Your post is appreciated and you are right.

You have any personal opinion on thread topic overall to kickoff new discussion with new people and without spaghetti?

My opinion is that a new discussion with new people would probably require a new thread. Most anyone who visits this one will leave immediately. It's beyond salvaging.

But that's a decision for the moderators.

Even with my semi-English blocks of text in this thread previously "preventing discussion". It says lot that guys like StandardBacking never posted here expressing his views on topic while being biggest sensitive information provider and even have been allowed by 2+2 to continue add new sensitive information to negative feedback thread during discussion if this information should be allowed at all.

Also based on that any private information provider actually don't come here and defend their position in any way with something like "it really helps us get money back if we add this sensitive information to posts on 2+2 forum", would suggest that posts is not that helpful for them to get repaid in first place or that they are prepared to use alternative methods if 2+2 stop allowing this information. Otherwise they would give more input to defend current policy of allowing anything including very sensitive information on 2+2 forum if it would be so magically effective to get repaid.

Is 3 weeks long enough for this to have a conclusion and official response from 2+2?

Time isn't the issue. I think they're waiting for some intelligent discussion, but that's probably not going to happen here because someone tarded up the thread beyond salvation.

i think there has been plenty of intelligent discussion, but it seems all of the valid points that have been raised for changing what is allowed have just been shot down.

While i agree Krabis has gone over the top posting alot of words with little substance i don't see how that stops other people posting their opinions if they wish to. The newly created thread has been here over 3 weeks if people wanted to contribute they would have by now. Walls of text by Krabis have no bearing on other people posting their opinions as far as i can make out.

Im glad he has brought this topic up again to be honest as i brought up this discussion several months ago as you can see in post 9 of this thread. Bobo stated i made some good points and it would be discussed with the moderation team. After that there was no further discussion on the matter. What was the outcome of those moderation team discussions Bobo? Felt like this was just swept under the rug if im honest and its a serious issue that needs addressing.

Also this isn't NVG its a low volume sub forum with the vast majority of the posting done by stable owners/managers. Its hardly surprising there isn't a massive amount of discussion from that section of posters who know doing what they are doing in a vacuum is wrong but its suits their specific agenda so they remain silent.

Yes yes, all stakers who is posting addresses/ID's ect over every player is just hiding because my low value walls of texts at times.
My posts have been over the top at times but also 2+2 trying to ignore theses sensitive posts for years is over the top when they have been allowing to post every sensitive detail over guys who stole 100-200$ from stables who stake people for 10k's. I would think totally ignoring theses 100 ID/addresses in negative feedback thread is way more over the top then some random spammer posting some walls of text with low value to discussion at times.

I will not take credit for making this discussion going more in first place (because i don't know if it true) but this thread was started few days after i messaged Mason/Bobo about issue and gave excel file with over 40 cases where sensitive information like ID/address ect. was posted over very low $ over several years.

Then some moderator (Who have posted ID's in thread also) come and post this over the top post when asked about if 2+2 should be platform for punishing/scarring people by posting sensitive information.
Yes, paying money for advertising is very solid reasoning for allowing stakers post addresses and ID's.

The absence of any reaction by the people posting sensitive information is statement from them also.
There is very low chance that posters who post this sensitive information have not visited this thread during 3 weeks and it's lot more likely they have just decided to not reply or give their reasons for posting this sensitive information.

I don't see why the dollar amount matters. If they will scam for $200 they will scam for $2000, better to nip it in the bud before people get hurt.

Because the law contains the principle of proportionality, stating that the protection of personal data needs to be balanced with other rights and freedoms such as freedom of thought and of expression. Publishing personal details over a futile amount of money definitely isn't proportionate.

spank is that you

Who cares.
Existence of thread where people is supposed to discuss if ID/addresses should be allowed to post publicly is just absurdity in first place.
That 2+2 come out after years allowing very sensitive information on it forum by creating thread and asking people "should we allow post ID/addresses on our forum" is just crazy in first place.
Some random low value posts with too many text is just annoying.

You seem to have something that you're trying to say.

Caught myself being curious and read the first and last page of this thread.

Did this thread address "what should people be allowed to post about alleged scammers?"
What IS allowed to post on 2+2?

If you are asking what is allowed now, then now it allowed to post ID's/Addresses/Phone numbers/Photos of ID with face as they are not removed for years from negative feedback thread by 2+2 administration.

Basic cliffs:

*Thread started from posts in negative feedback about legality of posts
*Legality beaten to death first 2-3 pages (mostly GDPR)
*2+2 remain with position that they are not responsible about anything and don't break any laws by allowing posts with people addresses/ID ect.
*Bobo believe the shaming/scaring sometimes gets people's money paid back. here (I assume it main reason for allowing theses posts as no other reason even came out)
*2+2 thread post vs other platforms like backer creating website and not linking to it from 2+2 *for sensitive information specifically (i am still confused about if bobo think there is no difference)
*Krabis go lunatic and spam thread with walls of text with more abstract thoughts and ideas
*During last week or so just some very random posts about discussion itself
*Backers who post sensitive information regularly never post in this thread
*Everyone waiting weeks for 2+2 to make decision

In this part of the forum: basically everything. In other parts of the forum: almost nothing. Seems to depend on the moderators without 2+2 guidance.

lol

The only remotely accurate part of these cliffs would be krabs going lunatic and spamming with walls of text. But what he calls "abstract thoughts and ideas" is actually a word salad of incoherent drivel.

Thread and issue haven't been forgotten about. I've been staying out since it seems that when I post I just get a lot of replies from the same two or three people, so I've been letting things be to see what further discussion might ensue. That's not to say I'm planning to wait forever for posts that may never come, though.

Apparently not.

This.

LOL. That's a bit harsher than I'd be, but I think there was a point ITT when some may have been dissuaded from joining in the conversation.

What actually brought me back to the thread today was a PM from a backer:

Mostly reasonable points. But what this backer rightfully doesn't argue is that any of the reasons above constitute a legal justification in relation to GDPR, because they don't. And if I understood 2+2 stance correctly they do want to comply with the law.

1) Consent should be given freely, it can't be conditional for the performance of a service. It's fine to ask content anyway, but as legal justification it's irrelevant.

3) Interesting example. Yet there are no public messageboards where employers provide negative feedback, which would be a more fitting example. Also there is no such thing as a public credit report in the EU, because it isn't allowed. So this example only highlights the illegality of 2+2 negative feedback in the EU.

4) Enforcing a contract that itself violates multiple laws isn't an interest that carries any weight legally.

5) Lol, these aren't the main reasons. The main reason is that backing contracts are illegal in all western democracies and thus can't be enforced.

6) Again, because it's illegal. Just like a loan-shark has to resort to threats and violence because he has no legal recourse. It's just the consequence of doing illegal business and the lack of other legal recourse is not something that is given special consideration vis-a-vis privacy law. Also that it CAN amount to large sums isn't relevant in the cases where it's only about futile amounts.

Why does the amount stolen matter? If someone is willing to steal a small amount they are just as likely, if not more likely, to steal a large amount given the opportunity. I could understand more if people looked at the reasons for the scam, for example, scamming money to feed your starving family is less scummy than scamming money to spend on hookers and blow and the consequences for this should be less harsh. In addition, those small amounts add up, and if people who are stealing are not named and shamed then they can continue to do the rounds of different backing groups and steal further "small amounts".

So you're saying Bernie Madoff should have gotten the same sentence as someone stealing $10 because amounts don't matter? It's ridiculous. And how exactly is someone stealing a small amount of money more likely to steal a large amount of money than someone who already stole a large amount of money? Also amounts often are related to the reason. Someone stealing $10 is likely to be in a dire situation while someone stealing $10K is more likely to have bad intent without any kind of moral justification and can never do so just to cover basic needs.

Note that it isn't flat out theft in many cases of negative feedback, there are cases appearing such as not paying makeup after not meeting volume requirements as well i.e. Then amounts matter even more.

from a moral point stealing 1c is just as bad as stealing a million but from cash amounts there obv not

It might be shared with credit reference companies, but not on public forums and def not with passport and driving license photos, links to facebook and details of family.