by Hugh_G_Johnson Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:36 am"6. Don't single out game ID's (PSN, XBL, GFWL, etc.) to slander."
I would like to suggest/request that this rule be re-worded. I recently had a post of mine altered (not censored, but changed) without any indication. Hence, words that were not mine were presented as mine. I had used part of a screen name (his full twitch name) to simply refer to the person who posted a video I linked to (the link is still there). I did not make any allegations, accusations or say anything negative. And I'm very aware of not only the rule, but the enforcement thereof. It never occurred to me that using part of his screen name to refer to him in a video he had total control of could possibly be construed as slander (or libel).
I have seen this rule enforced similarly a few times before. Although, the names were always removed and the post was noted as edited, not presented as the posters original words. I don't recall any case where the poster meant to slander or flout the rule. In every case there was confusion as to what was allowed because of the wording of the rule. I feel the community would be better served to have a rule that accurately reflected what is enforced.
First off; slander refers to spoken word, thus technically doesn't apply to anything written (that would be libel). Secondly, the burden of proof for slander and libel is very onerous (especially for celebrities; one could argue that a well-known up-loader is an online celebrity). To cite the rule as it is currently written to alter posts that innocuously refer to screen names (or parts of screen names or twitch names), is basically an accusation of libel and therefore itself potentially libelous.
I fully realize the reason for the rule. I have seen it suggested that there be a thread with a list of hackers (which would obviously be problematic) but that was the closest I've seen anyone come to truly violating this rule. I can understand erring on the side of caution and avoiding any potential issues, however. So I think it would be better to say 'don't use a person's screen name to say anything bad about them' or maybe just 'don't post anyone else's scree name without permission'. It would avoid confusion about the rule and any ill feelings. I truly mean this to be constructive. I hope it's not seen as lashing out in any way. I just feel very strongly about this and wanted to support my point. Having a post of mine changed didn't 'set me off' it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. As I said, I've seen people have posts modified and get admonished for violating this rule and feel bad when they had no malicious intent. In fact, when it came up in a thread a few months ago I suggested changing the rule in that thread. I just find it unfortunate that people are singled out for rules violations who are technically not in violation of the rules and I don't think it good for the community. I personally would not have take offense to having a screen name removed from a post. However, I must say I was upset that my post was changed in a way that was nonsensical and presented as my original, unaltered words.
I would like to suggest/request that this rule be re-worded. I recently had a post of mine altered (not censored, but changed) without any indication. Hence, words that were not mine were presented as mine. I had used part of a screen name (his full twitch name) to simply refer to the person who posted a video I linked to (the link is still there). I did not make any allegations, accusations or say anything negative. And I'm very aware of not only the rule, but the enforcement thereof. It never occurred to me that using part of his screen name to refer to him in a video he had total control of could possibly be construed as slander (or libel).
I have seen this rule enforced similarly a few times before. Although, the names were always removed and the post was noted as edited, not presented as the posters original words. I don't recall any case where the poster meant to slander or flout the rule. In every case there was confusion as to what was allowed because of the wording of the rule. I feel the community would be better served to have a rule that accurately reflected what is enforced.
First off; slander refers to spoken word, thus technically doesn't apply to anything written (that would be libel). Secondly, the burden of proof for slander and libel is very onerous (especially for celebrities; one could argue that a well-known up-loader is an online celebrity). To cite the rule as it is currently written to alter posts that innocuously refer to screen names (or parts of screen names or twitch names), is basically an accusation of libel and therefore itself potentially libelous.
I fully realize the reason for the rule. I have seen it suggested that there be a thread with a list of hackers (which would obviously be problematic) but that was the closest I've seen anyone come to truly violating this rule. I can understand erring on the side of caution and avoiding any potential issues, however. So I think it would be better to say 'don't use a person's screen name to say anything bad about them' or maybe just 'don't post anyone else's scree name without permission'. It would avoid confusion about the rule and any ill feelings. I truly mean this to be constructive. I hope it's not seen as lashing out in any way. I just feel very strongly about this and wanted to support my point. Having a post of mine changed didn't 'set me off' it was just the straw that broke the camel's back. As I said, I've seen people have posts modified and get admonished for violating this rule and feel bad when they had no malicious intent. In fact, when it came up in a thread a few months ago I suggested changing the rule in that thread. I just find it unfortunate that people are singled out for rules violations who are technically not in violation of the rules and I don't think it good for the community. I personally would not have take offense to having a screen name removed from a post. However, I must say I was upset that my post was changed in a way that was nonsensical and presented as my original, unaltered words.
