'New'/Re-regged accounts becoming mods.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

So what would you suggest - Ruu keeps his old moniker in a sig so that general users can assess whether they accept him? I don't think that's owed to anybody.

No, I think quite the opposite actually. Whether or not I knew it was Ruu or not, I'd probably like any account with Ruu behind it and him acting like usual. I'll take an account at the value of its posts, the only time I cared about history was when the person was a serious troublemaker and that's usually because the new account is being a serious troublemaker too.


People get too attached to the names above posts. I mean really, the posts I was making on here 11/12 years ago when I was 20 year old with about a tenth of the life experience than I've picked up since really don't reflect what I'm like now.

ArmaniJeanss

5starpool wrote: »

I think this is not much of an issue at all, but it is certainly an interesting discussion to have. The main point is that the whole 'do not discuss who a person may have been before' policy is in direct contravention to someone who was a mod starting a new account and being a mod again a while later (even if 6-9 months or whatever) and part of the reason is because of who they used to be. I doubt there are many instances of this, and I don't know what made the OP create this thread as I doubt it was about Ruu, but I also can't think of another example. Boards is a big place though with many corners that I've never delved into.

Dades wrote: »

Like Dav, I can't think of another instance of what the OP pertains to. And the one we do have hardly suggests there's a problem in theory with re-modding someone who has returned to the fold.

I was sure I saw one more similar instance a few hours before I started the thread, but haven't been able to find it again. ruubot2 was the other one, and obviously I've no problem with his modding.

I think it was a useful enough discussion anyway on the grounds that it becomes a more likely occurrence as time goes by.

Personally I'd be in the earthhorse/lucky_lloyd camp of it not being a good idea, though it wouldn't keep me awake.

Beasty

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I was sure I saw one more similar instance a few hours before I started the thread, but haven't been able to find it again.

Dav mentioned one case of a new mod with a low post count for the newly created Kitesurfing forum, and explained the reasons why. I have not come across any other examples (and certainly none where a mod who had closed their old account was re-modded under their new one, although it clearly could have happened without anyone ever realinsing someone was a re-reg)

I will mention one other scenario where it may happen in the future. I am aware of a situation where someone asked to be de-modded, for whatever reason, and decided to close their account simply because they wanted to post as a normal user and not as an "ex-mod" and they have been a positive contributor to the forum under their new guise. If that poster came up as a suggestion for modding again under ther new account and I thought they may be interested following an extended break from modding I would not have a problem recommending them to the Admins.

Dades

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think it was a useful enough discussion anyway on the grounds that it becomes a more likely occurrence as time goes by.

It's a useful discussion, for sure.

The thing to remember is that nobody is going to be re-modded in such circumstances unless they have an exemplary record and would likely be welcomed back by those who recognise them.

The kitesurfing forum is a new scenario and an interesting one. But we reckon that it'll be a great move. And we always have Feedback for when things go pear-shaped.

Earthhorse

The case I'm thinking of was long before the close account feature was introduced. A user with a low post count was made mod and it seemed that they were either a re-reg or known to the other mods in real life. Either way it seemed a little off to me and I always remembered it. Not a big issue as the others have said but that's what I thought of when I saw this thread.

Beasty

I had assumed you were referring to recent incidences. The site has come a long way in recent years and I suspect the procedures for appointiing mods are a lot different from a few years ago.

pablomakaveli

Dav wrote: »

I'd like to be able to implement a "cool-down" period on an account closure, but we were told that wasn't legally sound.

Out of curiosity why is that?

It's a shame it can't be done though as i'd imagine the number of accounts being permanently closed would be reduced drastically if that option was available.

Soft Falling Rain

It's a shame a cooling down period is not legally possible, I'd be willing to wager that a few well known usernames would have been retained if they were given grace of a few days to be sure they were happy with their decision.

Beasty

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Out of curiosity why is that?

IIRC it was down to conditions laid down by the Data Protection Commissioner

Dav

Yea, I think the "cool-down" would definitely have seen a lot of people re-think, but the Commissioner's office said that when you close an account, it has to be "done" and not "pending" as this was the person's request. I will maybe raise it with them again though - I said at the time that the Close Account feature would have a negative impact on the site and they were certainly trying to find a way to work with us on it as the staff in the Data Commissioner's office are generally fans of what we're all doing here (and for what it's worth, I think the people and the ethos in their office are fantastic - Billy Hawkes is a man who puts the individual's rights ahead of business or government at all times and is never afraid to let people know that).

5starpool

It might be a bit too messy, but could there be something put in place such that a user can essentially undo it within a week (or whatever) but if it goes beyond then it can't be undone? I'm not sure if that is the situation that was proposed and rejected or not before, or even how it would work technically (password reset request still possible or something for that duration)?

Dav

That's pretty much what we were proposing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Re the close account could those closing an account not be shown a tick box option along the lines of "Do you wish to avail of a 7 day cooling off period?" if they tick the box they have 7 days to undo the closure of their account, if the don't tick account closure is the immediate.
Might be too messy or difficult just a suggestion.

Dav

I'd say it's redundant - if someone's pressing that proverbial big red button, then saying "you can tick this and we'll give you 7 days to think about it" isn't going to be helpful. If it's going to sway someone, then I'd respectfully suggest that the chances are they didn't want to do it in the first place and they should be showing more self control and just walking away from the site for a week instead.

Posy

I think you can close a facebook account, but reopen it at a later stage with all information, photos etc. in tact, so wouldn't reactivating an account be an option?
(I could be wrong, in which case never mind!) :pac:

Dav

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

h57xiucj2z946q

Dav wrote: »

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

What about your backups? Surely you don't go back and clean out accounts from backup's ? Should *everything* not include user's posts also ?

Gordon

Dav wrote: »

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

Afair, Facebook does do this, but not immediately. You firstly deactivate your account and then I think you have to wait a week before you are allowed to permanently remove it, ie: delete all the stuff. Their help page states (here) that you fill in a certain form, but I recall having to wait a period of time before I was either given the option to fill the form in, or before they actually removed my account after filling the form in.

Harleigh Many Muffler wrote: »

What about your backups? Surely you don't go back and clean out accounts from backup's ? Should *everything* not include user's posts also ?

Posts aren't personal data.

h57xiucj2z946q

Gordon wrote: »

Afair, Facebook does do this, but not immediately. You firstly deactivate your account and then I think you have to wait a week before you are allowed to permanently remove it, ie: delete all the stuff. Their help page states (here) that you fill in a certain form, but I recall having to wait a period of time before I was either given the option to fill the form in, or before they actually removed my account after filling the form in.


Posts aren't personal data.

But what about the backups?

On Facebook you can deactivate your account and reactivate it months later.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

On Facebook you can deactivate your account and reactivate it months later.

For now. I can't imagine that situation existing indefinitely if the Data Commissioners have their way.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For now. I can't imagine that situation existing indefinitely if the Data Commissioners have their way.

O is this something that has just changed recently? ( I have no idea)

ArmaniJeanss

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For now. I can't imagine that situation existing indefinitely if the Data Commissioners have their way.

Without knowing anything of the relevant legislation, I'd have thought theres a decent chance that the rules might be different for facebook.

i.e., boards, mumsnet, motleyfool, askaboutmoney or ipb are designed as places where you set up an anonymous account for the purpose of discussion with people who you've likely never met and don't know at all.

Whereas Facebook (and similar sites) are places where you set up an account specifically in your own name to talk to a set of people that you generally already know in real life.

I'd be surprised if the same legislation could be framed in such a way that it would apply to both boards.ie type sites and facebook type sites as they are hugely different designs.

5starpool

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Without knowing anything of the relevant legislation, I'd have thought theres a decent chance that the rules might be different for facebook.

i.e., boards, mumsnet, motleyfool, askaboutmoney or ipb are designed as places where you set up an anonymous account for the purpose of discussion with people who you've likely never met and don't know at all.

Whereas Facebook (and similar sites) are places where you set up an account specifically in your own name to talk to a set of people that you generally already know in real life.

I'd be surprised if the same legislation could be framed in such a way that it would apply to both boards.ie type sites and facebook type sites as they are hugely different designs.

I'd imagine they are governed by the same rules in that they hold personal data of people online which is the relevant part. The main difference is that facebook, while they have their european hq here, probably don't have the Irish rules as their main guide since they are a huge international thing and the others you mention are mostly populated/run by Irish people.

Zaph

Dav wrote: »

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

It would be interesting to know how they get around that considering that the Irish Data Commissioner is responsible for overseeing the European operations of Facebook, Google, etc. because they have their headquarters here.

Orion

Deleted User wrote: »

On Facebook you can deactivate your account and reactivate it months later.

There are two option on Facebook.

1) Deactivate your account. And as you said come back whenever you want.
2) Delete your account. I did this a couple of years ago. It's tricky to find but it's there. It deletes your account, pics, posts - everything. But - in order for the account to be actually deleted it does require you not to log in from any device for 7 days. So it's not an immediate deletion - there is a 7 day cooling off period.

If FB can do it why can't boards? That's not a question for Dav but a question for Dav to ask the DPC.

LuckyLloyd

5starpool wrote: »

I'd imagine they are governed by the same rules in that they hold personal data of people online which is the relevant part. The main difference is that facebook, while they have their european hq here, probably don't have the Irish rules as their main guide since they are a huge international thing and the others you mention are mostly populated/run by Irish people.

My understanding is that this is the important bit. They've already had to implement changes by the DPC that they would have preferred to avoid.

Dav

As far as I know, they're subject to exactly the same rules as we are, but given they employ I don't know how many thousand people, have a practically unlimited budget (at least in comparison to most) for legal issues and probably have a large team of lawyers on staff who's job it is to pour over every aspect of law that applies to them. They're probably a lot less worried about it than Boards.ie Ltd who employs 8 people and has Gordon, Niamh and I to use our best judgement on legal issues (after receiving advice of course) and is broke

I will of course be raising the issue of "cooling off" period on account closure with the DPC again - we're probably going to do a review of the Ts and Cs in the new year so it'll happen then.

Someone mentioned backups above - a good point. We have said to the DPC that we need to be able to assist the Gardaí or a court with their enquiries should we be served a section 8 request and if an account is closed, so if that means digging out a backup (all cloud based, need to be downloaded, decompressed and added to our internal test DB server and one of the test machines pointed at that DB to allow our necessary queries to run). This process takes at least a day to happen and is subject to an audit like anything else we do, so if we can't say why we did it at any given time, we're in for a kicked arse! For the record, our backups go back for 12 months and again this whole process has been reviewed and approved by the DPC's office.