More uselessness from DBC

[John Wright]

7 hours ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

That clarifies better thanks. As to my basic beef (it’s more of a slight concern really) it would be that if I build a monetization structure for a website with a clearly published email address (and IP) and then some moderator here might then publish a rather vindictive post that says ‘but look at the awful stuff this person also posted via other accounts’ this might then cause demonetization for myself if anyone read the post even though it might simply be a case of someone just using the same public wifi connection as me to post (or even someone just using the same off the peg restricted channel VPN package as me, or in fact an admin just making something up) as that would basically be a lie that might then impact on my income. I just wanted to clear that up as the terms and conditions are clear, but the way that they appear to be applied seem to be totally arbitrary. It seems a moderator can choose to break them when they choose but maybe not a user.

Moderators post as individual posters, as well as moderate as moderators. It’s pretty clear what they are doing, posting, or moderating. Your rights would be the same however, in whichever capacity they were posting, if a mod went rogue.

[The Port Soderick Herald]

7 hours ago, NoTailT said:

He's talking bullshit.

Clearly has no adequate level of legal or IT skills. Which is worrying when publicly quoting terms and conditions at others which they clearly then don’t abide by themselves. Having a mod that is a clearly an amateur cyber stalker is fairly concerning in itself and I’m sure will put some people off posting in future. Forum terms and conditions should apply both ways and there appears to be clear rules against cyber stalking and users compiling and publishing information on other forum users which the moderators don’t seem to think apply to themselves. 

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

Clearly has no adequate level of legal or IT skills. Which is worrying when publicly quoting terms and conditions at others which they clearly then don’t abide by themselves. Having a mod that is a clearly an amateur cyber stalker is fairly concerning in itself and I’m sure will put some people off posting in future. Forum terms and conditions should apply both ways and there appears to be clear rules against cyber stalking and users compiling and publishing information on other forum users which the moderators don’t seem to think apply to themselves. 

Not sure what your legal qualification is?

The moderators have access to legal advice at a senior level.

A moderator checking the ip of a complained about poster isn’t stalking. It’s sensible management. No one has compiled and published any information. You’re the one who’s legal skills and interpretation appear amateur.

Ive been a mod. I know that from time to time we had posters with similar styles, aggressions, and topic fixations. Complaint received you check. You find two, three, or more, all posting from the same ip for weeks and weeks, never posting from anywhere else; or one gets suspended and another immediately pops up. That’s very different to someone using a public WiFi network, where it’d be dozens, and dozens, and they’d move from one IP to another.

Its standard to this type of board software that the admin team can see, if needed, which IP(s) a poster has used over time and which posters have used a specific IP address over a range of time.

If you don’t want to post because of some imagined stalking, you’re free not to.

[Roxanne]

35 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I know that from time to time we had posters with similar styles, aggressions, and topic fixations.

Are they also the ones who post laughing emojis after serious replies to their posts? Those one(s)?

[The Port Soderick Herald]

38 minutes ago, John Wright said:

The moderators have access to legal advice at a senior level.

Is that you or someone else? Given the amateurish way this forum seems to be managed I wouldn’t be confident on how any users data or tracking information would be used if anything serious needed to be followed up on. 

[NoTailT]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Not sure what your legal qualification is?

The moderators have access to legal advice at a senior level.

A moderator checking the ip of a complained about poster isn’t stalking. It’s sensible management. No one has compiled and published any information. You’re the one who’s legal skills and interpretation appear amateur.

Ive been a mod. I know that from time to time we had posters with similar styles, aggressions, and topic fixations. Complaint received you check. You find two, three, or more, all posting from the same ip for weeks and weeks, never posting from anywhere else; or one gets suspended and another immediately pops up. That’s very different to someone using a public WiFi network, where it’d be dozens, and dozens, and they’d move from one IP to another.

Its standard to this type of board software that the admin team can see, if needed, which IP(s) a poster has used over time and which posters have used a specific IP address over a range of time.

If you don’t want to post because of some imagined stalking, you’re free not to.

Its one thing Tatlock posting that there's a link between X, Y, Z because they have the same username. Which I still think by posting is a stretch beyond good forum moderation.

Next he'll be seeing Frank and Banker are sharing the same IP every Tuesday and Thursday evenings late in to the night and telling us they're having an affair.

I just think its a bit immature. Moderate and manage, get rid of the problems, but I don't think it's appropriate to share the information with the rest of us.

[John Wright]

34 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

Is that you or someone else? Given the amateurish way this forum seems to be managed I wouldn’t be confident on how any users data or tracking information would be used if anything serious needed to be followed up on. 

Having been a moderator, historically, for 10+ years, I'm pretty confident that the info gathering and collation and vetting before passing on in case of complaint, claim or criminal involvement is robust and up to the job.

If you are unhappy about anything concrete, rather than speculatively made up, please private message me here, or stop visiting and posting. I can always ask the existing mod team to ban you, but I don't think they'd listen to me and do that just because you're being a bit irrational. My experience is that it has to be much more serious than that.

[John Wright]

2 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I just think its a bit immature. Moderate and manage, get rid of the problems, but I don't think it's appropriate to share the information with the rest of us.

Its personal style.

If a reason isn't given for a disappearance there is inevitable speculation, which is often wild and inaccurate and verging on paranoid. 

To give a reason, or not, there's no best answer.

[The Port Soderick Herald]

8 minutes ago, John Wright said:

I can always ask the existing mod team to ban you, but I don't think they'd listen to me and do that just because you're being a bit irrational.

I would expect a moderator on a platform like this to understand how IP addresses work and yet clearly from the exchanges above they do not which does not bode well for anyone’s privacy or for if any serious issue ever occurred. I certainly don’t want a knock on the door as I posted something from the same pub as someone who made a libelous comment about an MHK on here because a moderator passed on my email address as he assumed we were the same person. Although I assume it’s a joke why would you ask for any poster to be banned just for accurately questioning how the forum operates as it’s an important aspect of interacting with this forum? 

[Declan]

The Port Soderick Herald promises to be a satirical gem. 

[NoTailT]

3 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

I would expect a moderator on a platform like this to understand how IP addresses work and yet clearly from the exchanges above they do not which does not bode well for anyone’s privacy or for if any serious issue ever occurred. I certainly don’t want a knock on the door as I posted something from the same pub as someone who made a libelous comment about an MHK on here because a moderator passed on my email address as he assumed we were the same person. Although I assume it’s a joke why would you ask for any poster to be banned just for accurately questioning how the forum operates as it’s an important aspect of interacting with this forum? 

Top tip: Don't post from the pub.

Specifically not The Sidings, The Rovers or The Nags. We all know that a majority of our forum elite socialise there and post.

[HiVibes]

17 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Top tip: Don't post from the pub.

Specifically not The Sidings, The Rovers or The Nags. We all know that a majority of our forum elite socialise there and post.

Don't forget the Woodbourne.

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, The Port Soderick Herald said:

I would expect a moderator on a platform like this to understand how IP addresses work and yet clearly from the exchanges above they do not which does not bode well for anyone’s privacy or for if any serious issue ever occurred. I certainly don’t want a knock on the door as I posted something from the same pub as someone who made a libelous comment about an MHK on here because a moderator passed on my email address as he assumed we were the same person. Although I assume it’s a joke why would you ask for any poster to be banned just for accurately questioning how the forum operates as it’s an important aspect of interacting with this forum? 

Final comments.

1. Of course i was jesting.

2. The moderators don't fulfil ( or didn't when I was moderating ) the position of data controller. Any decision would be taken  at admin or webmaster level.

3. I've explained exactly the sort of circumstances where a decision might have been made by me, when moderating, that two, three or more posting identities might be the considered the same person for the purposes of moderating content.  Its not what you fear or postulate.

4. From my experience of DP, if  a request came in from litigation, or criminal proceedings, the standard wording would be

a. the sign up e-mail for poster XYZ 

b. the IP address(es) the complained of post(s) were made from

c. all other IP addresses, if any, XYZ had used in a specified period

d. all other posters from the same IP addresses in a specified period.  

If I were advising I'd have no issue, as long as disclosure criteria were met, with a - c, but d. I'd consider a fishing exercise and advise non compliance if it was a request, unless the person requesting could show a substantial link, or if it was a warrant or court order, I'd advise applying to vary, or if there wasn't a no tip off condition, telling the posters and allowing them to contest. 

[NoTailT]

19 minutes ago, John Wright said:

d. all other posters from the same IP addresses in a specified period.  

Is that not basically what Albert has disclosed here in this thread? The same point you'd have issue with?

[The Port Soderick Herald]

32 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

Top tip: Don't post from the pub.

Specifically not The Sidings, The Rovers or The Nags. We all know that a majority of our forum elite socialise there and post.

I’m aware of the Rovers & Nags contingent (not the Sidings) which goes back to my comment about dealing with amateurs. You’d hope nothing serious happens with a post here that anyone might then be sucked into through people having such a clearly poor grasp of both IT and legal issues. I’ve had 4 people at work this morning sharing the same public IP address via a free to download VPN App. Anyone who downloads the same App gets the exact same range of fixed IP options.