An Explanation

[Secura]

This thread is to inform you of a recent action taken by the administration team, in an effort to increase the transparency of staff activity and provide accountability for the decision.

It has always been the policy of the Org that, regardless of the intrusiveness of governments and corporations, this forum would ensure privacy remained sacred; if you wanted to talk to someone in confidence about your belief that Andres wears underpants on his head, shoves pencils up his nose and spouts "wibble" everywhere he goes, then you could do so without your discussion being revealed. It is not Org policy to check private messages unless unique circumstances demand it or a user has given permission to do so, the latter having happened a few times in the past.

Unfortunately, such unique circumstances arose when a permabanned member continued their attempts to circumvent said ban; over the course of this person's absence from the Org, staff have had to delete countless alt accounts and attempts to block IPs have been futile when the person simply moves to another IP or we're unable to block it because other Orgahs have visited from those locations too.

The latest attempt to circumvent the ban came in the form of the banned member assuming the active profile of a family member and continuing to post; while the staff had their suspicions and even reset the password. the perpetrator continued to use the account, even responding to our emails in a manner we just knew was not that of the original account owner. However we had lacked real proof and, after a lengthy staff discussion, the decision was made to read the latest private messages sent from the account, whereby absolute proof of the user's identity was discovered and the account was subsequently suspended.

While there is no great comfort in having to resort to such methods, I would readily advocate their use again if the same circumstances arose; this particular member in question is not welcome here anymore and the community is better off without them, and I would take any action that ensure their permanent ban remains just that.

It should be added that the family member in question can reactivate their account if and when they can confirm that both the account and the email address registered to it are no longer accessible by the permabanned member.

[Monk]

Absolutely disgraceful. There are no words to properly express my disappointment in staff.

[CBR]

It was IMO justified, so the staff has my support.

[caravel]

Hello,

I guess I'm back... for now (which is good or bad depending on how you look at it...), I was recently in touch with Andres which got me thinking about this old place a bit more again.

The key problem here is that private messaging has been violated which back in Tosa's time would never have happened. Personally I think that's disgraceful - but I think some respect here is deserved in that the admin have been transparent about this. Members need to ask: Will this happen again? Is it now too easy to just read a PM and find out who's who rather than spending weeks, months even years "investigating"... should you be investigating at all?

I would say that there are ways and means of exposing troublemakers, and I think I know who you're referring to, but this is the worst method imaginable and by the looks of things I think you already know that...

The way I see it - problem member, given too much attention, made to feel far too important, too many of "our best officers" on the job, etc... this fellow must feel like the typical bond villain by now...

Regards

caravel/asai/etc, etc, etc

[Monk]

It was IMO justified, so the staff has my support.

I'm pretty sure this is just about warman using his brother's account to continually shit up the forums. No need to be coy. In which case I have to disagree. Not in terms of banning warman, as i said, he causes enough problems to be beyond defense. However if staff suspected him using the account why not just ban the account until such a time that he can prove his innocence.

Guilty until proven innocent is a much lesser evil than breaking the mod/member privacy trust, which I doubt you'll ever get back after this. I don't disagree with the ban of the account, but the methods undertaken to do so are pretty laughable.

[TinCow]

Absolutely disgraceful. There are no words to properly express my disappointment in staff.

I understand your point of view, but I do not agree with it. I think the situation was handled entirely appropriately. This is not a blanket change in policy, it was simply an incredibly unusual circumstance involving a very specific member whose past behavior needs no elaboration. As it was, we were unsure whether the person had actively stolen the account or had appropriated it with the permission of the owner. We attempted to contact the true owner via email, and the response that we got back did not clarify the issue for us. I believe that determining the identity of the person using a potentially stolen account is important and is a very good reason for doing what was done.

In addition, I was the only person who read the PMs. I am probably the last person on this forum that needs to be informed of the importance of privacy. My job involves reading volumes of confidential personal and medical records on a daily basis, much of which is exceptionally sensitive and would be embarrassing if it became public. I would face felony charges and jail time if I were to even misplace the documents I work with, let alone publicize them. I would also lose my bar license. Then there's also the fact that the attorney-client privilege has been drilled into me as part of my legal brainwashing. I am very experienced with handling confidential information in a proper manner. I accessed only one account and only read PMs whose subject lines and dates made them appear relevant to the information search, and I only passed on those PMs which contained the information that was necessary to make the determinations that were needed.

I believe what was done was entirely appropriate and reasonable under the unusual circumstances that we were presented with, and I would advocate for them again in the future if the same situation arose.

[Monk]

Well that certainly eases the tension a bit, but not fully in my mind. I trust you, TC, I always have. I respect you immensely not only for who you are personally but for every ounce of energy you poured into this place despite that it was never required of you.

But not all of those who make up the staff on this site are as honorable as you. I'm not gonna sit here and name names who tell you who is on my naughty and nice lists, that'd just be melodramatic, silly, and overall pointless. Rather, this news now forces me into the unenviable position where I can never be quite sure of my privacy on this site, especially in that there are those on staff whom I find rather questionable. I do not trust every member of the staff on this site to act "honorably", and haven't for quite some time. This being in the open only makes that feeling all the more amplified. It's not a nice feeling and is a pointless addition of internet silliness into my life that I'd rather be without.

Given the general lethargy this has inspired I guess I'll just man up and not use the PM feature if it upsets me so much.

[Jolt]

I agree with the decision, given the unprecedented situation.

[johnhughthom]

Do you really see private messages on an internet forum as being that sacred, Monk? To me the "private" part is interpreted as "not public" rather than "100% private", I've always thought that there is a possibility of forum staff reading them in certain circumstances, and wouldn't really have a problem with it.

[Monk]

Do you really see private messages on an internet forum as being that sacred, Monk?

:rolleyes: Please. I might've taken your post seriously if not for your first line there. Regardless. I believe i expressed my stance well enough as to not reiterate once again, and since I seem to be the only one with a dissenting opinion, will refrain from making too much of a ruckus about it.

[johnhughthom]

:shrug:

I really wasn't having a go, I actually thought you were joking when I read your first post earlier, it was a genuine question. Personally, I found the use of 'mod/member privacy trust' earlier as over the top as my use of 'sacred', but I've always thought you a good guy so didn't mock you over it. Whatever though, like you say no point in making a ruckus.

[Monk]

:shrug:

I really wasn't having a go, I actually thought you were joking when I read your first post earlier, it was a genuine question. Personally, I found the use of 'mod/member privacy trust' earlier as over the top as my use of 'sacred', but I've always thought you a good guy so didn't mock you over it. Whatever though, like you say no point in making a ruckus.

I agree. I think you're the right sort too. Apologies for expecting the worst in my reply :bow:

[johnhughthom]

I agree. I think you're the right sort too. Apologies for expecting the worst in my reply :bow:

It's all good. Let's talk about something else before I get all teary eyed at the love in the room. :laugh4:

[CountArach]

While I trust TinCow and don't ever think that he would do this again or reveal any sensitive information, I am worried about the precedent which has been set here. Others who attain this position in future may not necessarily have the same scruples and will now have something to point to.

Do you really see private messages on an internet forum as being that sacred, Monk? To me the "private" part is interpreted as "not public" rather than "100% private", I've always thought that there is a possibility of forum staff reading them in certain circumstances, and wouldn't really have a problem with it.
For 99% of the people I talk to on this forum, this forum is the only way i have of talking with them. Despite that I have built up some friendships over the years. If I wanted to have a private discussion with any of those friends then PMs would be the only way to do so. If, at the same time, I wished to express my private feelings about a hypothetical admin, I would feel less likely to utilise that outlet for my feelings if I was worried that said admin could read them.

Personally I am of the opinion that if there was enough information to strongly suspect that he was using his brother's account, that account should have been banned regardless and an email sent to his brother, explaining the situation. I also strongly believe that coming public on this action is the right thing to do.

[SoFarSoGood]

Just as a matter of interest... does this relate to Jan?

[HopAlongBunny]

Thank you for the information concerning Andres. He as risen considerably in my estimation.

I take comfort in the observation that this is being handled so transparently; 99% of forums would not even blink at the act and be even less concerned about making the information public.

[Strike For The South]

A bit much for a petulant child.

My jimmies are rustled

placeholder

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am surprised that no PM's were read for Amelius Paulus back when he was doing all kinds of crazy stuff.

That this is the first time PM's were read actually makes me respect the staff here a bit more.

[rajpoot]

Although I don't have an issue with this personally but I can see how some members might find the fact that the staff's read private messages distressing.
Either way I certainly am grateful for the fact that the staff decided to enlighten the members about it and not keep it under wraps.

[Catiline]

I wished to express my private feelings about a hypothetical admin


I read that one, it was disgusting.

[Tellos Athenaios]

All this "certain member", "needs no explanation" leaves me feeling like a newbie. I have no idea whom you talk about, or what Andres has got to do with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All this "certain member", "needs no explanation" leaves me feeling like a newbie. I have no idea whom you talk about, or what Andres has got to do with it.

I believe the person referred to is Warman, I think that given that Org staff have admitted to violating the privacy of a member they should be explicit rather than coy.

If the member was indeed Warman then this violation of privacy was not justified - he is extremely irritating but he is not, so far as I know, a criminal who endangers the site or the members. Any decent government needs a warrant to read your mail and that requires evidence of criminal activity.

I believe what was done was both wrong and unnecessary, the account should have been banned and the user emailed to inform him of the exact reasons for the ban and how he could satisfy the staff so that his account could be reactivated. If you are careless with your password and your email is hacked for malicious reasons your email provider will block your account when they detect irregular activity.

This is, I believe, what should have been done in this case.

However, I accept that the decision was taken in good faith. I want to stress that point, and to also say that I have faith in the Staff in general on the site, because what I am going to say next they are not going to like.

I understand from the staff's posts that a collective decision was made to read the PMs and that TinCow was the only one who accessed them and he then used his judgement to decide what to pass to the moderators etc.

If that is the case, then I move that TinCow should step down from the post of Forum Admin immediately and that he take up no position as a member of Org staff for a period of at least one year.

I believe this is the only appropriate outcome under the circumstances, and it would be the only appropriate outcome even if reading a member's PM's was justified. Such a serious breach of privacy, which runs counter to all the principles by which the Org has been run, must carry serious consequences for the staff members involved regardless of circumstance; if the action is genuinely necessary then staff should be willing to sacrifice their hoods in payment. If such an action does not carry serious consequences for those deciding to take it then this will happen more frequently and eventually the Org will be just another cesspool of the internet.

What has happened here is a watershed moment in the history of the Org, unfortunately, and if it is passed over with nothing more than a thread in the Watchtower then the forum will, in my view, have been irreparably damaged.

[Beskar]

I understand from the staff's posts that a collective decision was made to read the PMs and that TinCow was the only one who accessed them and he then used his judgement to decide what to pass to the moderators etc.

Just as a note, TinCow is technical staff, not a forum admin, he doesn't handle member management side of things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nated, but it is not the point. Only the staff know who was involved in this decision, and at what level, the question now is what steps are appropriate to restore confidence to the forum, and to balance out what I would charactarise as a serious lapse in judgement.

[Drunk Clown]

Since I'm not that active anymore on this forum and only check this site for about twice a month I do want to make a post here.

In all honesty, did you actually think when joining a forum (any forum) you would have such a kind of privacy? In all due respect, but that's insane. Do you also have the same password for the forum as your (main) e-mail? I hope for you the answer is no.

I never liked mods that much (some I do like of course), but this time I think they are right. It's legit to look into private messages. It's not like they are posting the particular PM and making it public.

For the love of god science, what are you PM-ing others that's so confidential? It's not like they are doing it on a daily base, as you say you trust the staff, if you do not then just get out of this place, since it will be hell. Are you afraid now mods will look at your PM to win Mafia games?

Finally I want to post some rules EVERYBODY should know:
8. There are no real rules about posting
9. There are no real rules about moderation either - enjoy your ban
12. Anything you say can and will be used against you

[caravel]

If that is the case, then I move that TinCow should step down from the post of Forum Admin immediately and that he take up no position as a member of Org staff for a period of at least one year.

I believe this is the only appropriate outcome under the circumstances, and it would be the only appropriate outcome even if reading a member's PM's was justified. Such a serious breach of privacy, which runs counter to all the principles by which the Org has been run, must carry serious consequences for the staff members involved regardless of circumstance; if the action is genuinely necessary then staff should be willing to sacrifice their hoods in payment. If such an action does not carry serious consequences for those deciding to take it then this will happen more frequently and eventually the Org will be just another cesspool of the internet.

What has happened here is a watershed moment in the history of the Org, unfortunately, and if it is passed over with nothing more than a thread in the Watchtower then the forum will, in my view, have been irreparably damaged.
I think it's clear that the staff made a huge error of judgement here, but scapegoating TinCow will achieve absolutely nothing.

£0.02

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since I'm not that active anymore on this forum and only check this site for about twice a month I do want to make a post here.

In all honesty, did you actually think when joining a forum (any forum) you would have such a kind of privacy? In all due respect, but that's insane. Do you also have the same password for the forum as your (main) e-mail? I hope for you the answer is no.

I never liked mods that much (some I do like of course), but this time I think they are right. It's legit to look into private messages. It's not like they are posting the particular PM and making it public.

For the love of god science, what are you PM-ing others that's so confidential? It's not like they are doing it on a daily base, as you say you trust the staff, if you do not then just get out of this place, since it will be hell. Are you afraid now mods will look at your PM to win Mafia games?

Warman isn't worth a breach of my privacy - he is actually nothing more than a minor irritant albeit a very persistent one.

Since you asked - a few years ago a situation arose on this forum which resulted in me taking a minor action on facebook, perhaps ill advised, and about a year later someone threatened me in the real world because of this, from another continent, and I had to ask another Orger here fro real world help.

The whole episode was very sordid and embarrassing for me, it was hard enough to ask for help from someone I'd never met, it would have been doubly hard had I not felt safe here. I shouldn't have to worry about a Bastard Operator From Hell reading about it.

This is a point of principle - Org members are entitled to their privacy, because we have trusted the staff in the past we have been far more forthcoming with our personal lives than we otherwise would.

I said I had faith in the staff in general - that isn't the same as trusting them to make the right calls.


I think it's clear that the staff made a huge error of judgement here, but scapegoating TinCow will achieve absolutely nothing.

£0.02

I'm not asking for TinCow's scalp.

I'm making a simple point - Org Staff do not read our PM's, therefore anyone who has read members PM's should step down as a member of staff.

Thus far, TinCow has said he is the one who has actually done this.

The alternative is that we let this slide, the taboo is broken and I know it will happen again, because now there is a precedent, and not a good one.

[Drunk Clown]

Warman isn't worth a breach of my privacy - he is actually nothing more than a minor irritant albeit a very persistent one.
Nothing more than an irritant fellow? Perhaps there's more to it than you know?


Since you asked - a few years ago a situation arose on this forum which resulted in me taking a minor action on facebook, perhaps ill advised, and about a year later someone threatened me in the real world because of this, from another continent, and I had to ask another Orger here fro real world help.
Wait what? I assume that someone who threatened you was a fellow org member right?


The whole episode was very sordid and embarrassing for me, it was hard enough to ask for help from someone I'd never met, it would have been doubly hard had I not felt safe here. I shouldn't have to worry about a Bastard Operator From Hell reading about it.
I'm amazed that you would ask someone on the org via PM, however this is not what this conversation is about.
Adorable, "Bastard Operator From Hell".


This is a point of principle - Org members are entitled to their privacy, because we have trusted the staff in the past we have been far more forthcoming with our personal lives than we otherwise would.
This is the internet. I don't even know what to say. Privacy on the internet... you expected privacy. You did know they had the tools to look into your PM's yet you still expected privacy even though you don't know anyone in person?


I said I had faith in the staff in general - that isn't the same as trusting them to make the right calls.
What? "because we have trusted the staff in the past" is what I just read.

It's beyond believe that checking a suspicious member his PM's is worse than just blatantly banning a perhaps innocent member.
I really don't know what to type without being too harsh (can't have those infraction right?), so I'm going to think about this for a while and post more when I know how to deliver it to you :)

[caravel]

PVC, I agree absolutely with the general principle of what you're saying, but TinCow was not personally responsible. It seems (though all of this is just speculation...) that the admins came to an agreement that the PMs of the member in question should be checked to establish his identity... then presumably one person was selected or volunteered to actually do the reading of the PMs. Who actually carried out the actual reading is irrelevant - all those involved are equally responsible for deciding on this course of action and allowing it to happen. Making an example of TinCow would be token justice at best.

Either all the admins involved step down (which is unrealistic), or an apology is issued with some assurance that this won't happen again.

Admins are human, warman has tested the staff's patience for years - so the staff let their emotions get the better of them and yes they fucked up - surely in the site's 13+ year history allowed at least one of those? They're human and they make mistakes, I say just forget it and move on. If you don't trust the staff, which is fine, then don't use the PM system here.

Drunk Clown, they don't have the "tools" for looking at your PMs, they probably got access by assuming control of the account itself. Saying that admins have tools to look at PMs will need to unnecessary FUD. In the right circumstances, a ban is correct and ethical - even if only founded on suspicions. Reading a member's PMs most certainly is not ethical by anyone's standards.

[Drunk Clown]

Drunk Clown, they don't have the "tools" for looking at your PMs, they probably got access by assuming control of the account itself. Saying that admins have tools to look at PMs will need to unnecessary FUD. In the right circumstances, a ban is correct and ethical - even if only founded on suspicions. Reading a member's PMs most certainly is not ethical by anyone's standards.

Well, if that's the case "assuming control of the account itself" is the "tool".

Guilty until proven innocent is the worst thing you can do.

You think it's ethical to punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong? You want to punish someone without evidence?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nothing more than an irritant fellow? Perhaps there's more to it than you know?

Doubtful - I've been on the receiving end, and I've been here over half a decade.


Wait what? I assume that someone who threatened you was a fellow org member right?

Nope


I'm amazed that you would ask someone on the org via PM, however this is not what this conversation is about.

You don't know the Org - or the member - like I do, then.


Adorable, "Bastard Operator From Hell".

Look it up - seriously.


This is the internet. I don't even know what to say. Privacy on the internet... you expected privacy. You did know they had the tools to look into your PM's yet you still expected privacy even though you don't know anyone in person?

What? "because we have trusted the staff in the past" is what I just read.

It's beyond believe that checking a suspicious member his PM's is worse than just blatantly banning a perhaps innocent member.
I really don't know what to type without being too harsh (can't have those infraction right?), so I'm going to think about this for a while and post more when I know how to deliver it to you :)

I didn't winge when my hotmail account was blocked after I let it get hacked last year - I wouldn't winge if my Org account was locked until I could prove I was who I said I was.

The point is - the Org is supposed to be different, Mods and Admins are supposed to be better than this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, I agree absolutely with the general principle of what you're saying, but TinCow was not personally responsible. It seems (though all of this is just speculation...) that the admins came to an agreement that the PMs of the member in question should be checked to establish his identity... then presumably one person was selected or volunteered to actually do the reading of the PMs. Who actually carried out the actual reading is irrelevant - all those involved are equally responsible for deciding on this course of action and allowing it to happen. Making an example of TinCow would be token justice at best.

Either all the admins involved step down (which is unrealistic), or an apology is issued with some assurance that this won't happen again.

Admins are human, warman has tested the staff's patience for years - so the staff let their emotions get the better of them and yes they fucked up - surely in the site's 13+ year history allowed at least one of those? They're human and they make mistakes, I say just forget it and move on. If you don't trust the staff, which is fine, then don't use the PM system here.

Drunk Clown, they don't have the "tools" for looking at your PMs, they probably got access by assuming control of the account itself. Saying that admins have tools to look at PMs will need to unnecessary FUD. In the right circumstances, a ban is correct and ethical - even if only founded on suspicions. Reading a member's PMs most certainly is not ethical by anyone's standards.

On the other hand, why bother telling us if no retributive action is to be taken?

I, for one, think that issuing a statement like this is unacceptable on its own, it amounts to an admission of guilt without an act of restitution.

Monk and CountArch have, I think, summed up the situation perfectly. This was a lapse in judgement which has sullied the reputation of the staff. Far more important is the Precedent which has been set.

The Precedent is that the staff may, at their discretion, violate members privacy (which was up until this sacrosanct). Another precedent must now be sat - that if the staff choose to do this they must take responsibility for it by resigning.

Tosa Inu's iron will enforced this law while he ruled the Org, it has been demonstrated that the current staff are not so unbending and therefore a deterrent must be put in place to discourage this from happening again.

[Drunk Clown]

Doubtful - I've been on the receiving end, and I've been here over half a decade.
Half a decade? WOW you must know nearly everything here.




Nope
Okay, then what were you thinking? A guy you never met in real life who could pretend with ease to be something he is not since all you can do is read. There's nothing which can make you sure he's telling the truth via the internet.




You don't know the Org - or the member - like I do, then.
Hey, you are disappointed with the staff, not me. You got to ask yourself do you really know the people here? Maybe I know more than you for maybe I have been a lurker for 8 years before signing up.




Look it up - seriously.
I did, now it's just sad.




I didn't winge when my hotmail account was blocked after I let it get hacked last year - I wouldn't winge if my Org account was locked until I could prove I was who I said I was.
Sure, too bad if you can't prove it.


The point is - the Org is supposed to be different, Mods and Admins are supposed to be better than this.
What I read: The point is - the Org is supposed to be what I want it to be, Mods and Admins are supposed to be perfect, because they said so when I signed up!
O wait...

[caravel]

Tosa Inu's iron will enforced this law while he ruled the Org, it has been demonstrated that the current staff are not so unbending and therefore a deterrent must be put in place to discourage this from happening again.
Tosa had several years running the .org and knew exactly what made it tick - compared to Tosa, the current admins are newbies, so cut them some slack. Tosa has gone so that's water under the bridge, but the .org is in safe hands with Andres, whom I would trust implicitly to straighten this out - given time (apologies to the others, but I simply don't know you - whereas Andres' integrity is beyond question as far as I'm concerned).

I don't much care about who someone is in real life, if you're a high flyer, a politician or a pyschiatrist - it doesn't make you any more qualified to run a board than anyone else. Tosa, irrespective of what his real life qualifications may have been, certainly knew how to run a board and understood the politics very well and though I found him infuriating at times, he was a class act here. The administration have some very large shoes to fill, yes they've made an error, but this board with it's ever dwindling membership does not need another ridiculous *gate scandal.

Tosa also had his fair share of problems with warman - this is a young fellow who was offered multiple "second" chances and blew every one of them. He quite simply trolled his arse off, and on receiving the flack he justly deserved, played the victim and hit the report button... No other board would have tolerated him as this one did.

£0.02

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not interested in starting a fight - so this will be my last reply to this thread.

Just so we are absolutely here - this is not personal in any way, I expect TinCow loathes me now for singling him out, and I'm sorry for that as I happen to quite like him.

No - as far as I am concerned this is about the precedent set going forward, I'm not comfortable with a precedent that says staff can do this without consequence - because that means it will happen again, probably the next time the Admins change.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What do you people expect. This is a privately owned forum. The admins make it their mission to reduce the amount of snooping to the absolute minimum. For 13 years they went without having to open one PM, and now they did it once under the most respectful manner possible, with full disclosure of what they did and how they came to the decision.

If you don't want your PM's read, then talk to other people on MSM, GoogleTalk, Skype, Ventrilo, Mumble, email......

FFS, the admins went above and beyond the call for their positions.

[Strike For The South]

I basically agree with Phillip.

Warman was a petulant child but I fail to see why the pms had to be read. His brothers account could have simply been locked or given a temp ban.

The new policy of the Org is touchy feely on the outside and draconian on the indside. Ban the word fag, railroad respected members, and rifle through PMs to get rid of a gnat.

I blame the new Mods.

[caravel]

No - as far as I am concerned this is about the precedent set going forward, I'm not comfortable with a precedent that says staff can do this without consequence - because that means it will happen again, probably the next time the Admins change.
I agree that it sets a precedent, but calling for one staff member's head is no solution as more than one staff member was involved in this. Asking all of those involved to step down would be a step too far.

What do you people expect. This is a privately owned forum. The admins make it their mission to reduce the amount of snooping to the absolute minimum. For 13 years they went without having to open one PM, and now they did it once under the most respectful manner possible, with full disclosure of what they did and how they came to the decision.
The point is that there should not have been any "snooping" at all. Members' PMs should not be read by staff under any circumstances - end of. I accept they made a mistake, but I do not accept that the reading of PMs is somehow warranted under exceptional circumstances. I think we'd be seeing this in a whole different light if it was our PMs being read.

Warman was a petulant child but I fail to see why the pms had to be read. His brothers account could have simply been locked or given a temp ban.
Yes.

The new policy of the Org is touchy feely on the outside and draconian on the indside. Ban the word fag, railroad respected members, and rifle through PMs to get rid of a gnat.
I have come to accept that they run things here their way - if I don't like it, I'm free to go elsewhere and start my own board.

I blame the new Mods.
I do not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The point is that there should not have been any "snooping" at all. Members' PMs should not be read by staff under any circumstances - end of. I accept they made a mistake, but I do not accept that the reading of PMs is somehow warranted under exceptional circumstances. I think we'd be seeing this in a whole different light if it was our PMs being read.

I trust the mods to have discretion in what they read from my PM's. I trust them as people (which isn't much but I don't say anything personal in PM's anyway). I don't feel comfortable with them knowing anything too personal and so I do the rational thing and not send PM's on a private forum with personal info.

[caravel]

I trust the mods to have discretion in what they read from my PM's. I trust them as people (which isn't much but I don't say anything personal in PM's anyway). I don't feel comfortable with them knowing anything too personal and so I do the rational thing and not send PM's on a private forum with personal info.
The admins don't read your PMs without your knowledge - the mods certainly don't as they don't have the required access to manage user accounts (AFAIK anyway). To do so they would need to know your password (which is encrypted) or reset it via the administration control panel. Unless your password was mysteriously reset recently, then no one has been reading your PMs.

[Visor]

To be honest, reading someone's PM is not a good thing. However, in the case of Warman, it is justified. Kudos to the staff for being open about this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm obviously going to be banned at the end of this sordid little affair, so I might as well ask what the hell ATPG is doing going through and thanking all the posts in support of the mods' position?

If he has something constructive to add maybe he should speak up?

I've counted, and no former mods and only one Senior Member has come down in support of this. That's hardly a ringing endorsement from the community.

[Drunk Clown]

I'm obviously going to be banned at the end of this sordid little affair, so I might as well ask what the hell ATPG is doing going through and thanking all the posts in support of the mods' position?

If he has something constructive to add maybe he should speak up?
He agrees with us? Why should he post what already has been said? I advise you to look better at post #33, I see no thanks but it's certainly "pro" Mods as you want to call it. You shouldn't be looking for things which aren't there. Ban you? For what? Do you have a chip on your shoulder that big? I once had one but I'm still here.


I've counted, and no former mods and only one Senior Member has come down in support of this. That's hardly a ringing endorsement from the community.
Because guilty until proven innocent is awful.

[Andres]

I'm obviously going to be banned at the end of this sordid little affair, so I might as well ask what the hell ATPG is doing going through and thanking all the posts in support of the mods' position?


I see no reason to ban you, Philipvs. You have a valid opinion and make fair points.

Also, for the record, TinCow asked the forum administrators permission before reading the pm's and that permission was granted. He's not responsible, the forum administration is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see no reason to ban you, Philipvs. You have a valid opinion and make fair points.

Also, for the record, TinCow asked the forum administrators permission before reading the pm's and that permission was granted. He's not responsible, the forum administration is.

You can't have a member who openly expresses a lack of trust in the forum staff - if the Administration, i.e. yourself, is responsible then the same principle applies as would apply to the person who read the PM's.

I am quite aware this forum is not a democracy, but an autocracy, and anybody who has read my political opinions in the Backroom should be able to appreciate that I'd be OK with that under certain circumstances.

I'm not OK with the situation as it stands - but you and the other staff appear determined to let it stand. That's not a tolerable position for either of us to be in. So I need to leave, and then you need to ban my account and my IP is possible to make sure I never come back.

I'm not exactly happy about it, but I don't see an alternative.

I'd just like some time to get things in order, then I'll leave quietly.

[Montmorency]

TinCow should step down from the post of Forum Admin immediately and that he take up no position as a member of Org staff for a period of at least one year.


Either all the admins involved step down


I'm not OK with the situation as it stands - but you and the other staff appear determined to let it stand. That's not a tolerable position for either of us to be in. So I need to leave, and then you need to ban my account and my IP is possible to make sure I never come back.


Following the protocol established after the first dreams, they found each other in the unlit depths of the Thousand Thousand Halls.
Such desecration, they determined, could no longer be tolerated.

***

Some corruption begs not the cloth, but the knife. Sin is sin.

:wacky:

I see no reason for concern, even should it make it inevitable that the quality of moderation and administration declines severely within a decade. Purging all the admins would cause trouble in the immediate. I'd rather enjoy this place for at least a little while longer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is just sad.

[caravel]

I'm obviously going to be banned at the end of this sordid little affair, so I might as well ask what the hell ATPG is doing going through and thanking all the posts in support of the mods' position?
I don't see why you would think you'd be banned...? You've been at the .org almost as long as I have and certainly spent more time here overall, you should know the score by now.

You should know ATPG enough to know that he has most likely done that innocently and as a member, probably not even wearing his "staff hat" at the time. If you believe that the staff all got together and told ATPG to go and click the like buttons for the posts agreeing with the staff.........?

If he has something constructive to add maybe he should speak up?
I agree, but maybe he has nothing more to add, or perhaps the staff are too occupied in sorting this out behind the scenes. Slightly OT, but another reason I dislike this "reputation" or "like" button features, the .org is not fakebook...

I've counted, and no former mods and only one Senior Member has come down in support of this. That's hardly a ringing endorsement from the community.
It's fair to say that there has been a lack of interest in this issue. Few are condemning what has happened but few are outright supporting the staff... the reasons for this are numerous. I think the issue lies in that, as you have pointed out, that this is not a democracy and thus the staff are not actually obliged to discuss these matters publicly. One very obvious reason is that a public debate of this involving staff will lead to more problems and a "media circus"... the staff are damned if they do and if they don't.

Montmorency, you've quoted me out of context.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In my experience, very few members visit the Watchtower, very little of interest goes on here, so people do not have the habit. Whether that means they care or not is a different matter.

As far as mods or Admins thanking posts - nobody has thanked anyone for their eloquent protests.

What was the point of posting an explanation in Watchtower if the ramifications of the decision taken were not to be debated, and under the circumstances is it right for moderators to be endorsing the views of members rather than actively defending the position the staff have adopted?

Either this is a non-issue and will never happen again, in which case we were better off ignorant, or this is an issue which needs to be seriously dealt. The major problem with the second view is that we are hardly quorate here.

[Secura]

King Jan had reported on a few occasions in the past that he has had issues with his account, principally PMs were sent and posts made to members and areas that he himself did not visit; this was investigated by Tosa at the time but did not go further than password changes due to Warman being permanently banned at the time anyway.

This time around it was the staff who noticed inconsistencies in the King Jan posts and messages sent to staff, but there was reluctance to suspend an innocent member based on assumptions and insinuations. Thus, we attempted to inform Jan by resetting his password and emailing him that he could log in at any time and change it at his discretion. Unfortunately, it appears his email had been compromised as well because the inconsistencies continued.

This led to an issue where we are unable to contact the original owner of the account and we still remained divided on how to resolve the situation. A suggestion was put forward to check the messages sent by the account since the reset was made, which I grudgingly agreed to and thus was enacted by TinCow; had I said 'no', the messages would not have been read. Following my permission being given, the user on the account was confirmed to be Warman which gave grounds for suspension of the compromised account as an alt of a permabanned member and ensured that we were not inflicting punishment upon an innocent victim; suspension also allowed the account to be reaccessed by the original owner at such a time as he could prove access was his and his alone.

The whole process was handled with upmost care solely by TinCow, checking only those messages sent since the password reset in order to confirm suspicions and to respect King Jan's privacy. The little joke in my initial PM about Andres was from Blackadder Goes Forth and was intended to lighten the situation and highlight that PMs are still very much private. The unwillingness of many staff members, myself included, to suspend an innocent forum member without solid evidence and no alternative is the reason this action was taken; we have no intention nor desire to make this Org policy. It was an exception rather than the rule and will never happen again, unless required via a court order.

[caravel]

Either this is a non-issue and will never happen again, in which case we were better off ignorant, or this is an issue which needs to be seriously dealt. The major problem with the second view is that we are hardly quorate here.
I disagree that "we're better off ignorant" as an admin who adopted that line of thinking would probably have no scruples about doing this again...

King Jan had reported on a few occasions in the past that he has had issues with his account, principally PMs were sent and posts made to members and areas that he himself did not visit; this was investigated by Tosa at the time but did not go further than password changes due to Warman being permanently banned at the time anyway.
I find it utterly implausible that King Jan did not know who was accessing his account...

[SoFarSoGood]

If you don't want your PM's read

Don't buy a computer, if you have one already do not connect to the internet, if you have done this already BEWARE!

I assume then it was Jans pms to me that were read and I don't have a problem with it so don't see that others should be offended.. just trying to get on with CoE - read them all if you wish!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The more I read - the worse this gets.

This is a case of the staff bowing to Warman's trolling and violating the Org's rules. The fact that Jan had raised this issue before further compounds the error - clearly, the staff had enough information to know it was Warman accessing the account.

Warman's not exactly hard to spot, either, his posts practically come with neon signs attached.

Jan is responsible for his account's safety - if my sister or one of my friends hacks one of my accounts I'm still liable for whatever they pull if I let them do it.

It's all well and good to say it's happened once and never will again, but prior to, what, last week? It had never happened and never would.

At this point assurances are of little value, as demonstrated by this debacle they are at best only as good as the person giving them, and Org staff have started to turn over more rapidly of late.

[Kadagar_AV]

First of all, I am ALL for privacy on the internet.

With that said, I see nothing here to fret about. This is a games forum run by volunteers. Sure, there is a commercial banner on the bottom of the page, but I don't think the staff here are taking their private jets to the staff parties, so to say.

Further, this place is NOT meant for private conversations. If Yahoo had read my mails I would be pretty upset as that is the resource I use to communicate, but I haven't seen this site make any promises about keeping information secure.

Whowever was targeted, was obviously a punk, and hurt the community at large. The staff here seem to have gone out of their way to get rid of him, before finally taking this last step. Let's remember that this would not have happened had the user accepted his ban at any stage of the many go arounds. He kind of brought it on himself.

Also, the fact that the staff is open about it and explains how and why, make me trust the site MORE, not less.

So, well :2thumbsup:

[caravel]

This is a case of the staff bowing to Warman's trolling and violating the Org's rules. The fact that Jan had raised this issue before further compounds the error - clearly, the staff had enough information to know it was Warman accessing the account.
I agree with this assessment.


Jan is responsible for his account's safety - if my sister or one of my friends hacks one of my accounts I'm still liable for whatever they pull if I let them do it.
Exactly.


It's all well and good to say it's happened once and never will again, but prior to, what, last week? It had never happened and never would.
It has happened and cannot be undone. The important thing now is the assurances that it won't happen again - which we've had. Apart from that, there's not much more anyone can do, apart from call for heads, which will not solve anything. Demoting staff will be extremely damaging to the .org and cause even more bad feeling. It's not as simple as someone losing their position over something like this and they go back to being a member and everything is fine... there is fallout, the ex staff member may leave for good, their friends may also leave, it creates an unnecessary stink. This is not the same thing as catching some corrupt admin who was gleefully spying on member's correspondence... what was done, was done in good faith, that is inescapable - so feeding someone to the dogs (or the trolls) is not the answer.


At this point assurances are of little value, as demonstrated by this debacle they are at best only as good as the person giving them, and Org staff have started to turn over more rapidly of late.
A lot of the staff members had been here for close to a decade, new blood was inevitable as people got older, stopped playing the games, etc. The admins however are mostly long term members, so I don't think that statement is really relevant in this case.

[caravel]

Further, this place is NOT meant for private conversations. If Yahoo had read my mails I would be pretty upset as that is the resource I use to communicate, but I haven't seen this site make any promises about keeping information secure.
Actually the forum PM system is probably more private than your average "free" hotmail/yahoo/gmail webmail service... ~;)

[Visor]

It has happened and cannot be undone. The important thing now is the assurances that it won't happen again - which we've had. Apart from that, there's not much more anyone can do, apart from call for heads, which will not solve anything. Demoting staff will be extremely damaging to the .org and cause even more bad feeling. It's not as simple as someone losing their position over something like this and they go back to being a member and everything is fine... there is fallout, the ex staff member may leave for good, their friends may also leave, it creates an unnecessary stink. This is not the same thing as catching some corrupt admin who was gleefully spying on member's correspondence... what was done, was done in good faith, that is inescapable - so feeding someone to the dogs (or the trolls) is not the answer.
I think this is well said.

That said, I can post recent evidence of Warman and his attacks on other members on this site (but won't, NSFW language etc). From what I've seen of Jan he seems to be different to Warman, better. From this stage the act is done regardless.


Either this is a non-issue and will never happen again, in which case we were better off ignorant, or this is an issue which needs to be seriously dealt. The major problem with the second view is that we are hardly quorate here.

I prefer that they are open with decisions like these, the fact that they are and the members of the admin staff, I have faith that something like this will not happen again, or at the very least this option will not be discussed again. (Yes the saying comes to mind that once you've crossed the line, it is easier to keep doing and harder to see it anymore (I probably butchered it, but you know what I mean.)

Saying the the Org would ban you is crazy talk. If they did I would honestly be very surprised. It might be an autocracy or whatever you call it, but it's not tyranny.

ATPG is liking the posts for a reason, and I am pretty sure I can guess/know what it is. This situation is an exception, not a rule, and whilst distasteful, they did the right thing by telling us as members.

A similar incident with a banning of a family member occured to myself and my brother over at TWC. We both played hotseats over there, and were mostly enemies in-game because y'know, we're brothers. We shared the same IP address, etc. Anyway, I was thrashing one guy, and he got mad at me for beating him, and reported my brother to an admin. Keep in mind that I asked if my brother could play initially (as he asked me because we always wanted to play online, and he's not exactly outgoing or at least he wasn't then), anyway, after one-two guys thought we were the same person, my brother was reported. Now, I was rather annoyed at this, and went and contacted the mods (I was rather proud of myself for not being a dick about it). I explained how we shared the same IP address (which they said was a method to determine alt accounts). Then I argued for them to at least restrict us to not playing in the same game, which they did accept ( I showed evidence in games of us being enemies etc.) Then the admin basically said to me, that it is obvious that you guys were not 'cheating' or whatever, that you guys are different people (logging in simultaneously, as well as posting in different sections, etc, enemies in some games), and the ban was lifted fully, and we had no restrictions.

Point of that long winded story is that if Jan wants his account back, it would be easy to do, I imagine, unless Warman has installed some virus software stuff on his computer like a keylogger.

And I've already talked about my thoughts re pm reading, so that should do it for my thoughts.

TL;DR: Read it. :tongue: I support the staff's decision to do this (only in this one case, ever, and never again), and support them being open about it, and the moderation and admin team. I think TC does a fine job for the site, as does every other staff member.

EDIT: On asai's last post, I agree.

[Strike For The South]

So instead of a temp ban so this can get sorted, the admins rifle through the PMs

How is that not taking a sledgehammer to a nail?

I would like to get all the new rules out of the way now please

[InsaneApache]

I'll chip in.

I can understand the reasons for doing this. I don't like what was done.

[Kralizec]

If I were in a similar situation as King Jan (i.e. they suspected my account was hacked) I'd rather have that they checked my PM box for unusual things instead of banning my account until and if I was ever able to prove my identity.

However I rarely use the PM system here. I mostly come here for the public discussions in the tavern - I don't really talk to anyone here privately. I've also decided early on that I'd rarely give details about my real life on the internet, and never in a way that could be traced to my real name. I have a facebook account and stuff, but I'm pretty careful with that and I'd never allow people from forums like this to see it, no matter how much I like you. I've seen people on this forum describing, basically, which street they live in. The closest I've come to is tell which city I live in, and even that I rarely mention.

Some of the posts here are remarkable, at least to me. I can understand that other people use PM more than I do, talk about their personal lives with it and dissaprove of what the staff did - but people react as if it's a case of a psychiatrist or a lawyer breaking his duty of secrecy and spilling his clients personal information. To me, this incident is serveral orders of magnitude smaller.

Which isn't to say it's a light matter, but I think that the circumstances of the case and the method the staff chose were justified. The administrators always had the power to do this. They publicly announced what they did when they could simply have kept it as secret. They told their reasons for doing so and said this was the first, and probably last time they ever did it. I don't see how anybody could reasonably fear that the staff would ever do the same with his or her own account, or at least more than before.

[caravel]

That said, I can post recent evidence of Warman and his attacks on other members on this site (but won't, NSFW language etc). From what I've seen of Jan he seems to be different to Warman, better. From this stage the act is done regardless.
Evidence is a big word... evidence needs to be 100% solid, it's no good in producing quotes which cannot be verified to have come from the quoted source. i.e. if you were to quote PMs, that would not be proof enough, you would need to open the PM(s) in question and hit the report button. Any other "evidence" would presumably be still accessible on the main forums - so I'm not clear as to where else this evidence is going to come from - nor do I see it as relevant. The behaviour of the member in question was not outright criminal, just annoying and trollish, so it's irrelevant and certainly does not justify entering his brother's account to read PMs.


I prefer that they are open with decisions like these, the fact that they are and the members of the admin staff, I have faith that something like this will not happen again, or at the very least this option will not be discussed again. (Yes the saying comes to mind that once you've crossed the line, it is easier to keep doing and harder to see it anymore (I probably butchered it, but you know what I mean.)
Indeed, the staff could have covered this up, but didn't. They'd already told the owner of the account that they'd reset his password due to suspicious activity, so they could easily have accessed his PMs between resetting and emailing him to let him know, marked the messages as unread and he would probably have been none the wiser... I'm sure they knew this but very much to their credit, they chose to come out with it and face the music.


Point of that long winded story is that if Jan wants his account back, it would be easy to do, I imagine
Yes, it's for the account owner to contact the staff - if the staff had banned/suspended his account because of suspected misuse, then they would have been doing him a favour. The next time he is in touch (not someone else using his email) he could have easily confirmed it was him and gotten his account reactivated. As I understand it, suspicion was aroused, because suspect PMs were coming from the account to staff members. After the first (or second?) deactivation and reactivation from the email - coming from someone who was obviously not the account holder - the staff would have been sure that the email was also compromised and should have simply banned the account and waited for the real owner to get in touch. There is no other alternative and staff cannot be expected to micromanage accounts any more than that. Every member is responsible for their own account security.


If I were in a similar situation as King Jan (i.e. they suspected my account was hacked) I'd rather have that they checked my PM box for unusual things instead of banning my account until and if I was ever able to prove my identity.

However I rarely use the PM system here.
A ban can be reversed - reading someone's PMs cannot. Some of the members here are very long term, have been here for more than a decade and probably use this forum to stay in touch, some may know each other by name, where each other live, etc. I honestly don't believe that attempting to justify that PMs can be read, or that members should not expect them to be private, as some have argued is the answer to this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A ban can be reversed - reading someone's PMs cannot. Some of the members here are very long term, have been here for more than a decade and probably use this forum to stay in touch, some may know each other by name, where each other live, etc. I honestly don't believe that attempting to justify that PMs can be read, or that members should not expect them to be private, as some have argued is the answer to this.

This - for me - is the key point, and why this is unacceptable. I have real life contact with maybe half a dozen members on this board through other mediums like facebook, I'm probably unique in that I use my real name as a handle, but I'm far from the first member to put it in their sig or profile.

The point is - the PM system is not disconnected from my real life, without looking I couldn't be sure what was in there - I shouldn't have to EVER worry about the staff looking.

What was done was clearly, unambiguously, wrong. If it were not, we would not have been informed. Consider this, suppose Jan's account had not been hacked? Then where would be? It seems to me that the PM's wouldn't have been read unless it was fairly certain it was Warman anyway.

Right, that's it. I really am done now.

[Drunk Clown]

I shouldn't have to EVER worry about the staff looking.

Based on what?

[Andres]

The PM's were accessed because there were suspicions (and a precedent of the same account being (ab)used by a banned member without approval of the original account owner), but no certainty. Instead of letting it drag on for a long time, the decision was made to read the pm's in order to solve the issue fast.

Looking back, that probably wasn't a wise decision; but in the heat of the moment, staff deemed it the best thing to do to handle the situation swiftly. I think somewhere along the road perspective was lost and there was too much focus on getting confirmation about the account in question and being able to act fast.

I'm glad some of you voiced their opinions and viewpoints so clearly and I think staff learns a valuable lesson here. No matter how annoying certain things/members can be, sometimes it's better to live with it, or at least to endure it for a while, then to break long standing codes of conduct in order to get a quick solution. I appreciate the support from some of our members here, but I think those disapproving of the action are correct. As Secura already said, there will be no more reading of pm's by staff, unless we're forced (e.g. a court order) or in case of a reported pm (in case you weren't aware: you can report pm's, it's a feature that was implemented a few years back already).

[Kadagar_AV]

Andres, that sounds like a very wise decision... :bow:

[Andres]

Closed.