Touhou Discussion Thread 3 ⌈Eternal Fantasy Edition⌋

[Topaz404]

Becoming a proxy for a banned user is a punishable offense.

If you do this again, I'm going to treat you like you're actually possessed and exorcise you from the wiki.

While it was not my intention to break any rules, there was some information that simply needed to be passed on. Everything that needed to be said was on that document to prevent this sort of thing
Also
According to these statements by Agnaa himself, it should be fine, Fuji wasnt banned for fabricating evidence, and isnt using this to circumvent her ban

Dont get me wrong, i will stop. I just wished to point this out

 

[Woomica]

I didn't know Fuji knew how to ACTUALLY do perfect possession

Kenjaku type shi-

 

[Ruler_Star_Kuma]

Kenjaku type shi-

I DIDN'T THINK YOU WERE CAPABLE OF GOING THIS FAR ... MAD DOG OF FUJIWARA!!

 

[Deidalius]

I wonder, to what extent we can start sharing words that banned users say? Like, just for CRTs? I guess that if an banned user wants to yap about something random the staff wouldn't let them but what if they're giving input on a CRT of a verse or something?

I wonder how would this apply if a banned user starts insulting users on-site lol

 

[DarkGrath]

I wonder, to what extent we can start sharing words that banned users say? Like, just for CRTs? I guess that if an banned user wants to yap about something random the staff wouldn't let them but what if they're giving input on a CRT of a verse or something?

I wonder how would this apply if a banned user starts insulting users on-site lol

Our rules do specifically disallow sockpuppeting and account sharing, but they aren't so specific on proxying - i.e.: still having an independent account but directly using a banned user's statements in your own. I believe past cases of similar issues have largely been handled by rough precedents. It's a gap in the rules that frankly should be filled, since I recall this kind of topic has come up before and has caused disagreements.

If I were to give a guideline here though - not in the sense of what is strictly against the rules, but simply what should result in avoiding needless troubles and controversies - the underlying question you should ask yourself is "is what I'm doing substantially different from the banned user just commenting themselves?". As in, if the banned user were unbanned and capable of commenting for themselves, would the comment and the impact of the comment be particularly different? And be honest with yourself. If so, you probably should avoid it.

 

[Spinoirr]

Our rules do specifically disallow sockpuppeting and account sharing, but they aren't so specific on proxying - i.e.: still having an independent account but directly using a banned user's statements in your own. I believe past cases of similar issues have largely been handled by rough precedents. It's a gap in the rules that frankly should be filled, since I recall this kind of topic has come up before and has caused disagreements.

If I were to give a guideline here though - not in the sense of what is strictly against the rules, but simply what should result in avoiding needless troubles and controversies - the underlying question you should ask yourself is "is what I'm doing substantially different from the banned user just commenting themselves?". As in, if the banned user were unbanned and capable of commenting for themselves, would the comment and the impact of the comment be particularly different? And be honest with yourself. If so, you probably should avoid it.

But say they use the information FUJIWARA gives them off site

But they write their own crt with that information that was given. So it's more like a group thing, rather then one person's words

 

[DarkGrath]

But say they use the information FUJIWARA gives them off site

But they write their own crt with that information that was given. So it's more like a group thing, rather then one person's words

By that guideline, it should be fine. It would be hard to imagine even strictly enforcing such a concept - generally speaking, CRTs are built on publicly accessible information provided in any given verse. Preventing people from using information provided by banned users in CRTs would be difficult to coherently separate from preventing people from simply having the same ideas and/or using the same sources as banned users.