Who can see Private Hosted Forums?

K-9

Well an Admin has admitted the action probably was handled badly, so yeah, probably not a hell of a lot left, except a public apology some want.

PFJ was probably gone anyway, even if it was handled better.

Mitch Connor

Deleted User wrote: »

Out of interest, what are PFJ members expecting from Beruthiel if admin have already admitted her action was over the line?

And I don't mean "courtesy" "a bit of respect" I mean in factual terms.

An explanation as to why she trawled through a thread for a 3 week old post and threaten closure over a post that wasn't against the rule that had been handed down to the users.

Saying something could have been handled better isn't the same as saying it was completely wrong.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

PFJ was probably gone anyway, even if it was handled better.

I dunno K. With a lighter hand on the tiller on all sides from the get go, maybe not. EG rather than an onthread warning and threat of closure, a PM to the hmods along the lines of "Some small issues were brought to my attention and well...wtf lads. Yea I know the involving outside posters was deemed OK a few years ago, but times they are a changing and sharing PM's is really not on. Never mind the don't be a dick rule, it could cause ye, us and Boards some real fooking headaches legally. Look I know these are isolated incidences and I don't want to be barging in on your private forum, so I'll say nada there, but maybe a confab between yourselves about explaining this and the reasons why and a charter change might be a plan? That way the forum goes on as before and bugger all changes and everyone's happy. What say ye?"

If after that the locals got pissy then there's the door.

5starpool

A club for jerks? Interesting to see if the ex admin gets censured for that personal abuse other than possible deletion of comments/posts.

Nice way to back up your buddies as usual.

So we are to believe that Beruthiel had enough free time to crawl through posts in a private forum, pick out an innocuous post in the scheme of things, threaten to close the place on the basis of that post (anything else revealed in the admins own posting of 'private' stuff posted was not the basis of that threat) but then immediately got overwhelmed by real life stuff to the point where she could post elsewhere o nthe sit but couldn't deal with this?

Possible, but I'm not buying it as likely. I doubt this thread has long to live anyhow the way it is going, but it's certainly not the first time that Beruthiel has done something rash and left others to carry the can, and I suspect that it won't be the last. That's not a witch hunt, it's a statement of fact. She has tenure essentially, and is untouchable.

If she has been asked not to comment by other admins, then say that. Petty insults by Seamus are not helping anything.

hullaballoo

Frankly, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Beruthiel, any other admin or Dav, Niamh or anyone else to give any explanation for it at this stage.

The PFJ users have, apparently, solved whatever their problem was by moving away from boards. That appears to be mutually beneficial.

The issue is resolved. There's nothing more to be said from either side.

If you had or have some impression that your privacy has been compromised as a result of what has happened here, that cannot be resolved by one person saying they overstepped a line.

All of that aside, Admin actions of this kind are covered by the terms of use, which you agreed to upon their introduction. I have very helpfully highlighted important words:

Boards.ie Ltd Terms of Use wrote:

14. Our rights and responsibilities

14.1 Liability and accuracy:

Boards.ie Limited does not give any warranty or make any representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained on boards.ie. Material posted on boards.ie not intended to amount to advice on which reliance should be placed. Boards.ie Limited therefore disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such Material by any user, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Although rigorous protocols are applied to Boards.ie we do not make any warranty that the boards.ie is free from infection by viruses or anything else that has contaminating or disruptive properties. Under no circumstances shall we be held liable for any delay or failure in performance resulting directly or indirectly from acts of nature, forces, or causes beyond our reasonable control, including, without limitation, Internet failures, computer equipment failures, telecommunication equipment failures, other equipment failures, electrical power failures, strikes, labour disputes, riots, insurrections, civil disturbances, shortages of labour or materials, fires, floods, storms, explosions, acts of God, war, governmental actions, orders of domestic or foreign courts or tribunals, non-performance of third parties, or loss of or fluctuations in electricity or other utility supply.

Boards.ie Limited does not give any warranty or make any representation as to the identity of any user on boards.ie Any use of, or reliance placed on, any content or Materials posted to boards.ie by any user, or obtained by you through boards.ie, is at your own risk.

Boards.ie Limited may offer Verified Representative Accounts to individuals that represent organisations. We may obtain certain documentation to reasonably establish authenticity and to satisfy ourselves of these individuals' identity and authority to represent organisations. We do not give any warranty or make any representation that Verified Representatives express the views or opinions of the organisations which they represent. Users who purport to represent organisations, but do not have a Verified Representative account are operating outside of these Terms of Use and have not attempted to establish their authenticity with us.

Users of boards.ie should satisfy themselves as to the accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information contained on boards.ie and, where applicable, as to the identity of other users.

Under no conditions and in no event shall Boards.ie Limited be liable for any direct or indirect, incidental, consequential, special or exemplary damages or loss howsoever arising, (including but not limited to negligence or breach of these Terms of Use or otherwise) or for any loss of data, profit, revenue, goodwill or business howsoever caused even if that loss or damage was foreseeable by us, or the possibility of it was brought to our attention.

14.2 Users:

Boards.ie Limited may at its sole discretion for any reason (i) disable or deactivate your account, block your email or IP address, or otherwise terminate your access to or use of boards.ie, (ii) remove and discard any posts or Material within any thread or anywhere on boards.ie or (iii) shut down a discussion, thread or forum that you are involved in, with or without notice, and with no liability of any kind to you.

14.3 Availability of service:

Boards.ie Limited may at its sole discretion and at any time, discontinue temporarily or permanently providing boards.ie, or any part thereof, with or without notice.

You agree that any termination of access to boards.ie under any provision of these Terms of Use may be effected without notice, and acknowledge and agree that Boards.ie Limited may immediately deactivate or delete your account and all related information and files in your account and/or bar any further access to such files or boards.ie.

boards.ie may be temporarily unavailable from time to time for maintenance or other reasons. We accept no responsibility for any error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in transmission, communication line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access to, or alteration of user communications.

Where possible, we will use reasonable efforts to give users fair notice of technical difficulties or termination or suspension of their access to boards.ie. However you agree that Boards.ie Limited shall not be liable to you or any third party for any inability to access boards.ie, termination or suspension of access to boards.ie or modification of the service provided by boards.ie.

14.4 Indemnity and waiver

You agree to indemnify, defend (at the request of Boards.ie Limited), and hold harmless Boards.ie Limited our investors, successors, assigns, subsidiaries, affiliates, co-branders, contractors, employees, servants, moderators, third-party advertisers, technology providers, service providers or other partners, and each of their respective officers, directors, agents, shareholders, employees and representatives, from and against any third party claim, demand, loss, damage, cost, or liability including reasonable legal expenses, made or brought by any third party due to or arising out of:

Your use of boards.ie or any part thereof,
The violation of these Terms of Use, our Privacy Statement, our Guidelines by you,
The infringement or misappropriation by you, or a third party using your computer, of any account or password to access and/or use boards.ie,
The infringement of any intellectual property rights of any person or entity.
You acknowledge that your use of boards.ie including any material downloaded or otherwise obtained through boards.ie is at your own discretion and risk and you agree to waive any right to bring any claim or action against Boards.ie Limited, our investors, successors, assignees, subsidiaries, affiliates, co-branders, contractors, employees, servants, third-party advertisers, technology providers, service providers or other partners, and each of their respective officers, directors, agents, shareholders, employees and representatives for any loss, damage, costs or injury arising from such use.

Those terms are over-arching and to me, they say that Beruthiel or any other Admin is entitled to create new rules or overrule a previous rule in the interests of the site at large. In fact, such decisions/over-rulings etc have been made by the Admins since the beginning of the site.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

An explanation as to why she trawled through a thread for a 3 week old post and threaten closure over a post that wasn't against the rule that had been handed down to the users.

Saying something could have been handled better isn't the same as saying it was completely wrong.

OK, but does it need to be Beruthiel specifically? Admin are engaging so I'm just not sure what Beruthiel can add at this stage.

If it was a DRP for example (and I know this is bigger than a DRP, I'm just giving an example) it wouldn't be handled by the mod/Cmod/admin who issued the infraction or ban. It would be handled by another Cmod or admin.

I'm not suggestion an explanation wasn't required btw, I just don't see what Beruthiel is going to add to the discussion at this point. I know myself that I haven't had the time to invest in responding to PMs or the likes when I've had RL stuff going on, and I know that in the past I haven't been able to give my input to DRP threads as I just had too much going on to have time to deal with it. I also know though, that boards is my escape place so I might still read or dip in and out of threads while not being in the right headspace to deal with a serious issue.

Like I said, I'm not saying that an explanation wasn't due, but I do think admin are dealing with it and that should be acceptable.

K-9

Yes, but the lads here have a problem with what was actioned, it's lads down the pub type banter. Plus there's the principle of an admin looking at a 3 week old post, how much admin supervision they want seems an issue.

The way of handling it is a problem and is the way of these things, it becomes personal, especially if there already is history there.

Boggles

hullaballoo wrote: »

Frankly, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for Beruthiel, any other admin or Dav, Niamh or anyone else to give any explanation for it at this stage.

The PFJ users have, apparently, solved whatever their problem was by moving away from boards. That appears to be mutually beneficial.

The issue is resolved. There's nothing more to be said from either side.

*Cough* It not all about those PFJ Jerks. What about the actual OP and the reason the thread was started, the questions and subsequent answers and FEEDBACK maybe shedding a different light on those answers?

Or should every feedback thread just be shut down with a quote of the T&C's?

nesf

5starpool wrote: »

A club for jerks? Interesting to see if the ex admin gets censured for that personal abuse other than possible deletion of comments/posts.

Nice way to back up your buddies as usual.

Well you're acting like such. You're hassling someone who you've been told is dealing with real life issues to come on and explain something as petty as a warning given to someone because it was your private forum. Private forums are still on this site, still subject to Admin and staff oversight.

Really, if you can't see how this has gotten under the skin of people then you're a lost cause.

seamus

Xavi6 wrote: »

Not from those horrible jerks in the PFJ there wouldn't.

It's a Simpsons reference, please don't dwell on it as an attempt to be insulting

*If*, as Wibbs said, there was a break being taken from modding you can hardly except it not to be met with cynicism when it came so quickly after what has been described as another admin as an error.

Sure. But I would expect that when another admin explains the situation, you'll accept that at face value.

The admins don't have a track record of deceiving. Clashes occur every now and again, admins make mistakes, people get pissed off, just like in this thread.
But the admins always respond with honesty, even if it takes a little while for the response to appear.

So it's unreasonable to be cynical about admin actions when they have never given you cause to be cynical. Automatically distrusting someone who has never given you reason to distrust them (and in fact has proven themselves trustworthy) leads to a lot of stress.

So, with all that said, if you (admins collectively) believe we're going absolutely nowhere, what are we still doing here?

Please note, I am not an admin and haven't been for a couple of years. What I say does not come from an adminny place, though naturally it will come with an adminny biase, that's unavoidable.

Dades

K-9 wrote: »

PFJ was probably gone anyway, even if it was handled better.

I'd suggest had a PM or Admin Drop Box question happened we'd all be getting on with our lives - perhaps with an overdue update to the HMods charter. Once something like this hits Feedback, outrage snowballs, laundry get aired and nobody can even look at each other again.

5starpool

So, bottom line.

1. It's covered by the T's & C's that everyone agrees to but no one reads, so tough. Yes, everyone should, but only a tiny amount actually do. We know this can be done anyhow, we know we have no actual rights, we dispute that it is actually 'right' though.
2. You don't like it, we don't care, move somewhere else, so tough.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The condescending "these are the retrospective reasons why we were right" is not the right way, but it is normal way for some admins (and ex admins) sadly. I'm not claiming innocence or the cause of the just, only hoping that fair treatment and overview of others as necessary is specifically put in place.

Lovely Bloke

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but the lads here have a problem with what was actioned, it's lads down the pub type banter. Plus there's the principle of an admin looking at a 3 week old post, how much admin supervision they want seems an issue.

You are misrepresenting the situation, probably by mistake.

The issue is with what was actioned, because it was stated that such a thing was ok, and not actionable. By both DeVore in the forum itself and Dav in the Hosted Forum Guidelines. (The single issue that this thread is about, ignoring all the subsequent noise conveniently made by Admins bringing up other actionable things that may have gone on in the forum, but that is a sidebar created LoLth, and nothing to do with the PFJ members, again, and Admin airing dirty laundry in this thread is hardly the way to go about that either, but at this stage it's neither here not there - the admin have created a picture of the members as some "club for jerks" - probably not helped by the members themselves).

You then go on to say that "how much Admin supervision they want" is an issue. Again, yes - as stated in this thread Admin don't get involved in Private Froums unless specifically asked to - that has since been cleared up as far as I'm concerned. It was the wrong way to go about things, and hands have been held up there. Thanks very much.

What we are still waiting is an explanation from the Admin involved, or another Admin, as to why it was done. Why the HMod was admonished on thread, why such a heavy hand was applied in this instance. The Admins who have posted in this thread have said they can't speak for the one involved on that issue - again fair enough. There is real life stuff going on, and that cool, it affects everyone at inopportune times.

My own wife was subject to some extremely vile posts on a different private forum here on Boards, and nothing was ever done about it. And no, it wasn't reported, but this incident shows that things don't necessarily have to be reported for an Admin to get involved, so playing that card won't wash.

Bounty Hunter

Why exactly was the forum shut down?

I havent posted in PFJ for a couple of years but from what I can see it's being said that they broke several boards rules in the way that place was being operated. Ok assuming thats the case and there is no need to go into detail over which rules and who did what exactly but surely if the rules that were layed down to them, which were never changed, had not been broken by their actions then there is no reason to shut down the board but simple inform them that those rules have to change with the times.

I certainly hope there is no retro-active action taken against anyone for any posts made in the PFJ forum whilst the rules in place were such that those actions were not in violation of them.

Now that the question of who can see private hosted forums has seemingly been answered that would be my main concern. The rules should be changed before people should be punished, forums closed etc because of things done that go against what people deem acceptable (if those things are not already covered in the rules).

anyway thats my 2c's but perhaps like the other non admin, non people involved who are wading into this subject and somewhat derailing it im off point here from my reading of it. Personally I would have appreciated word from the person who actually was involved but I wouldn't expect it either

Lovely Bloke

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Why exactly was the forum shut down?

Please note, the forum is still open to posts from members and Admins - it is not closed down.

Traffic may have reduced though.

5starpool

seamus wrote: »

So it's unreasonable to be cynical about admin actions when they have never given you cause to be cynical. Automatically distrusting someone who has never given you reason to distrust them (and in fact has proven themselves trustworthy) leads to a lot of stress

That is most certainly not the case with this admin.

In a previous incident that led to a busy forum moving off site, the mods of that forum were accused by this specific admin of orchestrating the whole thing while we already had our alternative home off site up and running, just to make sure we have some outrage built up which would drive traffic to our site.

I'm obviously not going to say how I know that, but it is 100% true that it was said, and accusations like that which were groundless and false are only part of the reasons why I distrust her and her motives highly.

Dades

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

Why exactly was the forum shut down?

The forum is not shut down (there are still people posting in it). Its members have decided to move it elsewhere on the Internet.

Bounty Hunter

appreciate that as obviously I (as im no longer a member there) and anyone else not using the forum might not have known that from reading the thread, the crux of the issue in my mind though would be moderating (perhaps not the correct term as it implies being done by mods not admins etc) a forum based on something which is not the rules that forum was given to follow. Change the rules by all means as then people know in advance otherwise I would think it is very harsh to take any action against any one, group or forum based on their actions

Gongoozler

hullaballoo wrote: »

The PFJ users have, apparently, solved whatever their problem was by moving away from boards. That appears to be mutually beneficial.

The issue is resolved. There's nothing more to be said from either side.

Very wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, there are major concerns that need to be addressed as a result of this thread - what kind of thing are other private forums allowed, is this going on elsewhere, if it is then is it allowed, should it be allowed, should an admin be allowed change rules of a forum as they deem it necessary without consultation from other admins. Also if there are changes to be made to rules of forums, private or otherwise, these changes should be announced within the forum.

I don't agree with the behaviour of what some of the PFJ group were doing, but if it was actually written that it was allowed then technically they did nothing wrong. (Morally, it's another story) if you're going to say suddenly oh no we can't be having that, it seems to me at least professionally you should not only actually make an official decision, but make it known to users. Otherwise you're going to, and do, come across as very unprofessional and couldn't care less about your users.

And paying for it shouldn't be anything to do with anything, sure Google don't say fcuk the users anytime people have something to say.

r3nu4l

I've resisted commenting on this thread so far and won't comment on the issues relating to private forums, Admins, 3-week old posts or anything like that.

I did just want to comment on this.

5starpool wrote: »

... but then immediately got overwhelmed by real life stuff to the point where she could post elsewhere o nthe sit but couldn't deal with this?

Possible, but I'm not buying it as likely.

I know how it looks, if it was me I'd probably be cynical too, really. However, on this occasion I'm afraid that's exactly how it is, no bull, no spin, nothing. I won't say anything more than that. Take it or leave it but I do hope that anyone out there who knows me would realise that I'm not one for BS.


Last year I was dealing with a serious issue in a forum when my Mum died suddenly. While it happened suddenly, it wasn't necessarily unexpectedly, it was going to happen we just didn't know if it would be two weeks, two months or another year. Anyway, I stopped dealing with that particular forum issue for a few days and I'm not even sure if I informed the people in question as to why. I still posted on boards a bit but I wasn't thinking straight and couldn't deal with the issue at the time. That's just the way life sometimes kicks you in the teeth. I'm sure the people I was dealing with probably thought I was the world's most ignorant ****er but there was nothing I could do about it.

5starpool wrote: »

In a previous incident that led to a busy forum moving off site, the mods of that forum were accused by this specific admin of orchestrating the whole thing while we already had our alternative home off site up and running, just to make sure we have some outrage built up which would drive traffic to our site.

I'm obviously not going to say how I know that, but it is 100% true that it was said, and accusations like that which were groundless and false are only part of the reasons why I distrust her and her motives highly.

Heh, I have some background to that thanks to my time playing Cybernations with other boardsies and one of the IPB forum founders who I've a lot of time for. I'm happy nothing untoward went on there* as described above but in much the same way as you are being cynical about her absence at the moment right now, there was some cynicism as to the timing of that event. Rightly or wrongly it's natural when there is distrust I suppose.


EDIT: *Not that it was any of my business anyway! Nobody needs to satisfy me as to their intention when developing their own forum!

LuckyLloyd

r3nu4l wrote: »

Heh, I have some background to that thanks to my time playing Cybernations with other boardsies and one of the IPB forum founders who I've a lot of time for. I'm happy nothing untoward went on there as described above but in much the same way as you are being cynical about her absence at the moment right now, there was some cynicism as to the timing of that event. Rightly or wrongly it's natural when there is distrust I suppose.

I can understand that but, really, we were all open and honest about what was going on and why and very straightforward about how we felt about things. And the lads kept on volunteering as mods here for sometime after. The point was we were contactable and available to clarify any misgivings anyone may have held.

It's something that you'd have to give Tom a huge amount of credit for over earlier days of the site. He might not have always got it spot on, but he always stood infront and over his decisions on here. The site is bigger now and it's all changed but one would have thought that way of operating was a good rule to keep front and center.

Lots of people are saying Beruthiel has a genuine reason not to provide time standing over her actions on this one. Fair enough, you have to take that at face value I suppose. It would be easier to accept if there was a feeling that has always been her MO. That comes back cynicism and distrust though.

5starpool

That's all fair enough R3nu4l.

It's mostly all moot now, tbh, but as I said in an earlier post, the only thing I want out of this personally is more transparency in the future. I'm sure it won't happen immediately, but a codification of sorts would be something good out of this. Whatever about other priorities in terms of boards work (this is something mostly directed at the full time staff who come up with these things), the body of posters here, warts and all is still the most important thing (or should be), so something to clarify what can happen, when and why it might happen, and better guidelines for private forums should be a takeaway from all this.

I'm not out for blood. I don't like Beruthiel from my dealings with her, and I'm sure the feelings may well be mutual, but if some strange/bad timing is responsible then so be it. I can't speak for anyone other than myself though.

nesf

5starpool wrote: »

In a previous incident that led to a busy forum moving off site, the mods of that forum were accused by this specific admin of orchestrating the whole thing while we already had our alternative home off site up and running, just to make sure we have some outrage built up which would drive traffic to our site.

I'm obviously not going to say how I know that, but it is 100% true that it was said, and accusations like that which were groundless and false are only part of the reasons why I distrust her and her motives highly.

I'll be honest I never heard it put that way. What I heard at the time was that sudden emergence of IPB was opportunistic rather than planned. A new site had obviously been in the works for a while (the time frame was too short to set it up, get DNS propogated etc) and it wasn't a shock that there was a hassle between that forum's mods and the admins, so launching the site after some hassle makes sense from a traffic perspective but I didn't hear anyone saying the hassle was intentionally generated for this reason (let's be honest, it was happening on a regular enough basis that just waiting would do the trick and launching the site after a dust up is a bit cynical sure but makes perfect sense really).

There were a lot of noses left bent out of shape on both sides after that one but I didn't hear rumours of plotting along the lines you are talking about going on, just a well timed coup by the ex-Poker mods leading to what was a natural conclusion really.

LuckyLloyd

nesf wrote: »

I'll be honest I never heard it put that way. What I heard at the time was that sudden emergence of IPB was opportunistic rather than planned. A new site had obviously been in the works for a while (the time frame was too short to set it up, get DNS propogated etc) and it wasn't a shock that there was a hassle between that forum's mods and the admins, so launching the site after some hassle makes sense from a traffic perspective but I didn't hear anyone saying the hassle was intentionally generated for this reason (let's be honest, it was happening on a regular enough basis that just waiting would do the trick and launching the site after a dust up is a bit cynical sure but makes perfect sense really).

There were a lot of noses left bent out of shape on both sides after that one but I didn't hear rumours of plotting along the lines you are talking about going on, just a well timed coup by the ex-Poker mods leading to what was a natural conclusion really.

We didn't have anything in the works for a while, and there was no 'timing' or 'planning' or 'coup'. In retrospect, if we were smarter then all of that stuff would have been the case. We aren't that smart.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

We didn't have anything in the works for a while, and there was no 'timing' or 'planning' or 'coup'. In retrospect, if we were smarter then all of that stuff would have been the case. We aren't that smart.

I didn't mean coup in a negative sense. I meant it in a seizing the moment kind of way.

Dades

Gongoozler wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, there are major concerns that need to be addressed as a result of this thread - what kind of thing are other private forums allowed, is this going on elsewhere, if it is then is it allowed, should it be allowed, should an admin be allowed change rules of a forum as they deem it necessary without consultation from other admins. Also if there are changes to be made to rules of forums, private or otherwise, these changes should be announced within the forum.

There will undoubtedly be a clarification of the rules regarding Hosted forums following this. Any new rules won't affect the large majority of the Hosted forums, but maybe one or two might have a rethink about what is posted.

Gongoozler wrote: »

I don't agree with the behaviour of what some of the PFJ group were doing, but if it was actually written that it was allowed then technically they did nothing wrong. (Morally, it's another story) if you're going to say suddenly oh no we can't be having that, it seems to me at least professionally you should not only actually make an official decision, but make it known to users. Otherwise you're going to, and do, come across as very unprofessional and couldn't care less about your users.

The changes aren't because the PFJ was the bold child, but because it's clear that the rules as laid out years ago need to be revisited to protect Boards.ie and its users.

Gongoozler wrote: »

And paying for it shouldn't be anything to do with anything, sure Google don't say fcuk the users anytime people have something to say.

Like Google has never said fcuk you to it's users. :pac:

r3nu4l

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Post

5starpool wrote: »

Post

No fair enough, I hear what you're saying. I won't comment any more but that's not me being disrespectful. I only came here to say that whatever mistrust you do have in relation to the absence of an Admin at a 'convenient' time, please try to lay that aside. There isn't any subterfuge or BS on that score. That's all.

I don't want to get into all the back and forth on everything else going on in the thread because as you correctly said earlier, it's just turned into a sniping fest and that's unhealthy foe everyone concerned.


[Hippy]It's Valentine's Day, feel the love[/Hippy] :pac:

hullaballoo

5starpool wrote: »

So, bottom line.

1. It's covered by the T's & C's that everyone agrees to but no one reads, so tough. Yes, everyone should, but only a tiny amount actually do. We know this can be done anyhow, we know we have no actual rights, we dispute that it is actually 'right' though.
2. You don't like it, we don't care, move somewhere else, so tough.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The condescending "these are the retrospective reasons why we were right" is not the right way, but it is normal way for some admins (and ex admins) sadly. I'm not claiming innocence or the cause of the just, only hoping that fair treatment and overview of others as necessary is specifically put in place.

The point is the Terms of Use, not T's & C's, are the rules of the site. They've been in place since 2009 in a form similar to their current form. If you don't read them, don't feign outrage when something happens that is perfectly allowable under their provisions.

There's nothing retrospective about quoting rules that have been in place for 4-5 years.

There's also nothing condescending about me giving my viewpoint.

In fact, my viewpoint is just that and I don't know why you had to mention "ex admins" as if it actually means anything.

Annasopra

Looking at this from a complete outsider perspective I can't understand why private forums are allowed to bîtch about non members of that private forum who are boards members.

I also do think that some of the posts in here from pfj members have been completely OTT and they reflect badly on the forum itself.

knucklehead6

mango salsa wrote: »

Looking at this from a complete outsider perspective I can't understand why private forums are allowed to bîtch about non members of that private forum who are boards members.

I also do think that some of the posts in here from pfj members have been completely OTT and they reflect badly on the forum itself.

I can't speak for PFJ, i was never a member but I can speak for the Online Dating Group, and non member bitching isn't allowed, and I'd hazard that the vast vast majority of Hosted Forums are the same.