An Explanation

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.