An Explanation

**Jolt** · 09-21-2012, 23:33

I agree with the decision, given the unprecedented situation.

**johnhughthom** · 09-22-2012, 00:20

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** · 09-22-2012, 00:34

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

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

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** · 09-22-2012, 00:40

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** · 09-22-2012, 00:57

Originally Posted by johnhughthom

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

**johnhughthom** · 09-22-2012, 01:58

Originally Posted by Monk

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

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

**CountArach** · 09-22-2012, 07:27

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.