Who can see Private Hosted Forums?

KERSPLAT!

knucklehead6 wrote: »

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.

I would agree. A private forum that I'm a member of doesn't allow talk of non members, mod decisions, etc

5starpool

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.

Well you are wrong.

This is very off topic, but what are missing is that that specific issue blew up for a number of days, then just as it became untenable that's when the big site outage for a number of days happened. During this time we discussed and decided to branch out on our own. This was the first time it had been discussed seriously and once we decided I registered a url, got hosting, and in 24 hours it was available to put the purchased vbulletin software on it which took a pretty short period of time.

As for the intentional comments made, they were never made in public so you wouldn't have been aware of it.

Boggles

mango salsa wrote: »

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.

In what sense OTT? In your opinion?

As you are a "complete outsider" who has read the thread from start to finish, I would be amazed you would only come to the conclusion that PFJ members are the only ones that have any sort of bad reflection from this.

Even some Admins and members of the PFJ agree that both sides look bad from this - the motives behind the dirty laundry airing is different though.

As for taking the Admins absence at face value, I think most would appreciate that face value credit is low and with good reason - just look at the start of this thread for proof.

But hey, I'm not a small minded Jerk, I'm actually pretty reasonable.

If the Admin is going through some personal stuff, then none of this shíté really matters TBH.

I genuinely hope she gets through whatever is troubling her, and quickly.

That is not me trying to grab some moral high ground by the way, I actually mean it.

muffler

Boggles wrote: »

But hey, I'm not a small minded Jerk, I'm actually pretty reasonable.


That is not me trying to grab some moral high ground by the way, I actually mean it.

Careful now! That's Admin language

IITYWYBMAD

hullaballoo wrote: »

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.

.......

I think you are completely missing the point to be honest.

muffler

I have read every post in this thread (not necessarily the full content of every post in some instances) and as someone neutral in all of this I can pretty much see both sides of the argument. There's blame on both sides and people have aired the dirty laundry here which was not the place for it in my view. There are experienced posters in that private forum who, correct me if Im wrong, have held mod status previously here and really should have known better than run with a public debate on something they hold so dear to their hearts - the PRIVACY of that forum.

Likewise Im not overly impressed with some, albeit small, segments of what has been posted by a couple of Admins, ex Admins and "would be" Admins. Thats just my personal view on what I've read and Im not having a dig at anyone.

As mentioned a few posts back by one of the Admins a PM exchange could have set the tone for discussion/resolution or the Hmod could have went to the Admin Clinic but thats not an ideal situation as the OP is in there on their own but still its probably better than enduring the negative stuff thats been posted here.

The outstanding issue appears to be the lack of a response from Beruthiel. Seriously guys give the woman some space. Other Admins have stated that she isnt in a position to comment now and I think everyone should respect that. I have known her (mod/S.Mod/Admin contact) for a few years now and based on previous dealings with her Im fairly sure she isnt trying to dodge any bullets here. She aint that type of person imho.

So relax a bit and enjoy the romantic day and have a nice weekend

nesf

5starpool wrote: »

Well you are wrong.

This is very off topic, but what are missing is that that specific issue blew up for a number of days, then just as it became untenable that's when the big site outage for a number of days happened. During this time we discussed and decided to branch out on our own. This was the first time it had been discussed seriously and once we decided I registered a url, got hosting, and in 24 hours it was available to put the purchased vbulletin software on it which took a pretty short period of time.

As for the intentional comments made, they were never made in public so you wouldn't have been aware of it.

I'll take what you say at face value.

Femme_Fatale

Interesting the way a number of people are ignoring the way it was clearly stated, by DeVore as far as I understand, that PFJ members could slag off non PFJ members. Whether you agree with it or not (and I don't - I think it's bad form tbh) if someone did it when it was allowed, then they did nothing wrong.
Looks like a case of "We probably shouldn't have allowed that at all, let's scapegoat someone." Not saying that's definitely what it is, but it does look that way. Perception can be as important as reality sometimes.

5starpool

nesf wrote: »

I'll take what you say at face value.

The domain was registered the day before it was opened for posting. That information is publicly available via whois for any sceptics, which I can tell you are.

Irrelevant anyhow.

Friend Computer

Boggles wrote: »

In what sense OTT? In your opinion?

As you are a "complete outsider" who has read the thread from start to finish, I would be amazed you would only come to the conclusion that PFJ members are the only ones that have any sort of bad reflection from this.

Even some Admins and members of the PFJ agree that both sides look bad from this - the motives behind the dirty laundry airing is different though.

As for taking the Admins absence at face value, I think most would appreciate that face value credit is low and with good reason

What I appreciate is that from certain posts in the thread (making out that this is a regular occurrence from her) it's clear a number of posters have already made their minds up about Beruthial. So no, I'd say there's no good reason at all actually.

Maybe I'm letting my memories of another debacle involving another forum colour my views on this but, also as someone who is an observer to all this, it looks like a group of self-entitled people ganging up on an admin and forgetting they are guests on the site. Yes, I remember Beruthial's involvement and it really does look like old wounds are still being nursed.

Now, I will agree that both sides handled this badly but the PFJ regs have, since this began, come out far worse than the admins. When it was revealed that PMs were leaked--and rightly so, I'd say--people tried to just deflect from such a serious issue. But really, it's the snide remarks about Beruthial that get me. Christ, guys, you're cribbing about how the admins closing ranks and whatnot while passing along those kinds of cheap shots?

There's only one group closing ranks here and it ain't the admins.

Calhoun

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Interesting the way a number of people are ignoring the way it was clearly stated, by DeVore as far as I understand, that PFJ members could slag off non PFJ members. Whether you agree with it or not (and I don't - I think it's bad form tbh) if someone did it when it was allowed, then they did nothing wrong.
Looks like a case of "We probably shouldn't have allowed that at all, let's scapegoat someone." Not saying that's definitely what it is, but it does look that way. Perception can be as important as reality sometimes.

Indeed and in this case if you are looking from an outside view you see allot of mods, admins and ex-admins coming to the defense of the action taken against the forum. On its own there could be an assumption of bias but when you see some of the mod's posting who have modded in the same category as the admin it paints a picture of a closed shop.

hullaballoo

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I think you are completely missing the point to be honest.

...and I think I have gathered every point made in this thread just fine.

But, just like this thread, that is a conversation that really cannot go any further.

Calhoun

Friend Computer wrote: »

Maybe I'm letting my memories of another debacle involving another forum colour my views on this but, also as someone who is an observer to all this, it looks like a group of self-entitled people ganging up on an admin and forgetting they are guests on the site.

Guests on what site, at one stage when a small group of people were funding this off their own back maybe folk were guests but i would think its a little disingenuous to say put up or shut up as now like with the likes of facebook ect the users are the product.

I agree with your point on the snide remarks that was OTT but the rules at the time for the hosted forum were that this type of discussion was allowed. Just because you think its wrong doesn't mean that it was against the rule at a particular point in time.

As a neutral observer in my eyes both sides come out badly, its like boards is trying to re-enact the GSOC bugging scandal in its own format. Its not just the PFJ guys that are closing rank's from what i can see.

Gordon

5starpool wrote: »

The domain was registered the day before it was opened for posting. That information is publicly available via whois for any sceptics, which I can tell you are.

Irrelevant anyhow.

I could be wrong, but I think nesf was referring to another site: pokertalk.ie that was set up by someone else well before ipb.

Boggles

Friend Computer wrote: »

What I appreciate is that from certain posts in the thread (making out that this is a regular occurrence from her) it's clear a number of posters have already made their minds up about Beruthial. So no, I'd say there's no good reason at all actually.

Absolutely people have made up their minds about her, they have said that on this thread. . Some people from altercations in the past don't like her style and have said so. It's hardly a revelation by you now is it?

There is probably near 200 years of collective boards experience in the former pfj private forum so yeah, paths have crossed in the past. They crossed again the other day. People have minds which they make up and have stated that on this forum. Again I don't see the need for you to point that out.

Friend Computer wrote: »

Maybe I'm letting my memories of another debacle involving another forum colour my views on this but, also as someone who is an observer to all this, it looks like a group of self-entitled people ganging up on an admin and forgetting they are guests on the site. Yes, I remember Beruthial's involvement and it really does look like old wounds are still being nursed.

Now, I will agree that both sides handled this badly but the PFJ regs have, since this began, come out far worse than the admins. When it was revealed that PMs were leaked--and rightly so, I'd say--people tried to just deflect from such a serious issue. But really, it's the snide remarks about Beruthial that get me. Christ, guys, you're cribbing about how the admins closing ranks and whatnot while passing along those kinds of cheap shots?

There's only one group closing ranks here and it ain't the admins.

Yeah that's all been said /witch hunt.

Why you quoted my post to reiterate it, I have no idea.

nesf

Gordon wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think nesf was referring to another site: pokertalk.ie that was set up by someone else well before ipb.

Entirely possible, it was many years ago.

nesf

5starpool wrote: »

The domain was registered the day before it was opened for posting. That information is publicly available via whois for any sceptics, which I can tell you are.

Irrelevant anyhow.

I'm not sceptical of you, I'm going on memory from a long time ago and as Gordon points out I could be remembering what was going on with a completely different site.

LuckyLloyd

Gordon wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I think nesf was referring to another site: pokertalk.ie that was set up by someone else well before ipb.

That was opened by someone banned off IPB during the debacle when you (yes you personally in this case!) moved the BBV to the recycle bin. That was absolute opportunism with a pure commercial motive but was not a factor in the initial setup of IPB ~seven months later.

Friend Computer

Calhoun wrote: »

Guests on what site, at one stage when a small group of people were funding this off their own back maybe folk were guests but i would think its a little disingenuous to say put up or shut up as now like with the likes of facebook ect the users are the product.

It still doesn't change the fact that they're using a free service and one that they don't own. And I highly doubt Boards does the whole farming out of personal data that Facebook does so I don't think it's exactly comparable.

I'm not really getting at "put up or shut up", I don't know where you got that, but users need to keep in mind that their little corner of the site is just that - part of a larger site.

I agree with your point on the snide remarks that was OTT but the rules at the time for the hosted forum were that this type of discussion was allowed. Just because you think its wrong doesn't mean that it was against the rule at a particular point in time.

I was talking about the remarks made on this thread.

Fratton Fred

Friend Computer wrote: »

Maybe I'm letting my memories of another debacle involving another forum colour my views on this but, also as someone who is an observer to all this, it looks like a group of self-entitled people ganging up on an admin and forgetting they are guests on the site.

Guests my arse. This is a commercial operation, without users it goes down the drain.

Gordon

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That was opened by someone banned off IPB during the debacle when you (yes you personally in this case!) moved the BBV to the recycle bin. That was absolute opportunism with a pure commercial motive but was not a factor in the initial setup of IPB ~seven months later.

So it was probably what nesf was thinking but he would be the judge of that.

Calhoun

Friend Computer wrote: »

I'm not really getting at "put up or shut up", I don't know where you got that, but users need to keep in mind that their little corner of the site is just that - part of a larger site.

Anyone who has posted or been around for long enough knows exactly where i got it from, its been used in that context many times before.

They do need to keep it in mind but as they say they have been given specific instructions about what was allowed and what wasn't. Its not a sense of entitlement when you believe you have been operating within the preexisting rules.

On your last piece i meant the private message thing they were discussing seems to have been ok at that point in time. It may not be now but thats not the point.

5starpool

Gordon wrote: »

So it was probably what nesf was thinking but he would be the judge of that.

It may well be, but as Lloyd explained they were totally separate ventures. The first one would probably have worked if it wasn't owned by who it was owned by. That's a tale for a different fireside chat though.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That was opened by someone banned off IPB during the debacle when you (yes you personally in this case!) moved the BBV to the recycle bin. That was absolute opportunism with a pure commercial motive but was not a factor in the initial setup of IPB ~seven months later.

That sounds a lot more like it to be honest, I don't remember what I'm thinking of happening during or around the site outage. Apologies to 5starpool et al for the mix-up.

Gordon

5starpool wrote: »

It may well be, but as Lloyd explained they were totally separate ventures. The first one would probably have worked if it wasn't owned by who it was owned by. That's a tale for a different fireside chat though.

Grand, glad I could help clear up the misunderstanding.

LuckyLloyd

Gordon wrote: »

Grand, glad I could help clear up the misunderstanding.

Just so we're crystal clear however, Beruthial's accusation of underhanded motives on our behalf were knowingly focused on the creation of IPB. Again, Don 't ask me how I know this for certain, etc.

K-9

Calhoun wrote: »

On your last piece i meant the private message thing they were discussing seems to have been ok at that point in time. It may not be now but thats not the point.

Don't think so, that was the problem, the hmod wasn't implementing the charter.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Just so we're crystal clear however, Beruthial's accusation of underhanded motives on our behalf were knowingly focused on the creation of IPB. Again, Don 't ask me how I know this for certain, etc.

Somebody derailed the politics feedback thread recently with this "Don't ask me how I know this for certain, etc." stuff. For me, a poster should should either name and back up what their source is, or don't mention it all. It's all very conspiratorial and whispers behind backs.

Lovely Bloke

K-9 wrote: »

Somebody derailed the politics feedback thread recently with this "Don't ask me how I know this for certain, etc." stuff. For me, a poster should should either name and back up what their source is, or don't mention it all. It's all very conspiratorial and whispers behind backs.

maybe he doesn't want to out a source who has access to the Admin Forum or PTH, because that's plainly what it is.

K-9

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

maybe he doesn't want to out a source who has access to the Admin Forum or PTH, because that's plainly what it is.

Maybe it is as good as that, maybe it's PM's flying about, we don't know and the point is, nobody is going to know the quality of the information.

We had an absurd situation in politics of a user saying an ex mod said something, when the mods of the time still modding categorically denied it, another ex mod denied it, an admin and even DeVore chipped in. Thing is, that poster probably still believes there was some conspiracy to this day, and is 100% certain. Nothing anybody else tells him matters as he perceives he has the "inside track".

IITYWYBMAD

K-9 wrote: »

Somebody derailed the politics feedback thread recently with this "Don't ask me how I know this for certain, etc." stuff. For me, a poster should should either name and back up what their source is, or don't mention it all. It's all very conspiratorial and whispers behind backs.

if I could clarify, I was a mod when this happened. I'm using a different NIC, and have been for sometime, but with permission.

I resigned as a mod around this time. Not because of the issue alluded to above btw, but I know fully what went on. I can state as a matter of fact that what 5Star and LL say in relation to the IPB conversation is correct.

The only reason I resigned as a mod, was because of the Admin in question here. I don't need to go into the details, but she knows why. Seamus is well aware of my previous NIC, as is Ber.

*Edit...I do not want to derail nor fuel the cloak and dagger mentality K-9, I'm happy to publish the PM's concerned involving my resignation above. But it's far from the central point, so probably best until the Admin has time to reply herself on the substantive issue of why she waded in...