Chatacranny has been banned. First, multiple IP hits have confirmed that he is a long term sleeper dual of Zodiac. Secondly, Zodiac asked for his account to be locked and this edition of his persona is most uninteresting. However, since Zodiac merely asked for his account to be locked, he is still a member in good standing and his account will be unlocked at his request and the name will be changed if he so desires. Lastly, but most certainly not least. Our probe revealed that Starscream is the dual of a banned user. If this person wishes to return, they know that they must e-mail me to discuss their return. To date, they have not done so.
I don't think Elwood was either trolling or flaming. WTF are you talking about? Now back on topic: are you going to answer my first question?
Questions get answered, if he wants to rephrase it as a question we'll answer it, otherwise it doesn't make much sense (at least not to me) .
Chatacranny was an uninteresting dual. Hence the boot. Rosencrantz brought tons of entertainment. All Zodiac has to do is e-mail Elwood ask to be unlocked and he can decide if he wants to be Zodiac or Chatacranny. It's not the end of the world.
#14 in chapter 5. I have about half of it solved already, so you can chill. I'll give you a call if I need your help.
Well the TKers have had a lot of fun with pusscrantz so I'll give you a free pass on that one. And duals are OK as long they entertain? Off to the registration panel.
OK... I know that SS is a dual of a banned user, so I can see why he got rebanned. That's fair enough. What I'd like to know though is how far this probe extended to uncover such a thing? 'Cause you can't have just been looking at the PMs of people who were directly involved as SS only made 2 innocuous posts?
It's very simple. I alone viewed the PMs of the members that gave us permission. More than one of them referred to this person by their old username and the offending user did not disagree when they replied.
So, for example, you read SS's PMs to Gul and vice versa? If that's the case, I'm worried that's a bit of a Pandora's box... you're presuming ownership of SS's PMs vicariously from Gul giving you permission, and I'm not sure that's right. And although you own the database, I think it can be argued that you don't own the content that people have posted on the understanding that it's private And, to be clear -- I'd think the same whether SS was involved or not.
A disclaimer should be announced that PMs are not in fact private. Just in case the membership has the wrong idea.
When you get a letter IRL is it not yours to do with as you please? Can you read it to your sig other or someone? Same principle should apply with PMs. They belong to the recipient. The rights to share them belong to the recipient. If you're worried about privacy, you should be careful of what you write/say. Nothing is private unless someone agrees to that, namely the recipient. Especially online. You assume a level of trust on a board when you post PMs. As a board manager, trust me, we have better things to do than read reams of PMs of cybering people. Board owners will only read them in an emergency or at the request of a recipient in case of a problem and that is rare. If you don't trust your owner, don't post PMs using their board. I have boards where I am very, very careful what I say privately (and this is not one of them.)
Yah, I understand that. Although I'm not sure about the onership, I hav to confess. I think it can be argued many ways. It worries me because people have sent me their RL names and addresses, and I have done the same to them. It was done because we have been assured countless times that there's no facility for staff to read PMs For example, Scorp sent me some NERDS. I was happy for him to have my address and trust him not to pass it on. If I had known PMs could be opened up by people I hadn't elected to, I would have sent my address by email. Say, for example, Scorp was under investigation for some BBS brouhaha and his PMs were looked at, I'd be an unwilling victim in that. It's not that I don't trust Elwood or think he spends his time looking for gossip, but I do feel very mislead in that regard.
I imagine it works the same way as when you buy a novel. You own the physical copy, but you don't own the copyright. Not that I want to rock the boat, but reading PMs with only the recipient's permission seems a bit dubious to me. It's the sender you need to be concerned about.
At one point in time, I clearly stated time and again that we could not read PMs. That's because the administration couldn't read PMs on the old software. I believe, since we've transitioned to the new software that I have always said that we could, we just don't. However, we have some checks and balances in place. First, I'm the only person that's allowed to read them. Secondly, I purposefully do not know how to pull PMs out of the database. I have to have Nick or O2C pull them for me. I'm also the sole person that can authorize the pulling of PMs even if Nick or O2C have the user's permission. Also, Nick and O2C know to tell me to fuck off unless we have permission or it's a dire emergency. In short, if all of us are present, all three of us have to agree that we have permission or that it's a dire emergency and then, again, I'm the only one reading them. If you can't, don't, or won't trust me to keep my mouth closed, I'd strongly advise you to take your personal details off board.
Meh. I always figure that if I send something, I can kiss my rights to it goodbye. So I always conduct myself appropriately, in case something does happen. Summerteeth, as a manager, I can tell you, NO good manager wants to read PMs. It's only done in emergency or at the request of the recipient. And pretty much, if a recipient asks, the first response of the manager is to try to get it worked out without having to do that. Not quite. The concern with novels isn't privacy, but $$$$. Apples and oranges.
You will note, my name is not on that list at all and Elwood only discussed pertinent information regarding the investigation and how we would handle it among the Admins. He is very circumspect, and I would be the first to revolt if he wasn't.
I can see where Summerteeth is coming from. If I'm not mistaken, PM's sent using the old board software are readable now right? And saying "take your details off board" is good for future stuff but for past messages there is nothing that can be done, especially since you made a point of saying that deleted messages could, and would, be looked at. It's definitely a tricky question, and one that makes me glad I'm not in charge.
Yah... and the other point is that we don't have any control over who is hired or fired on staff or the rules and safeguards that surround admins having a look at PMs. So, effectively, any old PMs I have sent or received with personal info in them under the assurance that it was private, now in fact isn't and it's completely out of my or the other party's control who has access. I don't question Elwood's personal integrity, but I do question this decision as I don't think the ramifications have been thought through.
