There is no higher standard of posting applied to mods, as much as you want there to be. If you want to address that further, take it to ATF, as that is a site-wide issue and not specific to just us. But don't expect it to go anywhere, it's an old discussion that the admins have addressed multiple times.

Wasn't aware of that. I tend to think positions of authority should, but yeah whatever is the status quo.

I think anyone else doxxing someone would have been banned. I don't think blowjob comment warranted it, but was hoping that in aggregate it would do something about Rapini and his antics.

Looks like this is over, Rapini lives to continue to piss off CCP posters and reduce the traffic (less traffic less work right?) another day.

This is a serious accusation. When/where did you see this happen in CCP or V&C?

doxxing - search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.

When did it happen? When you published identifying information that you had access to in the "notes" for each 2+2 person that wasn't public that I didn't reveal. With that data point, identifying who I am was pretty easy. You're well aware you did this, and your response was "well, don't be an ******* and people won't publish information about you"

Just in case we forgot that particular response. "Evidence I had available to me" refers to usernotes that are only available to moderators, and mine happened to contain an identifying e-mail address that narrowed my identity to down 16ish possible people.

Didn't we already go through all of this 8 months ago? I get that you weren't happy with the resolution of that situation, but does that mean you should continue to harp on about it forever? Sometimes things don't go the way you want them to.

I reviewed the posts you're referencing. I didn't dox you because I didn't publish private or identifying information about you with malicious intent. Regarding the malicious intent aspect, I posted that your email address had Maryland Live in it to show that you were biased after you accused me of being biased toward MGMNH without basis.

Regarding the private information aspect, I scanned 2+2's TOC and Privacy statements and I didn't see anywhere that said the email address you provide when registering would be kept private, confidential, etc., but I certainly could have missed it.

Regarding the identifying information aspect, I never said anything about who you were. You are the one who claims that the fact that your email had Maryland Live in it narrows you down to a certain number of people. Given your tendency toward falsehood and that you've not provided any evidence of that, I feel very comfortable in assuming that you're wrong about that as well.

What do you think the punishment for falsely accusing someone of doxxing should be?

I guess we ARE gonna go through this again Have fun boys, I'm out.

Looks like same mod different day Mat. You gonna do something about it for once?


This is from CCP rules:

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...al-information

Here is twitters list of information considered doxxing on their site. Notably email address is one of them.


Classic Rapini to finish it with

Cant even post your concerns in CCP about him without him abusing his mod powers to threaten a ban in an attempt to silence you. He did the exact same thing to both Havox and I.

His favorite, ahem "moderation" tactic is to crown himself the king of fact and fiction, even over circumstances he has not personally witnessed, and then threaten a ban to people he doesnt like for "lying", additional examples below:

and in response to me reporting one of his posts, he literally responded with



And above is the problem with giving a troll moderation powers. He will use his power to try to win petty arguments and to quash dissent. He will retaliate against people who report him. He will reveal email addresses of people who accuse him of bias. He will ban people he doesnt like.

I was bringing it up to establish the pattern of behavior and WHY I didn't feel the need to do a thorough investigation into Rapini's context for something like that. I didn't want to get into an argument about the semantics of doxxing - To me there's no argument. The information wasn't public and he made it public. I tried everything I could to stand up for myself at the time and nothing happened.

So here's the privacy policy for the site on top of the policy of this forum: https://www.twoplustwo.com/privacy.php#head4. There's an entire section on "May the information be shared? With whom?" so you didn't look particularly hard: there's only 13 sections and they fit on one page with hyperlinks.

There are very specific reasons and people that the information can be shared with. None of those reasons are "I don't like clickitbak" or "To expose clickitbak's biases"

So did you violate the site's privacy policy? Well you shared information collected by the site, so yes.

Did you Dox me? My e-mail address domain is private and identifying information, and you published it. So yes, you did.

Did you have ill intent? Yes. You wanted to get back at me for saying something bad about you, but the ill intent is not a requirement of doxing.

And the thinly veiled threat of "What do you think the consequences should be for falsely accusing someone of doxxing" is pretty hilarious, but you know what? I'm a poker player, I gamble, and I often know when I have an edge. If you think that falsely accusing someone of doxxing should result in a ban, then I would be happy to submit to a third party for an unbiased ruling that doesn't know you or me, as long as you agree that the penalty of actually doxxing someone is the same.

If they rule that what you did isn't doxxing, ban me. If they rule that is is doxing, you'll accept your own ban from the site.

So again you're signaling your comfort with untruth. That's not a good look and it's exactly why we ended up in this situation.

The original situation arose because you were comfortable telling multiple untruths. (I use the word untruth because I believe a lie requires intent and I don't know for certain if you knew what you were saying was false.)

This post is untruthful because Johnny never contacted me regarding the video, I have no interest in MGMNH, and I am not friendly with Johnny. He seems like a nice guy and I've sent him PMs regarding commendations and complaints about the room, but I've also done that with Mike Smith. I've never met either of them and I don't prefer one room over the other.

My response below is what you continue to be fired up about.

And here is why we still are talking about this issue.

You still think it's OK for you to tell untruths to the community and you still think it's OK to not disclose your bias on topics where you're accusing others of bias. That is unfair to the community. I also think you're being disingenuous when you say that your bias doesn't matter. And regardless of whether you think it matters, it certainly matters when you're accusing someone else of being biased.

You think I did something wrong because I said that you worked at Maryland Live. I think I did something right by disclosing your bias after you'd accused someone else of being biased.

If we can't even agree on whether doxxing requires malicious intent or identifying an individual, then as much as I'd like to there's no way we could bet on it.

My intent has been clear since the moment I disclosed your bias and the information I disclosed did not identify you. Additionally, you've since further identified yourself, which shows that you apparently didn't care about your privacy and you're trying to use my disclosure of your bias as some sort of gotcha thing.

Tomark is a liar. And I say liar here because his untruths are intentional.

Tomark has provided deliberately false information to the MGMNH thread. I have called him out on it. And he has complained about me calling him out on it. In the past, I have used a tone that I should not have with him. I have apologized to him for that and he can confirm. But I will continue to take people to task for misleading or outright lying to the community and I think everyone should do the same.

This is just ridiculous. As you yourself have said when banning people for breaking the privacy policy, the fact that you are trying to right a wrong, real or perceived, is not an excuse for breaking policy.

If, for example, DMW made such an argument about why it was appropriate to"pseudo-identify" someone by one of the nicknames he makes up, you'd tell him that his reasoning doesn't matter and the rules are the rules.

Being a rules nit is annoying, imo, but being a rules nit for other people and an apologist for yourself is, as you would put it, "not a good look."

Garick: Who should I contact about the email I used when I registered? Should I just contact Mat directly?

I knew the email wasn't visible to the public, but since I doubt that I could ever get a notarized statement from Rapini testifying he had malicious intentions if he should ever decide to dox me, I would prefer the email data be deleted or altered.

You never know when Rapini will feel the need to yet again confirm his dominance as the worst of the worst and urinate all over some user to mark his territory.

you should be able to go to your profile and change the email to whatever you like.

Thanks Mat. I must have missed that option the first time I looked.

I read all this, and I still can find nothing showing Clickitbak spreading "untruths".

We don't have to agree, the definition literally says "Typically with malicious intent" it's clearly not a pre-requisite. I'm happy with any official definition you are if you don't like Wikipedia's with regards to making a bet.

I know you're not going to take it - you know you're wrong which is why you spent an entire post ad hominem attacking what you think are relevant parts of the conversation.

WHY you decided to release my personal identifying information is not relevant unless it fits into the description put forth by the company's privacy policy. I could lie my face off all day (or commit untruth or whatever you want to say) and that wouldn't change anything. Your imperative to keep my information to yourself is the exact same as every other member of the 2+2 team whether I'm lying or not, or you like me or not.

This wouldn't be necessary if moderators couldn't reveal noted e-mails at their whim, and nobody outside of this thread is aware of that fact.

I know you think you did something right, you still to this moment think it was perfectly acceptable, despite the site's privacy policy saying otherwise.

This is my new favorite Green name.

Sorry I know this is a lot of posts I'm not really sure the best etiquette - but this wouldn't actually solve what happened in my case. In this instance someone made a "user note" on my account. If I changed my e-mail, that user note would still have the identifying information and would still be something that Rapini could give out, he'd just say "Well you USED to have a @marylandlivecasino.com e-mail address so HAH"