yours,🤣 don't you worry 😉 :not jealous:

Timothy Robinson2 said:Unless they get total control over your computer. Like, full access, including your mic and webcam 😬 ....

What do you mean by control over the computer??? If that's how it starts, we'll have to move. To a different continent.

Charles Morris4 said:So, what’s the actual difference between what he's saying and Euclid?

Disklejmer: I'm not a fan of either approach, honestly—but I don't see the distinction here, especially since both of them were just rehashing stuff that had already blown up in other threads.

Does the actual content being dragged out determine whether it's "primitive and cowardly" (man, that sounds weird to type out now)? Because, at the end of the day, the principle is exactly the same.

Look, it’s not the same thing to say someone is married just because they posted it in another thread, versus outing who’s hooking up with whom among the users or mods if they haven't explicitly shared that info on Reddit.

The whole Euclid situation actually happens all the time on this site—someone starts a thread, people dig through their history, and then they're like, "Aha! You're a troll; you were saying something totally different over there." I don't see anything controversial about that.

If I'm even following this correctly. 🤔

Bradley Sanders4 said:It doesn't pass. Seriously. One of the first things they told me when I stepped up to be a moderator was that we never, ever hand out IP addresses to anyone. Period. If it's true that some mod actually leaked someone's IP, that's a massive breach of privacy. In my book, that's grounds for getting kicked out of the role immediately.

It goes without saying, really—even at the moderator level—to quiet down the skeptics and those questioning the integrity of the staff, there were never any internal rumors about users, who belongs to whom, or what anyone knew about anyone else privately. Not even in the wildest, most unhinged group chats. I’ve never seen it happen.

Jason Morgan said:True, but I did go back and clarify my post afterward. You brought up a specific situation regarding some image mods and a ban—something I have absolutely no clue about, so I really can't offer a comment on it, even if that incident actually took place.

But it feels completely ridiculous that I can't just chat with the usual crew in the lounge and say, "Man, I just got a totally stupid warning for this or that."
I mean, who is actually being bothered by it?

It doesn't bother anyone, really. However, I think it would be quite an interesting experiment to occasionally allow those kinds of discussions in the chat, just so you can witness firsthand how quickly a topic spirals out of control within a few hours—assuming you haven't already seen it happen.

It doesn't matter, I was just asking. There are people here who know exactly what's going on. Maybe they'll chime in with some answers.

Jason Morgan said:True, but I did go back and clarify my post afterward. You brought up a specific situation regarding some image mods and a ban—something I have absolutely no clue about, so I really can't offer a comment on it, even if that incident actually took place.

But it feels completely ridiculous that I can't just chat with the usual crew in the lounge and say, "Man, I just got a totally stupid warning for this or that."
I mean, who is actually being bothered by it?

It doesn't bother anyone, really. However, I think it would be quite an interesting experiment to occasionally allow those kinds of discussions in the chat, just so you can witness firsthand how quickly a topic spirals out of control within a few hours—assuming you haven't already seen it happen.

I get that. But shouldn't we just ban the people who jump into those threads just to stir the pot? 🤷

Joseph Watson3 said:Look, if you upload an image to Imgur and then just drop the link onto a Reddit thread, legally speaking, you’ve published that content to Imgur—not the forum. The site itself doesn't own the image.
Is that concept really that hard to wrap your head around?

Well, yes. The post lives on the forum, and the link to the image is inside that post. If the user happens to have an Imgur account, they can always delete the image. Once that happens, it won't show up on the forum either.

I suppose my view is that linking to a thread or a specific post where someone shared their own image isn't against the rules. However, if that original post gets deleted, or if the image itself is removed from Imgur, I don't think it's right for someone else to come along later and re-upload that same image to the forum.

Eric Newman75 said:Not until the sequel drops—you actually need to know a bit more than that to pull stuff like that off. With an average firewall running, most of those users wouldn't even be able to "ping" you. I tested this back in the early broadband days, late 2004 or maybe early 2005 at the latest.

Hardly anyone had high-speed internet back then, and honestly, I was a total paranoid. I gave some guy my IP address just to see what would happen, turned on ZoneAlarm, and cranked the security settings to the absolute max. He couldn't find me at all.

It’s true that it's harder now since everyone has some kind of automatic firewall running, and those old-school little programs don't really work like they used to. But if someone actually knows what they're doing and acts maliciously, they can be pretty dangerous. Combining an IP address and an email with a bit of basic human stupidity? That's a bad mix.

That's why you shouldn't click links or download stuff from sketchy sites, especially if someone is offering something or begging you to run a file.

Charles Morris4 said:So, what’s the actual difference between what he's saying and Euclid?

Disklejmer: I'm not a fan of either approach, honestly—but I don't see the distinction here, especially since both of them were just rehashing stuff that had already blown up in other threads.

Does the actual content being dragged out determine whether it's "primitive and cowardly" (man, that sounds weird to type out now)? Because, at the end of the day, the principle is exactly the same.

Are we even reading the same Reddit? It doesn't feel like it. Euclid claimed he was single in one thread, then suddenly he's head over heels for some girl in another. Then, in a third one, he mentions she reached out to him through a listing on Craigslist. Which prompted mistywolf17 to call him out for intentionally writing those "fluff" posts just because he knows that's exactly how you manipulate the women on here. And his response? He started throwing hexes at her as punishment. 😁 Like I said before when we were dissecting his behavior—this is pure malice. It's a conscious, deliberate attempt to hurt someone. It doesn't even matter if you can actually pull off the curse or not.

Look, sorry, but when you basically talk to yourself in a debate, I have every right to quote your own post back to you to show you that you’re—to put it politely—twisting the truth. That's how things have always worked on the IMF. It's standard practice on pretty much any forum, so I don't know why you're acting so surprised.

Euclid wasn't some victim in this situation, far from it. As it turned out later, there are definitely psychopathic elements to how he behaves. mistywolf17 was spot on. She tore him apart in three seconds flat.

boldwalker12 said:Look, it’s not the same thing to say someone is married just because they posted it in another thread, versus outing who’s hooking up with whom among the users or mods if they haven't explicitly shared that info on Reddit.

The whole Euclid situation actually happens all the time on this site—someone starts a thread, people dig through their history, and then they're like, "Aha! You're a troll; you were saying something totally different over there." I don't see anything controversial about that.

If I'm even following this correctly. 🤔

I'm with you on that. And hey, maybe I totally misread the situation myself.

Because what I'm actually looking at is this:
- Someone mentions they're married. Then, on a different thread, they don't just repeat that fact—they pile on a bunch of descriptors to basically tear them down.
- Someone else mentions they're divorced, and again, on another thread, they take that one fact and attach a whole string of insults to it.
The only real difference is that in the first scenario, those descriptions are mostly socially acceptable, so adding them feels almost like "enlightening" people, whereas in the second case, those same kinds of jabs feel totally brutal.

In neither case is anyone just sticking to the plain facts—instead, they're taking assumptions and twisting them however they want to suit their own agenda.

But honestly, this feels more like a deep dive into ethics rather than a discussion about the rules regarding commenting on mod decisions. Can someone start a new thread so we stop spamming this one? 😁

I can move all posts starting from post #28 over to a new thread, I just need someone to come up with a title for me. :I really am terrible at coming up with titles.

Charles Morris4 said:I'm with you on that. And hey, maybe I totally misread the situation myself.

Because what I'm actually looking at is this:
- Someone mentions they're married. Then, on a different thread, they don't just repeat that fact—they pile on a bunch of descriptors to basically tear them down.
- Someone else mentions they're divorced, and again, on another thread, they take that one fact and attach a whole string of insults to it.
The only real difference is that in the first scenario, those descriptions are mostly socially acceptable, so adding them feels almost like "enlightening" people, whereas in the second case, those same kinds of jabs feel totally brutal.

In neither case is anyone just sticking to the plain facts—instead, they're taking assumptions and twisting them however they want to suit their own agenda.

But honestly, this feels more like a deep dive into ethics rather than a discussion about the rules regarding commenting on mod decisions. Can someone start a new thread so we stop spamming this one? 😁

Alright, one last thing from me and then I'm done. My bad, obviously. 🙂

I messed up what I wrote above, and you just confirmed it—it did say he was married. That's point one.

Second, when I was talking about people dragging others, I wasn't really aiming at voden as much as I was at N'dugu and that one user who showed up here using the exact same rhetoric during the ZgSash thread. He dropped a few posts in a row, they got deleted, but they were up long enough that people started linking those insults back to the former moderator.

The guy got banned because his posts were genuinely toxic.

So, yeah. That's the deal.

mistywolf17 said:I can move all posts starting from post #28 over to a new thread, I just need someone to come up with a title for me. :I really am terrible at coming up with titles.

Doxing on Reddit. Does that work? 😁

mistywolf17, something about copyright or whatever...

Copyright notice regarding texts and other materials posted on Reddit:

Eric Newman75 said:Actually, that’s not how it works. It’s not a settled issue here at all. I’ve got a million articles out there on various news sites and blogs that I’ve published under my own full name. Even when my contracts include clauses stating that the company owns the work, nobody in the universe can strip me of my authorship. Those are two completely different things. Plus, if I just tweak a few details, it’s technically no longer the exact same piece of writing. That’s exactly how my lawyer explained it to me, and it’s what the editor at the publishing house told me when he asked me to write a book. That's just one example.

I’d go with the second option—specifically the friend who thinks she can just slap a "patent" label on her designs and call it a day. It’s honestly kind of cute, but totally delusional. Any designer out there could hop onto her site, tweak a few minor details, and suddenly it's not even her protected work anymore. It's a total loophole.

It’s the exact same deal with photos as it is with anything else.

That’s a fair point. I suspect—and I'm fairly certain about this—that any wording suggesting posts belong to the platform (if such a thing is even stated) is intended to protect the users (and the site itself), rather than to claim ownership over someone's creative work. It’s pretty much the same with other services or private platforms—none of them actually take away your authorship rights, even if the material isn't strictly covered by copyright. There might be a practical headache when it comes to proving you wrote something if it lacks copyright protection, but that doesn't mean the authorship doesn't exist or was somehow lost—authorship is the foundation, while hosting and usage are just secondary layers beneath it.

Eric Newman75 said:Alright, one last thing from me and then I'm done. My bad, obviously. 🙂

I messed up what I wrote above, and you just confirmed it—it did say he was married. That's point one.

Second, when I was talking about people dragging others, I wasn't really aiming at voden as much as I was at N'dugu and that one user who showed up here using the exact same rhetoric during the ZgSash thread. He dropped a few posts in a row, they got deleted, but they were up long enough that people started linking those insults back to the former moderator.

The guy got banned because his posts were genuinely toxic.

So, yeah. That's the deal.

Doxing on Reddit. Does that work? 😁

There you go. Your post has been set as the opening thread. 😁

Let's ensure that discussion on that specific thread stays strictly focused on avoiding commentary regarding moderator actions.

The topic finally hit my inbox. 👋 😍

Look, I know I’m probably going to come off as some stubborn, difficult guy who just loves arguing on internet forums. 😬

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Copyright notice regarding texts and other materials posted on Reddit:

That’s a fair point. I suspect—and I'm fairly certain about this—that any wording suggesting posts belong to the platform (if such a thing is even stated) is intended to protect the users (and the site itself), rather than to claim ownership over someone's creative work. It’s pretty much the same with other services or private platforms—none of them actually take away your authorship rights, even if the material isn't strictly covered by copyright. There might be a practical headache when it comes to proving you wrote something if it lacks copyright protection, but that doesn't mean the authorship doesn't exist or was somehow lost—authorship is the foundation, while hosting and usage are just secondary layers beneath it.

I'm still waiting on a reply from Lastan via email; apparently, he has some issues with my claims (😁). Once I hear back, I might be able to get a bit more specific about all this. But honestly, since I actually keep drafts of my own work, it feels a bit ridiculous to expect corporations to go on some massive hunt just to prove I didn't write them. 😁

Eric Newman75 said:Alright, one last thing from me and then I'm done. My bad, obviously. 🙂

I messed up what I wrote above, and you just confirmed it—it did say he was married. That's point one.

Second, when I was talking about people dragging others, I wasn't really aiming at voden as much as I was at N'dugu and that one user who showed up here using the exact same rhetoric during the ZgSash thread. He dropped a few posts in a row, they got deleted, but they were up long enough that people started linking those insults back to the former moderator.

The guy got banned because his posts were genuinely toxic.

So, yeah. That's the deal.

Doxing on Reddit. Does that work? 😁

Basically, in an attempt to not drag things out or just keep repeating the same old info—which is why we were all using code words—I wasn't being super specific about what I meant when I called you out, and honestly, I wasn't totally clear either about what I thought you were getting at 😁
So we ended up just guessing, and well, here we are with a whole new thread.

Look, arguing over ownership, what can be said about whom, where, how, who’s responsible, or what actually counts as private... in my book, debating that shouldn't strip away any basic human decency. When I say that, I mean people should be able to look at the bigger picture instead of just clinging to the rulebook (even if I've been acting a bit thick lately regarding following the rules).

What I mean is—technically speaking—someone might actually have the right to post something about someone else, but that doesn't mean it's something we should just tolerate if you step back and look at the context. Rules are fine and all, but without context, they're pretty much useless.

Edit: mistywolf17 — props to the mod move (just so it's not like every single comment is negative 😬)

Eric Newman75 said:Alright, one last thing from me and then I'm done. My bad, obviously. 🙂

I messed up what I wrote above, and you just confirmed it—it did say he was married. That's point one.

Second, when I was talking about people dragging others, I wasn't really aiming at voden as much as I was at N'dugu and that one user who showed up here using the exact same rhetoric during the ZgSash thread. He dropped a few posts in a row, they got deleted, but they were up long enough that people started linking those insults back to the former moderator.

The guy got banned because his posts were genuinely toxic.

So, yeah. That's the deal.

Doxing on Reddit. Does that work? 😁

You’ve brought up that situation involving N'dugu more than a few times now—I’m honestly not quite sure why it sticks in your mind so much. If I recall correctly, that whole thing only blew up because voices were being raised during an argument, right after he was stripped of his moderator status? He had been warned for calling Brodarac a "fat slob," if memory serves. It might serve as a decent case study regarding the leaking of private information—or perhaps they were just vague insinuations—but I feel like you're circling back to this same point a little too frequently.

Eric Newman75 said:The topic finally hit my inbox. 👋 😍

Look, I know I’m probably going to come off as some stubborn, difficult guy who just loves arguing on internet forums. 😬

I'm still waiting on a reply from Lastan via email; apparently, he has some issues with my claims (😁). Once I hear back, I might be able to get a bit more specific about all this. But honestly, since I actually keep drafts of my own work, it feels a bit ridiculous to expect corporations to go on some massive hunt just to prove I didn't write them. 😁

When it comes to this forum, you’ve got the email address you registered with—though I guess things are a bit chaotic. You have Lastan sporting that blue color, then there are those people who insist on forcing their own specific fonts, and one user who actually wrote everything centered—which was a choice, to say the least. As for fra Hell, well, she was a total menace in every single incarnation. Those are just some of the quirks around here. Traces..

dustyranger64 said:I definitely need a link for this one 😁
If it's just some random thread about women's legs or celebrity legs, I'm totally out ☕

Nothing in this life is ever truly free. ☕

Susan Price30 said:Point one: my photo does NOT belong to this forum. 🤣
Point two: removing posts, edited images, or similar "minor details" from a deleted thread goes against the rules of this board.

Point three: something as harmless as replying to an inactive thread—you know, bumping a topic from years ago—gets moderators treating it like a major rule violation.

So, what exactly falls under point number two?

Look, they might not own the rights, but if you’re the one posting a photo on a forum, you can't suddenly start crying about privacy later—especially when your own post contains a link to some third-party PDF! I don't get what's supposed to be funny about that. 🤷

Look, I agree that it’s rude, ugly, and honestly just plain idiotic, but you can't exactly go around suing someone over it. 🤷 Look, you posted that picture yourself for everyone on this forum to see. Nobody is stopping anyone from saving it and then using it to call you out somewhere else later. That’s just how it works, I guess.
If he just grabbed an image from your Facebook profile and hit paste, then that’s basically a whole different set of posts right there. I guess.

What does that have to do with anything? 😁

I guess we're talking about JPK again. Maybe it's worth looking into. kaže:
Well, there you have it. Google's logo is officially owned by the forum now. Huge congrats to Anderlon!

Congrats to you.

Susan Price30 said:Oh, come on. 😱

If I recall correctly, Dee mentioned back then that the whole topic would be moved or wiped entirely... (I'll definitely double-check with him later.)

*Aside from that, I only deleted one single photo of those three, that's all there is to it. 😉

The thread is still here! It hasn't been deleted from the forum! 😁

I don't know what to tell you. I guess people just want to believe whatever makes them feel better about their own choices. Maybe that's the problem. It’s all just noise at this point. kaže:
Of course there are. She posted that photo under specific privacy settings, which basically means only her friends—the people she actually gave permission to see it—can access it. I mean, why else do you think Facebook statuses don't just show up on Google searches? It's pretty obvious.

I mean, look, I’m all for an open internet and free software in general. But just because something is technically accessible online doesn't mean it belongs to everyone. Ownership matters. It's only "everyone's" if the owner actually allows it. Your Facebook is basically your own digital living room—you should have the right to decide what stays inside and what goes out.

Let's talk about Severina and that video Index posted a few years back. 😁
Severina lost that lawsuit because Index basically filmed someone who wasn't even authorized to distribute that footage to anyone!
Suppose Severina posted that video to her Facebook profile, but she set the privacy settings so only her friends could see it. Would she actually have grounds to sue Index if they went ahead and published the same video themselves? I guess it really comes down to how you look at it, maybe. 😁

Jason Morgan said:Well, you all know how it works—search engines like Google pull stuff right from the archives when you run a query, don't they? Even if the moderators have officially moved a thread into the archives, if you search for something discussed back in, say, 2007, Google will still spit out a text version of that old discussion in some sort of cluttered, messy format. I run into this quite frequently whenever I'm doing a little digging online 😁
.
Grazia, did you actually bother to check whether that thread had already been archived before you decided to post about it here? 🤔

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about this one!
I managed to dig up some old off-topic threads using Google searches! They were deleted a long time ago, but I found them. They're all available for everyone to see now. 😁

So, long story short! I don't think it breaks any rules if someone just takes that xy image he posted on Reddit and copies it over to MK.
If that thread got nuked, but someone saved a screenshot to their hard drive just to go around posting it all over the forum later... I mean, honestly, that’s just low-class behavior. It’s petty. But even then, I don't think it actually breaks any rules. Just like how people's posts don't get deleted just because someone asks, I don't see why images should be any different. Once an image is posted here, it belongs to the forum. That's how it works.
If a mod just ripped an image from a deleted thread and posted it somewhere else—which I guess they can do since they hold all the power—then yeah, they're acting like a total jerk. But honestly? The owner put that picture on the forum themselves. They basically handed over their privacy the moment they hit upload.