| Off Topic > Drama |
| RBL - Ephialtes |
| << < (10/18) > >> |
| Deathwishez:
I see that there are security warning here, but honestly, I don't think that the thread should have been removed. It was a rather dramatic step. I'm siding with cucumberdude. Say what you will, but I don't see enough justification in this. |
| cucumberdude:
--- Quote from: MikeyMonster on March 10, 2011, 09:06:23 PM ---I'm interested, because both of you - Ephialtes and Cucumberdude - seem to be pretty reasonable people. However, looking over the "evidence" you've provided, I've come to a conclusion that, indeed, the security breech was pretty serious, but since you've fixed that(?), it simply makes your website the same as any other like it that's posted on the forum. I do agree that adding a rule against them would be a good idea, but if he's just going to only target a few, I don't see the point. Forgive me if I'm wrong with anything I've mentioned in this post. --- End quote --- There was no security breach, to be clear. I think you mean security flaw. Nobody ever actually managed to access the data. Apart from that, I somewhat agree. My point in asking for the creation of a rule was not because I think player owned sites are dangerous - it's because I felt like my site was being unfairly targeted. The idea was to show Ephialtes that his actions were inconsistent; the removal of my site seemed arbitrary. |
| cucumberdude:
--- Quote from: Deathwishez on March 10, 2011, 10:20:35 PM ---I see that there are security warning here, but honestly, I don't think that the thread should have been removed. It was a rather dramatic step. I'm siding with cucumberdude. Say what you will, but I don't see enough justification in this. --- End quote --- And thanks. I think a PM asking me to incorporate password encryption would probably have been sufficient. |
| Custard:
This is all good information and evidence, but the problem here is whether Ephialtes had the authority to take such action or not. Ephialtes' reason for taking down the site advertisement was completely valid and proper, however, it did not comply with any rules posted onto the General Section's rule list. But, if forum administrators were restricted towards taking certain situations under their own jurisdiction, the forum members would be prone to higher amounts of rare dangers such as these. -Ephialtes had no power on whether people still joined the site or not, whether did he have the power to take it down. -Ephialtes' worry for the forum member's safety brought about the closing of your topic. Even if this brings about no laws to back up his decision, it's completely valid, and respectively necessary to the safety of others browsing the forums. If you look closely into the constitution of the United States, it says that the congress has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper" for the improving of their country. The same thing applies here. If the safety of the forum members comes into hand, Ephialtes will have a good mind to disregard the absence of an actual law to back up his decision, and make a move before somebody gets hurt. (Keep in mind, the necessary and proper clause is extremely contradicting, and runs based off of the opinions of the representatives. So Ephialtes' decision can be looked at through many different perspectives.) |
| cucumberdude:
--- Quote from: Custard on March 11, 2011, 01:00:20 AM ---Ephialtes' reason for taking down the site advertisement was completely valid and proper --- End quote --- According to Ephialtes the reason of removal was 'because it stores passwords'. There are many player owned web sites on the forums (take, for example, clan forums) that do the same. Why are they not removed? --- Quote from: Custard on March 11, 2011, 01:00:20 AM ---If you look closely into the constitution of the United States, it says that the congress has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper" for the improving of their country. --- End quote --- This is just stupid. The forums has nothing to do with the constitution. It's not a democracy, and there aren't 'laws'. --- Quote from: Custard on March 11, 2011, 01:00:20 AM ---But, if forum administrators were restricted towards taking certain situations under their own jurisdiction, the forum members would be prone to higher amounts of rare dangers such as these. [...] The same thing applies here. If the safety of the forum members comes into hand, Ephialtes will have a good mind to disregard the absence of an actual law to back up his decision, and make a move before somebody gets hurt. --- End quote --- You seem to think that this has to do with some sort of serious threat to members. While before encryption it was, it no longer was afterward. I'm not trying to somehow diminish the authority of an administrator - I'm questioning whether the behavior was abusive. Of course in a situation where it was likely that I was collecting passwords for some evil master plan, Ephialtes would have been unquestionably in the right. The grey zone here is when does selective, arbitrary administration outside of the written rules become abusive. That's a question that's important to consider - and that's really difficult to answer. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |