An Explanation

[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 :)

[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.

[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]

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.