State of the Board

[DaveH]

Do we consider "Private Messages" as actually private or just another way to communicate with members without posting publicly?

I mean, even if we disabled the Log In As Member features, an admin with database access could still pull PM's if they had the know how. So you're really just obscuring access, not eliminating it necessarily.

I do think there is a trust thing at play here. If we assume people think their PM's are private, we should be sensitive to that and word our message appropriately. While also saying that if the PM system get's reports of abuse, we reserve the right to investigate as we see fit. Vague enough?

In my opinion, if they think it's private they're fooling themselves.

 

[DaveH]

Let me see if I understand, if we look at a PM we have to fully disclose to that person when, where, and why we did?

We don't "have" to. We're discussing whether it's a good idea in the light of member-admin-mod trust..

 

[zoogs]

Yeah, removing the button doesn't affect the ability to do this. It's probably unnecessary.

I do think there is a trust thing at play here. If we assume people think their PM's are private, we should be sensitive to that and word our message appropriately. While also saying that if the PM system get's reports of abuse, we reserve the right to investigate as we see fit. Vague enough?

That's great -- and works if reports of abuse were what led to looking into the PMs and then the bannings of some members, at least one of whom did not have any prior logged warnings.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

I think the issue here isn't whether we look at PMs - it's the circumstances under which we look. No one can, if they gave it a moment's thought, believe that anything on a message board - PMs or posts - are truly private. They all go into a database. As Dave noted, the it's accessible - it's just a matter of how.

What we will try and make clear to members is that we have a responsibility to monitor, but that we will only be looking when there are grounds for us to do so to address a concern. Every site does that, no matter what they say. The best example I can give is child pornography. Letting that on a site - through any means - is not only reprehensible but illegal. So, the issue is making clear to members that we will look only for legitimate reasons and give them examples of those reasons. I say "examples" simply because it is impossible to anticipate every possible scenario, and there may be legitimate situations we don't anticipate that will require us to look.

If we ban someone due to misuse of the PM system, I believe we treat that as I've discussed - each Mod and Admin tells the violator if that is their inclination. But - and Alex, I may have misinterpreted what you were saying - there is no reason for us to inform the entire board every time we look. This is particularly the case if no action is warranted. If we do take action, we will be in the same situation we are in now - some members will want to know why another member was suddenly banned. We will determine whether, and to what extent, we disclose that to the entire board.

Again, I may have misinterpreted what you meant, Alex, and if so, my apologies.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Very well said, zoogs. I, too, have serious concerns about continuing to volunteer my time as a Mod in light of the PM disclosure. We'll have to address this before moving forward, guys.

Lance, would you mind elaborating? Is your concern that we haven't informed members of this, or that it can be done at all?
For what it's worth, this is the first and only time I have looked at another member's PMs. It's not something I'm going to spend my limited time on the board doing unless there is a reason. I suspect that's true for all of us - we either will never use it or only if we're forced to do so.

 

[knapplc]

Can we, the Mods, see the PMs that led to the bannings of tschu, Chaddyboxer, et al, before the announcement is made?

 

[Eric the Red]

Very well said, zoogs. I, too, have serious concerns about continuing to volunteer my time as a Mod in light of the PM disclosure. We'll have to address this before moving forward, guys.

Lance, would you mind elaborating? Is your concern that we haven't informed members of this, or that it can be done at all?
For what it's worth, this is the first and only time I have looked at another member's PMs. It's not something I'm going to spend my limited time on the board doing unless there is a reason. I suspect that's true for all of us - we either will never use it or only if we're forced to do so.

I absolutly second that. I get about 20 -30 minutes a day on the board and try and post my Husker thoughts as fast as I can.

One word: liability..............if something goes wrong are any of you liable? This does not mean that we don't like your ideas, but just some thoughts from our perspective. This does not mean I can't take a few minutes to let someone know what i did, I think you make a valid point.

 

[Eric the Red]

Let me see if I understand, if we look at a PM we have to fully disclose to that person when, where, and why we did?

Knapplc and huskeraddict, am I interpreting this correctly?

 

[Eric the Red]

Can we, the Mods, see the PMs that led to the bannings of tschu, Chaddyboxer, et al, before the announcement is made?

Knapplc, We're not going to get into this right now. Your going to have to trust us on this. I trust all of you quite a bit especially for not having met most of you in person. We have given you quite a bit of authority for years, many times when I'm asked a question or an issue is brought up I reply with "I trust you guys, go for it." I haven't banned anyone for years, I speak out constantly on not banning people. We wouldn't have done it unless it was necessary. Please take this into consideration, I'm mad at any of you, but your just going to have to trust us.

 

[zoogs]

Hmm.

I've certainly given this a lot more thought since this morning.

I think if the extent of the disclosure is that 1) there were reports of serious misuse of the PM system, 2) some members had use their PMs to make threats, etc, and this is why they were banned, after investigation, there will be no problem. As mentioned a few times, everything entered here goes into a database. If people thought it was a good idea to threaten someone and entered that here, then they were fools. I think that will go over very smoothly.

On the other hand since it hasn't been made that explicit, I'm concerned it will come off as 1) a few posts griping about or criticizing the administration here led admins to look at all PMs these members had written, and 2) there were 'personal attacks' of the admins in these PMs and that led to the bannings.

I do think this ability will be a real revelation to a good part of the board, and it will be sensible to have something demonstrative that shows we do have protocols -- if the question comes up. I guess informing the user each time isn't practical, but what about documenting it here? Actually, thinking it over more, I don't know how much you can create protocol for something that leaves no record. But in addition to being good for us to have, it would be good to be able to point to something and say, "OK, here's exactly the policy we abide by on this."

Frank & Eric, please don't take any of this as I don't trust you. I've worked with everyone here for a very long time now, and I'm quite confident that you are #1 about the site and doing the right thing. I suppose the biggest question weighing on me right now is, what spurred the investigation this time. I believe it wouldn't have been done without a really good reason, but, there just wasn't anything on the visible parts of the board that seemed to me to tip that off (maybe I missed it). I mean, if it was something like a member privately letting you know they had been approached by these guys and this is what sort of activity was going on, then that makes 100% sense. But so far I don't think that's been made clear.

And while I've assumed it is indeed something like that, I guess it'd help to get confirmation.

 

[knapplc]

Very well said, zoogs. I, too, have serious concerns about continuing to volunteer my time as a Mod in light of the PM disclosure. We'll have to address this before moving forward, guys.

Lance, would you mind elaborating? Is your concern that we haven't informed members of this, or that it can be done at all?
For what it's worth, this is the first and only time I have looked at another member's PMs. It's not something I'm going to spend my limited time on the board doing unless there is a reason. I suspect that's true for all of us - we either will never use it or only if we're forced to do so.

I trust you guys. I've come to know you over the years, you've gone to bat for us Mods, and I know you won't abuse the abilities you have vis a vis this board/database. The members do not have that trust. Even the members with whom the Mods all have a good rapport will not react well to disclosing that we banned people from the board because of what they said via PM. If it isn't something immediately graspable like child pornography, it will not be well received.

That's why I asked to see these PMs. Beyond that, I'd like to know the justification of even looking at the PMs in the first place. And that's coming from a guy who trusts your judgment. The members don't know you like I do, and don't have that rapport with you.

You're asking the Mods to be the face of this board, to run the show. Those members have to trust us, and they have to know that we've got their back. We lose that trust, we're going to lose members, simple as that. You lose the trust of the members, this board is going to be much, much harder to run. And it's already plenty of work without this.

 

[knapplc]

Let me see if I understand, if we look at a PM we have to fully disclose to that person when, where, and why we did?

Knapplc and huskeraddict, am I interpreting this correctly?

This is zoogies' concept. I'm not sure I understand what he's getting at with this exactly, but from my point of view, the more disclosure about something the members are going to take so seriously, the better.

 

[zoogs]

Sorry, maybe forget about that part. As I understand it, this whole looking into PMs thing is very new and hasn't been done before. Since it's so new, and if it's going to be used again in the future, wouldn't it make sense to have some ground rules governing how & when it will happen? I mean, ultimately it boils down to "trust us" in any event, no matter what, but still.

Especially if we are going to disclose this to members, to whom it will also be new, and many might have serious questions.

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Well, first, I have no idea whether it will be used again. Circumstances will dictate. Again, this is the first time it's happened. Second, the revisions to the statement does that in a broad sense, and closes by saying we'll publish an actual policy soon.

 

[zoogs]

Perfect, AR, thanks.