Moderating question

[issybird]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Anyway, as far as I know telling a falsehood is not against the forum guidelines. I should hope that a white lie isn't going to incur the wrath of the moderators.

No, but a semantics issue: I think telling a lie is always intentional. I'd rather not look at motivations myself, but if you make a misstatement, you can expect to be called on it.

In fact, the tools work on OverDrive books. There it is, kids. Just as we know the darknet exists and people multi-tab 100% codes to get several free books, everyone doesn't act as ethically as we'd like. But recognizing it exists is different from explaining how to do it or advocating it as a good thing.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by issybird

No, but a semantics issue: I think telling a lie is always intentional. I'd rather not look at motivations myself, but if you make a misstatement, you can expect to be called on it.

In fact, the tools work on OverDrive books. There it is, kids. Just as we know the darknet exists and people multi-tab 100% codes to get several free books, everyone doesn't act as ethically as we'd like. But recognizing it exists is different from explaining how to do it or advocating it as a good thing.

Edit-crosspost.

In fact I was called on it in that thread.
It wasn't a lie, just me being wrong. I do that occasionally.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Edit-crosspost.

Yes, we were posting at the same time.

In fact I was called on it in that thread.
It wasn't a lie, just me being wrong. I do that occasionally.

So do we all.

[John F]

issybird, thank you for the clarification. I tried to point out an inconsistency (I did it poorly) in the past, and it didn't turn out well. I just wanted to check before I did so again to make sure I don't violate any rules.

eschwartz, could you tell me the source file and line number(s) that have the check for library books, please? Since I believe this would be too detailed and would be against the posting rules, would you please PM me. Thank you.

[PeterT]

@John F: I would suggest that any discussions like that be taken elsewhere; probably to the posts on Apprentice Alf.

I think you are pushing your luck with questions like this.

[John F]

Originally Posted by PeterT

@John F: I would suggest that any discussions like that be taken elsewhere; probably to the posts on Apprentice Alf.

I think you are pushing your luck with questions like this.

If this was a general question, than I agree, Apprentice Alf would be the place to ask.

Let me quote the moderator:

Unless you know for sure, don't assume something is deliberately false. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone is wrong, you can call him on it, so long as you don't use "attack" words or question motivations. A simple statement to the extent that something is incorrect should suffice.

I'm trying not to assume eschwartz is deliberately posting false information, so I would like to see the code. Maybe it is a mis-understanding of how the code works?

Without seeing the actual code, how could I know for sure?

[pdurrant]

Discussion of the details of the source code of the DeDRM tools is certainly not permitted at MobileRead. Please take this discussion elsewhere.

[John F]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Discussion of the details of the source code of the DeDRM tools is certainly not permitted at MobileRead. Please take this discussion elsewhere.

I give up. I can not make heads or tails of the MR rules in this matter. Eschwartz is allowed to make a direct statement about the code, but I can't even ask him to PM me a reference verifying his statement. It makes no sense to me.

[Blossom]

Look no one here at MobileRead has this code. All questions about this plugin should be asked from the site the plugin comes from. I think you are confused Eschwartz is not the developer of this plugin so he can not help you. He is making assumptions only on what he has read.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by John F

eschwartz, could you tell me the source file and line number(s) that have the check for library books, please? Since I believe this would be too detailed and would be against the posting rules, would you please PM me. Thank you.

NO, I absolutely will not...

I will restrain myself from saying something I know to be untrue out of a misguided desire to spread a futile misinformation campaign; that doesn't mean I will actively go around helping people figure out how to use the tools for theft....
Or discuss the details of the tools, something which is most assuredly against the forum Guidelines in the most definitive of ways.

If it is against the rules, why would I want to PM it to you? Isn't that a sign that I should shut my mouth?

Originally Posted by John F

If this was a general question, than I agree, Apprentice Alf would be the place to ask.

Let me quote the moderator:

I'm trying not to assume eschwartz is deliberately posting false information, so I would like to see the code. Maybe it is a mis-understanding of how the code works?

Without seeing the actual code, how could I know for sure?

Because... just like issybird said, you don't know for sure, therefore don't assume I'm deliberately wrong? Which is not the same as "assume someone is inadvertently wrong until they can prove under oath that they are correct".

Do you know I'm wrong, and are therefore calling me on it as issybird suggested? Or are you "concerned" that I may be wrong, which issybird said nothing whatsoever about?


If you don't know how to read and audit code, you won't know a lot of things for sure -- you'll have to trust other people that all kinds of software you likely use daily isn't malicious, and here you are worrying that you have no way of knowing if Alf really tries to stop you from stealing library books?

In this case, you will have to trust I am not mistaken.
Or persist in the face of my refusal as well as moderator warnings (here and elsewhere -- it isn't that difficult to see their pattern, they've always been clear on where the lines are...).

Originally Posted by John F

I give up. I can not make heads or tails of the MR rules in this matter. Eschwartz is allowed to make a direct statement about the code, but I can't even ask him to PM me a reference verifying his statement. It makes no sense to me.

It is VERY simple.

I made an apparently incorrect statement that the tools don't work on library ebooks.
I was informed otherwise.
I said that the tools do have code that was designed to reject library ebooks. In fact, if you ask on Alf's blog, they will tell you the plugin is not meant to work on library ebooks.

Now you want pointers to the code in question, and an explanation of how it is intended to detect library ebooks.
Do you see where that crossed the line?

(This is all true irrespective of whether that code works as intended.)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Discussion of the details of the source code of the DeDRM tools is certainly not permitted at MobileRead. Please take this discussion elsewhere.

What part of take this discussion elsewhere is not understandable? I'm closing this thread.