Trenchfoot

There is a difference between 'publish' (publicly available), and 'publish' (printed to publication). Again, you're arguing legality. You're saying 'legally', they have the right to disregard the wishes of the people to whom the information belongs to. I completely agree. For the third time, my beef isn't a legal one. It's the part where they have 'zero regard for the wishes of the people whose information they print to publication (by default)', in a nutshell. When you print someones 'publicly available' phone number on a billboard without even considering them, then turn around and call it a 'courtesy' to take it down. This seems, well, rather less than courteous. Another option: - Run an online private server as a LAN game that the public connects to via VPN.

Yes, we all know that. Once again, this is not a legal issue, nor a technical one. My post was entirely about perceptions. In short, to have a default position where you 'publish' IPs without their consent, then require them to interact with you in order to make them private, it speaks to ones character. One would think that the default position would be to make them private by default and then request they be 'published'. In essence, what about those that don't want their IP published, and don't want to have to interact with a website to make it private? Is there a place for these people in the community? Or do we just write them off? Personally I don't mind being able to be reached, but I do think that's something different than posting your phone number on a billboard in front of 30,000 commuters.

So you're essentially saying 'Sign up to our website, or else!'. This reflects poorly on you, and indicates to me that you will likely mishandle any information that you collect. I don't remember anything in the Wurm Unlimited TOS informing me that if I were to create a private server, my IP address and port would 'automatically and without my consent', be logged for publication to a list by an unaffiliated third party. Mind you, I'm not trying to make a legal case here. My point is that this practice does not cultivate trust in the community. I really do appreciate what you're trying to do, which is why I'm posting this. When you don't take thing kind of thing seriously, it makes it extremely difficult to support what you're doing. It lends credence to certain ideas, like the suspicion that you want to discourage private IPs, so that more people will sign up with your hosting affiliates. Respectfully, please reconsider your position on this? Sincerely.