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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?