# What can we use as evidence?



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 7, 2012)

So since screen caps are no longer evidence when trying to report someone. What can we use? Reason I ask is because I have been seeing alot of people saying things and openly admitting things that would normally result in a ban or suspension. They will then delete whatever journal or submission it came from knowing that its against the rules.

I just feel that not allowing screen caps are going to let alot of people get away with things. I just want to know what can we use if we see something that needs to be reported?


----------



## Taralack (Sep 7, 2012)

Wait, what?? Since when did this happen?


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Toraneko said:


> Wait, what?? Since when did this happen?



Its in one of the newest updates they did to the TOS and AUP its because some assholes were photoshoping screen caps


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 7, 2012)

Erm, links?

All I can find in the Knowledge Base thing is that screenshots are not allowed as submissions.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 7, 2012)

OP clearly misread something. I think he's referring to the AUP in regards to screenshots as submissions, which aren't allowed.
Either that or a numbnut-admin replied to his ticket and wrote some garbage about screenshots not be acceptable evidence.

Remove the ability for users to delete comments, especially if you aren't going to permit screenshots anymore.  It was a stupid addition to begin with.

I can promise you 45% of the bullshit will stop right there. If you wanna deal with the other 45%, actually code the site decently so stuff doesn't hard-delete for a certain amount of time and respond to tickets on an average timeframe that doesn't exceed 6 months.

It's also pretty bad when you can't tell the difference between a genuine and photoshopped screenshot.

PS: Stuff editting the AUP and TOS to suit your inability to handle proper site administration, it's not funny.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 7, 2012)

When it comes to evidence the best thing you can do is let it lie in situ and report it very clearly with all the proper information. If it is really really serious you can report it and take the ticket number and contact an admin via note. It does not garuntee that it will be handled faster but we have more hands now on deck and quick turn around is something we are working on. That said another thing you can do is not try to harass the user or start a lynch mob. I've seen it happen where in less than half an hour users find someone doing something, file a ticket, but then jump on the user. By the time an admin touches the ticket the violator has been tipped off via being jumped on, and everything is gone.

If you worry about someone deleting something before an admin handles it quietly file a ticket and don't encourage lynch mob style activity.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Sep 8, 2012)

Devious Bane said:


> It's also pretty bad when you can't tell the difference between a genuine and photoshopped screenshot.



Why? Are you trying to tell me good "photoshoppers" simply don't exist? Hell, depending on the content, I could probably use MS Paint or something and make it look realistic. To say it's easy to detect Photoshopped screenshots is a bit misinformed.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 8, 2012)

> By the time an admin touches the ticket the violator has been tipped off via being jumped on, and everything is gone.


That's a problem, all right, but since comments can't be edited after posting, removing the ability to hard-delete them (i.e. comments can only be "hidden", not actually purged from the database) would be a definite help from the administrative point of view, because even if a user is tipped off about being reported they can't destroy the evidence of it.

(At least where comments are concerned.  Harassment via editable venue e.g. journals or picture descriptions are another matter entirely.)

The bottom line is:  Screenshots can be _useful_, but they're not _incorrigible_.  They can be falsified, manipulated, etc. so the first thing to do is make sure we aren't doing anything to encourage that.


----------



## BRN (Sep 8, 2012)

False screencaptures were used to bring down an admin's image. After that fiasco, I can only agree with the decision, even if it's made it harder to pin a crime down. 

Evidence is in server logs, cached webpages, private messages; or if it was public and hasn't been deleted, it'll still be plainly visible, and you can just plain link an admin to it.


----------



## CatScratchFever (Sep 8, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> Why? Are you trying to tell me good  "photoshoppers" simply don't exist? Hell, depending on the content, I  could probably use MS Paint or something and make it look realistic. To  say it's easy to detect Photoshopped screenshots is a bit  misinformed.



+1. You don't even have to be "good" with Photoshop. Not only is 'shopping the text on a screencap easy, it's easy to alter the page's code and screencap that, too. It's ridiculous that screencaps were ever treated as credible in the first place.


----------



## Summercat (Sep 9, 2012)

Stratadrake said:


> That's a problem, all right, but since comments can't be edited after posting, removing the ability to hard-delete them (i.e. comments can only be "hidden", not actually purged from the database) would be a definite help from the administrative point of view, because even if a user is tipped off about being reported they can't destroy the evidence of it.
> 
> (At least where comments are concerned.  Harassment via editable venue e.g. journals or picture descriptions are another matter entirely.)
> 
> The bottom line is:  Screenshots can be _useful_, but they're not _incorrigible_.  They can be falsified, manipulated, etc. so the first thing to do is make sure we aren't doing anything to encourage that.



Erm.

I thought it was common knowledge, but, ah - Admins can view hidden comments. Delete shouts, well, then we can't see them (nor comments on deleted journals/submissions), but hidden ones, yes.


----------



## ArtemisZiebenwolf (Sep 9, 2012)

Summercat said:


> Erm.
> 
> I thought it was common knowledge, but, ah - Admins can view hidden comments. Delete shouts, well, then we can't see them (nor comments on deleted journals/submissions), but hidden ones, yes.


I was about to say...
If it's there on the page, it's there forever. You can do anything short of dropping a nuclear bomb on the server itself and it will still be there. Admins can recover almost anything that's deleted, when need be.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 9, 2012)

ArtemisZiebenwolf said:


> I was about to say...
> If it's there on the page, it's there forever. You can do anything short of dropping a nuclear bomb on the server itself and it will still be there. Admins can recover almost anything that's deleted, when need be.


It depends on how the site is coded.  As Summercat says, comments on submissions/journals are only "hidden" not hard-deleted, but for things like userpage shouts, submissions/journals themselves (potentially including the comments on them), deleted means D E L E T E D and there are essentially no traces of evidence left for the admins to verify.  Deleted submissions/journals probably leave an entry in a log file at most but I bet it's just an 'abstract' (e.g. "user X deleted submission Y") and can verify only that the submission actually existed at some time, not what it contained (including comments posted to it) or why the user took it down.

FA is not Wikipedia, we don't have a full revision history of all edits/comments made to arbitrary pages before they were nuked.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 9, 2012)

Stratadrake said:


> It depends on how the site is coded.  As Summercat says, comments on submissions/journals are only "hidden" not hard-deleted, but for things like userpage shouts, submissions/journals themselves (potentially including the comments on them), deleted means D E L E T E D and there are essentially no traces of evidence left for the admins to verify.  Deleted submissions/journals probably leave an entry in a log file at most but I bet it's just an 'abstract' (e.g. "user X deleted submission Y") and can verify only that the submission actually existed at some time, not what it contained (including comments posted to it) or why the user took it down.
> 
> FA is not Wikipedia, we don't have a full revision history of all edits/comments made to arbitrary pages before they were nuked.



Ok, here's the deal:

Journal comments, submission comments: When deleted by a user, they're still visible to staff.
Userpage comments, journals, submissions (And afaik, notes): deleted means D E L E T E D. (Including the comments on journals / submissions)
When a admin deletes a submission, the action and reason is logged, but not the image.

I think that's all of it.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

Irrefutable evidence is insanely simple.

Find a cellphone. Turn on the video recorder. Start by showing your room/livingroom/den/whatever, then pan to the computer. Get close enough to the screen to see the text in question clearly enough. Post video online.

Technically a video _could_ be doctored, but those kind of skills are of the grade of a thousand-dollar/hour black market scammer, and I highly doubt a professional con artist would frequent FA.


----------



## BRN (Sep 9, 2012)

CerbrusNL said:


> Ok, here's the deal:Journal comments, submission comments: When deleted by a user, they're still visible to staff.Userpage comments, journals, submissions (And afaik, notes): deleted means D E L E T E D. (Including the comments on journals / submissions)When a admin deletes a submission, the action and reason is logged, but not the image.I think that's all of it.


I'd just like to clear up that we've previously seen that notes are only deleted when both parties delete the same note. A note's link can still access the note even after the user has deleted that note from their inbox, if the other receipient hasn't cleared it from their outbox.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Sep 9, 2012)

Ashley Joy said:


> Irrefutable evidence is insanely simple.
> 
> Find a cellphone. Turn on the video recorder. Start by showing your room/livingroom/den/whatever, then pan to the computer. Get close enough to the screen to see the text in question clearly enough. Post video online.
> 
> Technically a video _could_ be doctored, but those kind of skills are of the grade of a thousand-dollar/hour black market scammer, and I highly doubt a professional con artist would frequent FA.



The site that's recorded can easily be doctored. (Even a fake live version of it, on the right address, if you'd want to put some effort into it)
Video ain't it, either.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

Go to your local library and use a public web-browsing computer, show yourself logging in to the system, navigate to FA, showing the address being typed in the address bar.

How about that for irrefutable? : P


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 9, 2012)

hg3300 said:


> Why? Are you trying to tell me good "photoshoppers" simply don't exist? Hell, depending on the content, I could probably use MS Paint or something and make it look realistic. To say it's easy to detect Photoshopped screenshots is a bit misinformed.


It depends on the content of each individual shop. Often if someone is looking to frame someone, they neglect the person's sense of reason.
I.e. Person is a trouble-maker who borderlines the ToS and often exhibits knowledge of the ToS, screen shows behavior which takes no heed to the ToS.

*tl;dr - Profiling, a considerable portion of successful managers/administrations consist of people who have taken a course in psychology.* The reason for this is because _people will lie about anything_, and having the knowledge to look for what isn't there as oppose to what is there can help a person better detect falsified information.

However, since FA's administration consists of bricks and a calculator, they can't properly determine such reasoning so it would make sense if they flat out stopped accepting this form of evidence.


----------



## DragonTalon (Sep 9, 2012)

Ashley Joy said:


> Go to your local library and use a public web-browsing computer, show yourself logging in to the system, navigate to FA, showing the address being typed in the address bar.
> 
> How about that for irrefutable? : P



All of this can be easily faked.  Most web browsers let you edit pages in memory either via an add on or with built in tools.  Another quick way is to edit the cached files themselves.  I can think of half a dozen other ways with proxy servers or editing the hosts file or any number of things.  It's very, very easy to make a fake website and screenshots, pictures, movies and even live witnesses are not going to help at all.

Only log files on the server that admins can access can be free of user editing, and if they don't keep records then you are sadly just out of luck if someone wants to abuse the system and harass you.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> All of this can be easily faked.  Most web browsers let you edit pages in memory either via an add on or with built in tools.  Another quick way is to edit the cached files themselves.  I can think of half a dozen other ways with proxy servers or editing the hosts file or any number of things.  It's very, very easy to make a fake website and screenshots, pictures, movies and even live witnesses are not going to help at all.
> 
> Only log files on the server that admins can access can be free of user editing, and if they don't keep records then you are sadly just out of luck if someone wants to abuse the system and harass you.



Hence the reason for public computers at a local library.
When you log in, you are showing that this is the first time you have logged onto that computer in a while, possibly ever. If need be, show yourself waiting at the door of the library a few minutes before opening, proving the computers have been restarted beforehand. Users already have limited permissions because of the computers being made for public use, supplied by government-supported facilities. Add-ons or tools require navigating around user limitations, which takes time. The point of all this is to prove that the computer in question has not been altered in any way beforehand, and to show the entire process of navigating to the site, start to finish, making aforementioned methods not even part of the question.

If that's truly not enough, go to an electronic rent store, and take a laptop out for a day/week (whatever the minimum is). Video yourself through the entire procedure, specifically showing the laptop in it's entirety, and that you never once attach any flash drive or other outside source to it. Rented laptops are competely wiped every time they're returned, so no-one could say it's been altered. Therefore if you navigate directly to the site without doing anything else, I would think that's near-unquestionable.

I'm fascinated with methods by which to counter fakes, so if you still think I'm wrong, just saying, I'm genuinely interested in how.


----------



## DragonTalon (Sep 9, 2012)

For the laptop that's easy.  Just configure the router it's connected into as a pass through proxy and feed in the modified page you want.  Any Linux box could do this with Squid, or a router that has had been flashed to open source firmware.

For the library?  If you have direct access to a computer there is no way to prevent adding spyware or alterations.  Boot with a flash stick to get access to the drive, change the hosts file, reboot and then film your use of a freshly booted system.  Or plug the ethernet into your laptop configured as a transparent proxy out of sight.   Or use MAC address poisoning running on another machine to spoof the DNS server and send queries to a server you set up.

Anyway, I suspect there are a lot of people who would be uncomfortable accessing FA on a public system, let along filming themselves doing it and uploading it.  Shouldn't need to go through all that just to show an admin evidence of abuse.  Simply throwing journal/comment entries into a log file would be a MUCH simpler way of taking care of the issue.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

This is more curiousity than reasonable method, and I'm not afraid to go to any length to prove things.

Fair point on the laptop.
However, the point with the library is to show, with one length of unbroken, seamless video, from start to finish, from the front door to the computer to the website, that you're not altering anything. This includes showing the computer box completely, to prove no outside influence.
I suspect it's always possible to hack the system the day beforehand...

Pardon me while I go think on how to trump this.

When someone says something is easily hackable, it's only a challenge to make it un-hackable


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

Ok, here's one:

Go to the laptop rental, get a brand new laptop.

So now there's no question about hacked software or modified system files.

Go to the library and ask the receptionist/help desk person about the free wifi network. Ask for the specific name, even show them the network connections console to check that you're connected to the right one. Usually a free network has a confirmation page of some sorts, further supporting the authenticity of the video.
Again, uninterrupted, seamless video, showing the whole laptop at all times.

Pretty sure this one can't be faked, as it would require setting up your own network with the same name as the free wifi. That would require that 1. you live right next door to the library and 2. setting up repeaters within close distance to the area inside the library, which is basically illegal, since you'd be putting personal networking equipment on public and government-owned property. Besides, the receptionist would see that there's two networks with the same name.

Of course, that's all hypothetical. Very few people lack the common sense to actually go to that kind of unnecessary length to prove a point. Besides myself.


----------



## Devious Bane (Sep 9, 2012)

Ashley Joy said:


> When someone says something is easily hackable, it's only a challenge to make it un-hackable


Nothing is "unhackable", there is no promise that someone will never be able to hack your site.
However, the way FA stands, hacking it is a fucking a joke. It has been hacked on numerous occasions by people with just a basic "more than average" understanding of what computing is.
It doesn't take a person with even the average computer sense to realize that FA's site structure is garbage and the amount of time they're taking to fix it is equally garbage.

The problems, even this one now, are repetitive for this very reason.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm not talking about FA specifically, or even a website, more simply the idea of making anything (ie a software widget) un-hackable. It's more a hypothetical question, just like what do you hold the strongest acid in the world with, and how do you make an acid to eat through even that, etc etc.
And arbitrarily saying "nothing" is both only speculation and all the more reason to try.


----------



## Clyde_Dale (Sep 10, 2012)

Ashley Joy said:


> I'm not talking about FA specifically, or even a website, more simply the idea of making anything (ie a software widget) un-hackable. It's more a hypothetical question, just like what do you hold the strongest acid in the world with, and how do you make an acid to eat through even that, etc etc.
> And arbitrarily saying "nothing" is both only speculation and all the more reason to try.



As a bit of pedantry, acids can work on some substance, but not on others. For example, Hydrofluoric Acid is one of the few which can etch glass, and quite dangerous to spill on yourself, even if the effect is not evident for quite some time. However Nitric Acid, ironically actually an Oxidizer and can act as a base to neutralize certain acids, will go through any organics like a hot knife through butter, and is far more dangerous to spill on yourself. 

So saying an acid is 'strong' is not necessarily indicative of its lethality. 

To quote Sir Tennison, "What man can encode, man can decode". There is no such thing as 'unhackable', as long as you can get access to it. Even purely internal systems with no internet access can be hacked, if someone can gain physical access. However, there are ways to make it sufficiently tedious and/or obnoxious that the majority of the hackers will simply give up on it. Of course, that tends to attract the attention of the more proficient hackers when they get bored and want a real challenge.

This is a three-legged race when had its inception several centuries, perhaps even mellinia, ago, in the attempt to secure communications by way of cypher, and deciphering them. 

There's several ways to go about hacking...

One can try the 'brute force' approach. Things like DDOS and such.

One can try psychology and trick someone into giving you access (scamzorz)

One can try to come at it sideways by exploiting vulnerabilities in other areas (SQL injections and so forth)

I could go on, but you get my point. Humanity is endlessly inventive. And safety is a powerful motivating factor to be inventive really quickly. Greed is another powerful motivator. Hence this three-legged race over cyber-security.


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 10, 2012)

Perhaps I should retract a portion of my earlier statement, and cool things off here.

Saying it's impossible without first-hand knowledge gives me very little reason to be told not to try. I don't claim to be able to do the impossible, I'm saying I have a fascination with attempting to do so.
What I'm saying is, you can't tell me "you can't do that". Well, no, even that's not true. You can tell me, but I won't listen.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 10, 2012)

Ashley Joy said:


> Saying it's impossible without first-hand knowledge gives me very little reason to be told not to try. I don't claim to be able to do the impossible, I'm saying I have a fascination with attempting to do so.
> What I'm saying is, you can't tell me "you can't do that". Well, no, even that's not true. You can tell me, but I won't listen.



In other words, we should be telling you to not stuff beans up your nose?


----------



## Ashley Joy (Sep 10, 2012)

While that sounds like quite an intriguing experiment, it's not something I personally have an interest in.

Also, epic lols at the wiki link xDD


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 11, 2012)

Yeah, even Wikipedia has a sense of humor.


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 16, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> When it comes to evidence the best thing you can do is let it lie in situ and report it very clearly with all the proper information. If it is really really serious you can report it and take the ticket number and contact an admin via note. It does not garuntee that it will be handled faster but we have more hands now on deck and quick turn around is something we are working on. That said another thing you can do is not try to harass the user or start a lynch mob. I've seen it happen where in less than half an hour users find someone doing something, file a ticket, but then jump on the user. By the time an admin touches the ticket the violator has been tipped off via being jumped on, and everything is gone.
> 
> If you worry about someone deleting something before an admin handles it quietly file a ticket and don't encourage lynch mob style activity.



Sorry for taking so long to reply, what about recordings? Like if I made a video recording showing everything that is happening instead of screenshots? Would I be able to do that and email the video directly to an admin? I just feel that not allowing screenshots is going to make it alot harder for innocent people to prove their case against attackers =/


----------



## Pinkuh (Sep 16, 2012)

You do realize that by providing a recording, you wind up in the same conundrum as all the other things. You can fake a screenshot, record it, then send it in. It's a no win situation really. Just do you best to report it.


----------



## whitepawrolls (Sep 16, 2012)

*Question = What can we use as evidence?

Answer = Nothing. These days anything and everything can be faked. End of story*


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 16, 2012)

Better answer:  It's a matter of judgement and trust.  A user with a good rep will be given a little more consideration and less likely to be scrutinized on whether the evidence is real or not.  Likewise, several users with the same evidence may be given more consideration than a single person with a my-word-against-theirs complaint.

Of course, if a user is found to be faking evidence for their own purposes they may get some SERIOUS consequences dropped on their head.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 16, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> So since screen caps are no longer evidence when trying to report someone. What can we use? Reason I ask is because I have been seeing alot of people saying things and openly admitting things that would normally result in a ban or suspension. They will then delete whatever journal or submission it came from knowing that its against the rules.



You could try not playing internet police for a while and instead of worrying about what other people are saying in their journals or comments you could mind your own fucking business.  This is what annoys me about FA; the whole site is fueled by drama.  Don't people have more important things to do with their time?

(like posting here)


----------



## Mali-Kyte (Sep 17, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You could try not playing internet police for a while and instead of worrying about what other people are saying in their journals or comments you could mind your own fucking business.  This is what annoys me about FA; the whole site is fueled by drama.  Don't people have more important things to do with their time?
> 
> (like posting here)



Look the admins rely on users to help them find and sort issues out on the site. All I'm doing is trying to help them out, nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 17, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You could try not playing internet police for a while and instead of worrying about what other people are saying in their journals or comments you could mind your own fucking business.  This is what annoys me about FA; the whole site is fueled by drama.  Don't people have more important things to do with their time?
> 
> (like posting here)


Because letting rules get broken (apparently serious ones if they'd result in a ban or suspension) instead of reporting it like you're supposed to is TOTALLY the right thing to do, Ricky. 

The rules are there for a reason and the admins rely on trouble tickets in order to enforce them. It's just retarded to suggest that someone who notices rule breaking should just not do anything because it creates "drama".


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 17, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You could try not playing internet police for a while and instead of worrying about what other people are saying in their journals or comments you could mind your own fucking business.  This is what annoys me about FA; the whole site is fueled by drama.  Don't people have more important things to do with their time?
> 
> (like posting here)



Let's not report things and let drama run rampant like a bad case of hives. Good idea!

Reporting things prevents it from spreading, especially when someone decides to take it personal and create a journal to entice lynchmob behavior. If you don't want to report it. Fine. Someone else (hopefully) will or an admin will see it and take it down.


----------



## Verin Asper (Sep 17, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You could try not playing internet police for a while and instead of worrying about what other people are saying in their journals or comments you could mind your own fucking business.  This is what annoys me about FA; the whole site is fueled by drama.  Don't people have more important things to do with their time?
> 
> (like posting here)


Look like someone dont like helping the site
are you the type of person who call a person who do report things a Narc?


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2012)

Mali-Kyte said:


> Look the admins rely on users to help them find  and sort issues out on the site. All I'm doing is trying to help them  out, nothing wrong with that.



Rules get broken and people should report things if it is harming them or possibly other people.

This is the internet though, and we are talking about pictures and words.

It sounds like you're just on some self-righteous crusade.



Jashwa said:


> Because  letting rules get broken (apparently serious ones if they'd result in a  ban or suspension) instead of reporting it like you're supposed to is  TOTALLY the right thing to do, Ricky.



Yeah.  A rule gets broken.

That's some serious shit :roll:



> The rules are there for a reason and the admins rely on trouble  tickets in order to enforce them. It's just retarded to suggest that  someone who notices rule breaking should just not do anything because it  creates "drama".



Someone who is actively seeking it out.  Case in point, the person is asking how to best collect evidence against people.  *People care too much if they think they need to report everything they see that might be against the rules*.  ...is my point 



Ozriel said:


> Let's not report things and let drama run rampant like a bad case of hives. Good idea!



Why does drama never affect me?

There's a reason for that...



Verin Asper said:


> are you the type of person who call a person who do report things a Narc?



Well, in this case yes.  Absolutely.



These responses DON'T surprise me at all though.  You people are so afraid of what each other says that you let drama control the way things are done everywhere around you.  Why are people so scared of words on the internet, and why do so many people think they are on some dumb fucking crusade to report everyone and clean things up?

When you get down to it, if there wasn't so much of that idiotic self-righteous behavior it would probably save the administration there 90+% of their time since they don't need to hear a million fucking users whine about a picture that made them feel bad.

So, I'll ask you -- is it REALLY helping the site?  Or do you think most or all of the volunteer administration is oversaturated with whiny fucking nonsense that they can't take care of the work they have on their plate?  I know I hear enough of you people whine about that, too.  Things take a long time, yadda, yadda.  Well NO SHIT!


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 18, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Because letting rules get broken (apparently serious ones if they'd result in a ban or suspension) instead of reporting it like you're supposed to is TOTALLY the right thing to do, Ricky.
> 
> The rules are there for a reason and the admins rely on trouble tickets in order to enforce them. It's just retarded to suggest that someone who notices rule breaking should just not do anything because it creates "drama".


Well, if you universally reject screencaps that shows me you don't want anything reported that's hidden comments or PMs, as everything else can be deleted in no time.


----------



## Pinkuh (Sep 18, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Well, if you universally reject screencaps that shows me you don't want anything reported that's hidden comments or PMs, as everything else can be deleted in no time.



As a note, admins can see hidden comments and PM's if they are provided with a direct link to said PM. So not reporting a PM becuase you can't screenshot it is pointless, and silly. Any thing you want an admin to see can be linked to. The only thing that can't are when journals and submissions are removed completely. just FYI.


----------



## RTDragon (Sep 18, 2012)

OP some advice i can give you it's best just to report it silently and move on.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 18, 2012)

Pinkuh said:


> PM's if they are provided with a direct link to said PM.


Even if both parties deleted it on the mainsite?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> stuff-



Next time someone reports something, I'll turn a blind eye to favor you. Will that make you feel better? 

The reasons why are people. Plain and simple. People don't know how to curb their tounge and some people take it personally. If you have a problem with things like drama journal and comment nukes with the occasional suspension, then don't complain about it because if you aren't involved, then it is not affecting your directly. You can have your Laissez-faire apathetic attitude if you want, but stop caring about what problems people have with others and how it gets taken care of


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 18, 2012)

Trpdwarf said:


> If you worry about someone deleting something before an admin handles it quietly file a ticket and don't encourage lynch mob style activity.



Devil's advocate here: some people don't realize that what they said is bannable until they get off their rage-trip and consequentially delete everything in hopes of outsmarting a possible report.

Honestly, the ability to completely delete comments is just a bad way to handle unwanted content. The way deviantART handles it with hiding such content whilst still making it accessible to staff sounds like a more sensible solution.


----------



## Stratelier (Sep 18, 2012)

Agree.  I remember building a temp-ban (suspension) system with one of its key features being that when a suspension is issued, the timer doesn't activate until they make an actual login attempt (autologin cookies are silently ignored; it has to be a manual login) and get served the suspension message.  That way, they can't just "lay low" until things cool off.


----------



## RTDragon (Sep 18, 2012)

Ansitru said:


> Devil's advocate here: some people don't realize that what they said is bannable until they get off their rage-trip and consequentially delete everything in hopes of outsmarting a possible report.
> 
> Honestly, the ability to completely delete comments is just a bad way to handle unwanted content. The way deviantART handles it with hiding such content whilst still making it accessible to staff sounds like a more sensible solution.



Also there's one other factor as well on deviantart they can also read hidden comments even if the submisison or journal is deleted provided if you have the original link to the comments.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Next time someone reports something, I'll turn a blind eye to favor you. Will that make you feel better?



I don't go on the main site.

It's the people who need to work out their own problems on that train wreck of a social fuck-up site, not the staff.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I don't go on the main site.



And I am Beyonce.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Next time someone reports something, I'll turn a  blind eye to favor you. Will that make you feel better?



huh?  I don't go on the main site.  Or do you deal with the tickets there?



> The reasons why are people. Plain and simple. People don't know how to  curb their tounge and some people take it personally. If you have a  problem with things like drama journal and comment nukes with the  occasional suspension, then don't complain about it because if you  aren't involved, then it is not affecting your directly. You can have  your Laissez-faire apathetic attitude if you want, but stop caring about  what problems people have with others and how it gets taken care  of



People are people, but FA is a different subset of people.

THEY need to work out their own problems on that train wreck of a social fuck-up site, not the staff.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> People are people, but FA is a different subset of people.
> 
> THEY need to work out their own problems on that train wreck of a social fuck-up site, not the staff.



You know what they say about people who hang their dirty laundry.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> You know what they say about people who hang their dirty laundry.



I do, but if you could give me some context here or an example that would be great.

Are we talking about something that _actually matters_?


----------



## Ansitru (Sep 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I don't go on the main site.
> 
> It's the people who need to work out their own problems on that train wreck of a social fuck-up site, not the staff.



Speaking as someone who has had to deal with some very persistent people over on deviantART, I'm actually glad you're able to report them when they just flat-out harass you and evade blocks.
I'm not someone who will intentionally stir up drama, nor will I mention harassment in a journal to rally up white knights. However, when push comes to shove, I am pretty damn happy I can report people and have them removed from a site if need be.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 18, 2012)

Ansitru said:


> Speaking as someone who has had to deal with some very persistent people over on deviantART, I'm actually glad you're able to report them when they just flat-out harass you and evade blocks.



That is a lot different than what I'm talking about.


----------



## Pinkuh (Sep 18, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Even if both parties deleted it on the mainsite?



Why would someone want to delete something they want to report?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 18, 2012)

Try to use your head.

You get a harassing or otherwise rule-breaking PM, screencap it and, as a responsible FA user, follow yak's call to action and promptly delete any irrelevant/old PM, so that they don't clog the DB (or simply because you don't want such trash to have around and delete it on the spur of the moment). 

...and then you get told screencaps are no longer eligible because the mods can't recognize a bad shop.

Can you see the problem here?


----------



## SkieFire (Sep 18, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> ...and then you get told screencaps are no longer eligible because the mods can't recognize a bad shop.



That isn't the reason. I've seen at least one FA comment generator that generates an page that looks exactly like a comment thread on FA. It's not a hard tool to create, and it's been used in the past to create a few admin bashing screenshots.

Admins have to trust what they can see on the site, not what someone who might have an agenda gives them. It sucks that we dont have a soft delete for submissions and journals, but that's what the limitations of the site are, not the fault of the admins.


----------

