SuCH privacy policy

by Idéfix Wed Jan 23, 2013 8:21 pm

SuCH is based on the principle of free speech. It is a forum where members participate on the basis of anonymity. The only restrictions to free speech on this forum are those that violate the privacy of members. This forum strictly and absolutely discourages the disclosure of personal information of other members. This policy covers any information regarding a member that the member considers private. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

name
location and address (physical, email or other virtual identifiers including but not limited to social networking IDs)
contact information (telephone, email, etc.)
name, address and location of employment
family details -- names, locations, addresses, contact information and employment information about the family members of members

No member shall disclose any purported information regarding another member that is covered by this policy. Any violation of this policy can be brought to the attention of the forum administrator at the discretion of the members concerned. Whether or not the information disclosed is true has absolutely no bearing on the applicability of this policy.

If you are the member who has disclosed purported personal information of any other member, you can request the removal of this information. You have two options for doing this:

Send a personal message to the poster Idéfix requesting that the post be edited/deleted. The message should contain a link to the post that contains the information that violates this privacy policy.
Post a request on the admin requests thread, with a link to the post containing the information that needs to be removed.

If you are the member whose purported personal information has been disclosed by another member, you can request the removal of this information. The information in question may be outside the specific items listed above, but is something you consider private. You have two options for making this request:

Send a personal message to the poster Idéfix requesting that the post be edited/deleted. The message should contain a link to the post that contains the information that violates this privacy policy. You do not need to comment on the accuracy of the information that has been disclosed.
Post a request on the admin requests thread, with a link to the post containing the information that needs to be removed. You do not need to comment on the accuracy of the information that has been disclosed.

Any posts that violate this policy will be removed by the forum administrator if -- and only if -- either of the two parties concerned report the matter using one of the two options available to them. As discussed previously, this forum is not actively moderated, and it is not the forum administrator's job to actively moderate this forum.

Edit added by Admin on May 12, 2014: if frequent violations involving the same word(s) are brought to the notice of the administrator for action, then the administrator may add the word(s) or variations thereof to the forum's banned words list. This is a way for the administrator to prevent such violations in future, without actively moderating the forum. To reiterate: this forum is not actively moderated, and it is not the forum administrator's job to actively moderate this forum.

As mentioned at the outset, this forum is based on the principle of free speech. This policy is designed to minimize arbitrariness and the forum administrator's discretion in matters of privacy. This policy prevents calls for editing or deletion by unaffected third parties. It minimizes the potential for disruptive moderation and the need for too much moderation.

If you have any questions, concerns, or suggestions about the privacy policy of SuCH, this is the place to raise it. This thread will be made a sticky on the next admin login.

by b_A Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:16 pm

I voted no. I agree with the main principle but I feel that any member who posts the personal info of others should be disciplined/punished. For example , take away their posting privileges for a week. Or Create a label under their handle that shows that they have been disciplined. Or they cannot send /receive personal messages.Other suggestions are welcome. And also it should be ensured that they do not create a new handle to get around any restrictions.

by Idéfix Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:52 am

b_A wrote:I voted no. I agree with the main principle but I feel that any member who posts the personal info of others should be disciplined/punished. For example , take away their posting privileges for a week. Or Create a label under their handle that shows that they have been disciplined. Or they cannot send /receive personal messages.Other suggestions are welcome. And also it should be ensured that they do not create a new handle to get around any restrictions.

The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:02 am

panini press wrote:The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.

i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:06 am

1. Free Speech

2. There is an ignore button.

3. Banning the handle and deleting the posts has been tried in Sulekha and the result was SuCH

4. The banned handle can create a new name and post the private information again.

5. I would rather ban and delete the posts on Akbar and Nizam.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:15 am

panini press wrote:
b_A wrote:I voted no. I agree with the main principle but I feel that any member who posts the personal info of others should be disciplined/punished. For example , take away their posting privileges for a week. Or Create a label under their handle that shows that they have been disciplined. Or they cannot send /receive personal messages.Other suggestions are welcome. And also it should be ensured that they do not create a new handle to get around any restrictions.
The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.

the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you. it could not, because you incited your minions to post private info about, and hurl crude abuses at not only me, but people who don't know of this forum and what goes on here.

by Idéfix Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:20 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you. it could not, because you incited your minions to post private info about, and hurl crude abuses at not only me, but people who don't know of this forum and what goes on here.

If you disagree with the privacy policy of SuCH, you have two choices:

Suggest a modification to the policy in this thread. I wholeheartedly welcome such suggestions.
Stop participating in a forum whose policies you disagree with and do not care to influence.

I believe you are a grown up who can make the right choice.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:28 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
panini press wrote:The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.
i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.

tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:30 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you. it could not, because you incited your minions to post private info about, and hurl crude abuses at not only me, but people who don't know of this forum and what goes on here.

Unkil, it's one thing to have disagreements - even strong ones - with PP, but another to accuse him of inciting others to attack you. Those who posted your (purported) private information on CH crossed a line even by the anything-goes standards back then but you can't conflate your anger against those individuals with your disagreements with PP and paint him as some master-villain. I think you're letting your anger cloud your judgement.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:32 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you.

PP is the only one protecting your right to free speech. if the latest poll results are any indication, you would be voted to be booted by the community were the subject put to poll. now that i have spelled it out, it is your choice to inflame the community more by your childish behaviour or desist from revealing private info. of other posters like hellsangel, propagandhi and i have desisted. follow our example. we like to be different from other boards in the matter of free speech: i hope you will cooperate and not force us into doing things we don't like to. spew venom as much as you like but follow rules related to privacy.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:33 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
panini press wrote:The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.
i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.
tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?

yes i did.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:37 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
panini press wrote:The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.
i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.
tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
yes i did.

did charvak reprimand you, give you a warning, or try to deter you?

by Merlot Daruwala Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:44 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
yes i did.
did charvak reprimand you, give you a warning, or try to deter you?

Unkil, where are you headed with this? The hacking and outing took place on old CH. "Charvak" was just another poster there, without any locus standi to reprimand / warn or deter. As for the namecalling, "Charvak" is not Hoozay's daddy to reprimand / warn / deter.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:45 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
panini press wrote:The key principle here is free speech. Even if someone posts the private information of a member, like JM did today, I do not want him/her to be deprived of his posting privileges. I completely disagree with what JM has been saying, but I do support his right to express his opinion.
i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.
tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
yes i did.
did charvak reprimand you, give you a warning, or try to deter you?

here are your questions and my replies:

Q. did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel?

A. yes i did. charvaka was not the admin of sulekha. it was beyond him to reprimand me or give me a warning there. he did express his displeasure as a fellow poster in sulekha though.

Q. did you then brag about it here?
A. yes i did. i would take strong objection if charvaka reprimands me for bragging about what i did in sulekha. i joined this board in the trust that we are allowed to brag, which includes bragging about things that would not be allowed in this board. it is a part of free speech.

Q. did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
A. yes i did. i joined this board in the trust that free speech, which includes hate speech or slurs, is allowed here (not to be read as encouraged here but allowed).

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:52 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote: desist from revealing private info. of other posters like hellsangel, propagandhi and i have desisted.

...and rashmun, if i may add.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:13 am

To Charvaka, Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:PP is the only one protecting your right to free speech.

i suppose you believed him when he told you that he was one of the framers of the constitution.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:if the latest poll results are any indication, you would be voted to be booted by the community were the subject put to poll.

going by the reaction of this mob to the rape case in delhi, and your admission that you hacked into my account, your little testicles are at risk.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:now that i have spelled it out, it is your choice to inflame the community more by your childish behaviour or desist from revealing private info. of other posters like hellsangel, propagandhi and i have desisted. follow our example. we like to be different from other boards in the matter of free speech: i hope you will cooperate and not force us into doing things we don't like to. spew venom as much as you like but follow rules related to privacy.

hahaha, who's "us?" you and your jiggly breasts?

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:24 am

us is the such community. in extreme cases, extreme measures will be taken and matters be put to poll/debate. i hope you will cooperate.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:28 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:us is the such community. in extreme cases, extreme measures will be taken and matters be put to poll/debate. i hope you will cooperate.

did you take your meds today?

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:29 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:us is the such community. in extreme cases, extreme measures will be taken and matters be put to poll/debate. i hope you will cooperate.
did you take your meds today?

yes i did. thanks for asking.

by Jeremiah Mburuburu Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:35 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i think most members would agree with this. i do. but if JM persists in his behaviour then the community might want to make an exception for him. anyway, let me not think too far into the future.
tell me, did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel? did you then brag about it here? did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
yes i did.
did charvak reprimand you, give you a warning, or try to deter you?
here are your questions and my replies:

Q. did you hack into my account, and give my private info to hellsangel?

A. yes i did. charvaka was not the admin of sulekha. it was beyond him to reprimand me or give me a warning there. he did express his displeasure as a fellow poster in sulekha though.

Q. did you then brag about it here?
A. yes i did. i would take strong objection if charvaka reprimands me for bragging about what i did in sulekha. i joined this board in the trust that we are allowed to brag, which includes bragging about things that would not be allowed in this board. it is a part of free speech.

Q. did you call me a madharchod about half an hour ago?
A. yes i did. i joined this board in the trust that free speech, which includes hate speech or slurs, is allowed here (not to be read as encouraged here but allowed).

thank you for your answers. i wanted to establish all that for the record.

by Guest Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:40 am

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:thank you for your answers. i wanted to establish all that for the record.

good luck madarchod. (-:

by Idéfix Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:50 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:the principle of free speech has never applied here, largely because of you. it could not, because you incited your minions to post private info about, and hurl crude abuses at not only me, but people who don't know of this forum and what goes on here.

Unkil, it's one thing to have disagreements - even strong ones - with PP, but another to accuse him of inciting others to attack you. Those who posted your (purported) private information on CH crossed a line even by the anything-goes standards back then but you can't conflate your anger against those individuals with your disagreements with PP and paint him as some master-villain. I think you're letting your anger cloud your judgement.

I seriously doubt that JM truly believes the accusations that he is mindlessly flinging at me. He has been questioned about those accusations by several posters now, and he has no evidence to back up his wild accusations. He is throwing these accusations around just to distract from his deeds, which "violate criminal and civil laws, and well-known ethical standards."

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:40 pm

This is the best policy.

by Idéfix Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:51 pm

A policy of ambiguity might work if one of the parties involved has disproportionate power over the others. Unless backed by such power, ambiguity can lead to miscalculations and big problems. This is a community of equals, where all members enjoy the same rights. So for this forum it is better to have a clearly stated policy that is consistently enforced.

by Hellsangel Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:58 pm

panini press wrote: Unless backed by such power,

Talk of ambiguity!

by Idéfix Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:50 pm

atcg at https://such.forumotion.com/t9079-any-admin-requests#79863 wrote:The test should be, in my opinion :

1. Is the personal information related to a private individual?
2. Has there been a reasonable request to delete the information?
3. Does it look prima facie to be a case of prurient interest on the part of the poster?

If so, delete.

My problem (speaking with my admin hat on) is that I don't want to judge the intent or interest of posters and use that judgment in determining whether to edit/delete posts. This is why we have policy we have: that either the person whose purported information is disclosed, or the person who disclosed it, needs to request the removal. This is to prevent cases where a third party with no direct stake in the matter, but is concerned about the disclosure itself, tries to get the information deleted although the two directly involved parties do not expressly wish that. The objective of the SuCH privacy policy is to protect the anonymity and privacy of SuCH members. I want to do this with as few restrictions on free speech, and as little admin intervention, as possible.

If I open up the gates to anyone being able to request the removal of information about any other person, then the whole thing becomes very subjective, with my discretion becoming the all-important deciding factor. I don't want to take that active role.

by Petrichor Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:00 pm

And I am worried that with a limited privacy policy that is only interested in protecting the privacy of Such members and their immediate circles, is an invitation to disaster. We should not have cases where indiscriminate posting of personal details with editorial comments about private individuals be posted and discussed without such persons' awareness or inputs. This is a opt-in policy for the rest of the 7 billion people that I am uncomfortable with.

While I understand the reluctance to get involved as an administrator on the content, I do believe that it is unfair to subject anyone to this level of scrutiny and discussion after disclosing their names, addresses, telephone numbers and professional affiliation etc., when they are not public figures.

Privacy must be afforded to the world at large. The admin does possess strong weapons to dissuade this behavior and must use it.

by Idéfix Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:19 pm

atcg wrote:And I am worried that with a limited privacy policy that is only interested in protecting the privacy of Such members and their immediate circles, is an invitation to disaster. We should not have cases where indiscriminate posting of personal details with editorial comments about private individuals be posted and discussed without such persons' awareness or inputs. This is a opt-in policy for the rest of the 7 billion people that I am uncomfortable with.

While I understand the reluctance to get involved as an administrator on the content, I do believe that it is unfair to subject anyone to this level of scrutiny and discussion after disclosing their names, addresses, telephone numbers and professional affiliation etc., when they are not public figures.

Privacy must be afforded to the world at large. The admin does possess strong weapons to dissuade this behavior and must use it.

I understand your concerns. I agree with you that it is in very poor taste to post private information about people and discuss their lives in detail without their knowledge. I do not want people to do this here. I am open to suggestions about using admin powers -- limited as they are in the interest of free speech -- to curb this behavior.

I personally don't see a way to make this happen beyond me stating my own personal disapproval of such behavior. In other words, I disapprove of a lot of things that go on here and often state my disapproval. But I can't stop people from doing anything I personally disapprove of. I can only intervene as admin under very specific, narrowly-defined circumstances. But like I said, I am open to suggestions, so please elaborate on your thinking if you want to.

by Guest Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:24 pm

panini press wrote:
atcg wrote:And I am worried that with a limited privacy policy that is only interested in protecting the privacy of Such members and their immediate circles, is an invitation to disaster. We should not have cases where indiscriminate posting of personal details with editorial comments about private individuals be posted and discussed without such persons' awareness or inputs. This is a opt-in policy for the rest of the 7 billion people that I am uncomfortable with.

While I understand the reluctance to get involved as an administrator on the content, I do believe that it is unfair to subject anyone to this level of scrutiny and discussion after disclosing their names, addresses, telephone numbers and professional affiliation etc., when they are not public figures.

Privacy must be afforded to the world at large. The admin does possess strong weapons to dissuade this behavior and must use it.

I understand your concerns. I agree with you that it is in very poor taste to post private information about people and discuss their lives in detail without their knowledge. I do not want people to do this here. I am open to suggestions about using admin powers -- limited as they are in the interest of free speech -- to curb this behavior.

I personally don't see a way to make this happen beyond me stating my own personal disapproval of such behavior. In other words, I disapprove of a lot of things that go on here and often state my disapproval. But I can't stop people from doing anything I personally disapprove of. I can only intervene as admin under very specific, narrowly-defined circumstances. But like I said, I am open to suggestions, so please elaborate on your thinking if you want to.

I am glad your thinking on privacy has changed. Earlier when Hellsangel and Propagandhi were going around revealing private information on JM you preferred to look the other way. Once, when confronted, you claimed you had earlier given negative votes to Hellsangel for his behavior (hahaha). I suppose your thinking on privacy must have changed drastically when JM started revealing private information about you. That was when you started taking somewhat desperate evasive action.

by Idéfix Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:32 pm

Saamiyaar, this is the place to discuss the forum privacy policy. If you have any disagreements with the policy, or suggestions to improve it, please feel free to post them here, and I will pitch in with my views.

by Sponsored content

SuCH privacy policy

Do you agree with this privacy policy?

SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy

Re: SuCH privacy policy