Who can see Private Hosted Forums?

Lovely Bloke

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I just don't follow that anyone who posted on boards for as long as the PFJ lads did that you DIDN'T realise that nothing is private!

We did, but we were operating under the two different guidelines given in relation to posting opinions of other members of Boards.ie, and also that Admins wouldn't get involved unless specifically invited, and that admins "have better things to do" than snoop around.

Now we know that those things are not, in fact, the case, we've moved our forum elsewhere.

knucklehead6

Boggles wrote: »

Would the replies the OP received on this thread not lead you to make the same assumption? Or at least the OP make the same assumption.

For the record as far as I can see, no one has said complete privacy was expected, I completely agree with the replies the OP received.

No, I wouldn't have made the same assumption. I'm a sysadm in work and maybe my profession is clouding my judgment here but I know I can get into any file I want to in work, using the sysadm login. When someone new starts they sign a document stating that anything they place on the company computers is the property of the company. I have had to trawl through people's mails for disciplinary reasons.

And I know that any admin worth their salt can do the same on their networks.

knucklehead6

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

We did, but we were operating under the two different guidelines given in relation to posting opinions of other members of Boards.ie, and also that Admins wouldn't get involved unless specifically invited, and that admins "have better things to do" than snoop around.

Now we know that those things are not, in fact, the case, we've moved our forum elsewhere.

Fair enough. But don't fool yourselves into thinking that wherever you are being hosted now doesn't have the abilities as here, and doesn't have the right to look at what you have posted.

Boggles

knucklehead6 wrote: »

No, I wouldn't have made the same assumption. I'm a sysadm in work and maybe my profession is clouding my judgment here but I know I can get into any file I want to in work, using the sysadm login. When someone new starts they sign a document stating that anything they place on the company computers is the property of the company. I have had to trawl through people's mails for disciplinary reasons.

And I know that any admin worth their salt can do the same on their networks.

But you can appreciate the OP may not be a system admin and take the replies he got to his questions at face value.

knucklehead6

Boggles wrote: »

But you can appreciate the OP may not be a system admin and take the replies he got to his questions at face value.

Which is why I said maybe my profession is clouding my judgement.

Boggles

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Which is why I said maybe my profession is clouding my judgement.

I know, I was trying to turn that maybe into something more definitive.

A somewhat off topic question, but if you were caught rifling through someones work emails for your own entertainment without been instructed to, what would happen you?

Lovely Bloke

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Fair enough. But don't fool yourselves into thinking that wherever you are being hosted now doesn't have the abilities as here, and doesn't have the right to look at what you have posted.

We are paying for the hosting our own website now, and paying for a vB licence, we won't be a subforum of anywhere.

We'll all be Admins and we can snoop on each others posts all we want.

knucklehead6

Boggles wrote: »

I know, I was trying to turn that maybe into something more definitive.

A somewhat off topic question, but if you were caught rifling through someones work emails for your own entertainment without been instructed to, what would happen you?

No idea. I expect I'd be dismissed. At the very least given a written warning.

Quazzie

Boggles wrote: »

But you can appreciate the OP may not be a system admin and take the replies he got to his questions at face value

As the OP what I hoped for, was a simple " we can look, but we wont unless we feel we need to" and thats what I basically got. Since then it seems that some truths have come out where private forums are regularly read for no apparent reason. It's made me really rethink what I understood private to mean. Much like the apparent abuse of 'private' messages, there seems to be just as equally an abuse of 'private' forums.

PhlegmyMoses

Priscilla Massive Memorandum wrote: »

Playing the martyr because your forum got a rap on the knuckles for posting about non-members and sharing private messages. My heart bleeds.


lol

What did this add, exactly? Surely this post is there to just inflame? Pretty poor form in a feedback thread, tbh.

Lol indeed.

4zn76tysfajdxp

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

What did this add, exactly? Surely this post is there to just inflame? Pretty poor form in a feedback thread, tbh.

Lol indeed.

You're right, actually. Apologies.

MugMugs

bluewolf wrote: »

In fairness, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any consistency & clarification either. And they weren't discussing free speech, they were going off guidelines. I don't agree with the publishing PMs obviously but that's a bit separate and I think there's issues on both sides here.

Agreed and has been accepted already by LoLth but with respects, i really don't believe that some of the PFJ posters have shown themselves in a very good light here.


Mycroft is quite right. The clue is in the name. We're "Hosted"

Star Lord

Quazzie wrote: »

It's made me really rethink what I understood private to mean. Much like the apparent abuse of 'private' messages, there seems to be just as equally an abuse of 'private' forums.

This may sound a little pedantic, but they are 'Hosted' forums, not 'private' forums. They may have limited/restricted access, but that alone doesn't make them 'private' forums.

Boggles

MugMugs wrote: »

i really don't believe that some of the PFJ posters have shown themselves in a very good light here.

Do you believe your opinion on a "group of people" you know relatively nothing about is relevant and helpful?

Lovely Bloke

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

This may sound a little pedantic, but they are 'Hosted' forums, not 'private' forums. They may have limited/restricted access, but that alone doesn't make them 'private' forums.

It is both Hosted and Private.

There are Private forums that don't fall under the Hosted tag (I think tLL Private place may be like this?)

And there are Hosted forums that aren't Private (Phantom FM for eg)

MugMugs

Boggles wrote: »

Do you believe your opinion on a "group of people" you know relatively nothing about is relevant and helpful?

I didn't pass an opinion on anybody.

I have pointed out that their conduct in this thread which I've read hasn't painted them in a good light. That's not judging them, merely the manner in which they've approached this topic.

Femme_Fatale

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

This may sound a little pedantic, but they are 'Hosted' forums, not 'private' forums. They may have limited/restricted access, but that alone doesn't make them 'private' forums.

Well I guess they're both.

MugMugs wrote: »

Mycroft is quite right. The clue is in the name. We're "Hosted"

Hang on now... if it was permitted in black and white for PFJ members to slag off other Boards.ie members who are not in PFJ, what was ShiverinEskimo doing wrong? Why was (s)he alone singled out? Would it surely not have been more fitting for an admin to step in and write a post or start a thread outlining that it was no longer permitted? (Which would be completely fair enough - if PFJ members took issue with that, then we'd be in inflated sense of self entitlement territory).
Whether hosted forum or not, whether free speech or no free speech, whether Boards admins have the final say or not... randomly picking one post and acting as if it was breaking a rule when it had been made clear this type of post was not breaking the rules (effectively rewriting history)... was a terrible way of going about it.
And by the way, I think permitting people to slag off people on Boards who can't read PFJ is absolutely bizarre and I find it hard to agree with, but nevertheless, my view above still stands.
I am also unsure of how genuine some of the people who claim to be so "shocked" by it are.

Boggles

MugMugs wrote: »

I didn't pass an opinion on anybody.

I have pointed out that their conduct in this thread which I've read hasn't painted them in a good light. That's not judging them, merely the manner in which they've approached this topic.

Well that's actually an opinion, but either way the manner in which the topic was approached is actually relevant to the thread.

Have you read the full thread?

Star Lord

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

It is both Hosted and Private.

There are Private forums that don't fall under the Hosted tag (I think tLL Private place may be like this?)

And there are Hosted forums that aren't Private (Phantom FM for eg)

They are only private to the extent that the access list allows, and this is editable at any time by the mods/hmods of the forum in question.
Say, for instance, if someone was invited into the forum, and subsequently found that they'd been discussed/slated/their PM published in the forum, how would that go down?

As was stated many times already though, there was wrong on both sides, and misinterpretation also. There has also been a lot of unfair speculation and accusation directed towards Beruthial, who has yet to post here (the reason for which should also not be speculated about). None of us, be they members of the forum in question or not, know how she came across the post. Repeated accusations of her trawling through the forum to try to find offence is simply unfair and uncalled for until this is all clarified.

MugMugs

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Hang on now..........

I've got zero interest in arguing the toss over what happened to Shiv. The context of my post was following on from this

Mycroft H wrote: »

Certain people here need to lose the laughable sense of entitlement. The only reason private fora exist is simply because they're let exist. If they get shut, well, that's that.

I am aghast at the way some of the members here have acted and this does nothing but to make Admins/Managers reconsider their position with respect to a facility provided to us for no charge. Something I'd be very disappointed to see happen as I benefit from the Hosted category as do many others.

Rock the boat hard enough, it'll eventually fall over.

Question motives and reason all you want, I respect that but do it with some containment and respect not to mention consideration for your neighbors.

MugMugs

Boggles wrote: »

Have you read the full thread?

MugMugs wrote: »

I have pointed out that their conduct in this thread which I've read.........

Have you?

Femme_Fatale

MugMugs wrote: »

I've got zero interest in arguing the toss over what happened to Shiv. The context of my post was following on from this

I am aghast at the way some of the members here have acted and this does nothing but to make Admins/Managers reconsider their position with respect to a facility provided to us for no charge.

But the core of the issue is this particular incident, which was bad form by the admins. And I know there are two sides to every story. But while I was thinking it would be fairer to let Beruthiel have her say... nada.

I agree some PFJ members/defenders of PFJ could do with toning down some of the defensiveness though; you're right - highl-level hostility is of no help.

Lovely Bloke

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

They are only private to the extent that the access list allows, and this is editable at any time by the mods/hmods of the forum in question.

Well yeah, but what other definition could there be?

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Say, for instance, if someone was invited into the forum, and subsequently found that they'd been discussed/slated/their PM published in the forum, how would that go down?

I don't know how every Private Forum works, but I've seen enough comment to work out that in some of them there is some kind of actual poll or a straw poll of existing members on whether or not to admit new members. I would the assume that either "majority rules" or "one naysayer means the outcome is no", in the case of majority rules, I'd then assume that, for the sake of decorum, any discussion of the new member would be removed before access is permitted. To do otherwise would be silly and would lead to later unsavouryness.

I've not quoted it, but I broadly agree with the rest of your post too. I'm not hanging on for an answer, if one comes it comes, but it's actually irrelevant (speaking for myself here, not the other forum members) at this stage as there's obviously no coming back from this for the forum anyway, it's existence here is untenable.

Fratton Fred

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

As was stated many times already though, there was wrong on both sides, and misinterpretation also. There has also been a lot of unfair speculation and accusation directed towards Beruthial, who has yet to post here (the reason for which should also not be speculated about). None of us, be they members of the forum in question or not, know how she came across the post. Repeated accusations of her trawling through the forum to try to find offence is simply unfair and uncalled for until this is all clarified.

But they will continue until that clarification comes.

Maybe the storm took out the phone lines to Pear Tree House?

Xavi6

P_1 wrote: »

To borrow a quote from Cool Hand Luke, it seems to me that 'what we've got here is failure to communicate'. It has happened in the past and sadly it does seem to be happening again.

It seems that the posters of the private forum in question have a grievance about how an incident was handled by a particular admin and would like to hear the reasoning behind it from the admin in question. Nothing witch-hunty about that in my eyes and no ill will meant to the admins who have offered answers but I think that the longer the admin in question stays out of the debate the worse the ill feeling will get.

Thanks for posting this. Perfectly put and it seems to have been allowed fly while my post saying similar was deleted.

You've hit the nail on the head, fair play, but still we wait.

The cynic in me feels that we won't get a reply of any sort though, instead there will be a prepared statement and a thread closure to sharply draw a line under things as they have "run their course".

I hope I'm proven wrong though. As Mr. Alan stated, most of the PFJ have been around a long time and have been very positive influences on the community, whether that was through posting or giving up their own time to help the place tick over and improve.

Is it really too much to ask someone to take responsibility for their actions? I definitely don't think so.

5starpool

What happened when this thread was opened:

1. OP - Do admins look in our forums?
2. Admins - Not unless we have reason to if something is brought to our attention.
3. Admin does something stupidly rash.
4. PFJ - Admin violation us!
5. Rabble, rabble, rabble

What should have happened when this thread was opened:
1. OP - Do admins look in our private forums?
2. Admins - Not generally, although there are times when it may be done, such as checking someone's posting history for mod suitability, something was brought to our attention, and as we are still responsible for the site as a whole, we do occasional spot checks on them, as with all forums, based on a standardised set of keyword searches and checks.
3. Admin during one of these checks finds troubling stuff in PFJ (PM's posted and so on)
4. Admin - PFJ people, as we noted here (link to post) we do random checks and in one on your forum these things are things we think you should not be doing.
5. PFJ - Grumble, grumble. We contest some of those as we were told we could in here, but some are a fair cop. Sorry.

=======================================================

If there is anything to be learned from this mess it's that for the sake of other private forums and the site as a whole, something should be posted in guidelines somewhere to state that admins do sometimes perform checks in private forums, even without cause, but only at a level that will likely find most of the normal problems, if any, in a quick check without any actual reading of posts more than is needed to carry out said checks.

No need to disclose what those checks are obviously, but a general description as I think LoLth did in an earlier post, would have headed off a lot of this. PFJ, or indeed other private communities on here, might have decided that was still too invasive for their liking and decided to bugger off, but that is a different matter. Even if it turns out that only a small amount of forums get checked like this, telling people that it is possible and part of a set of checks available would be much better.

Admins have nothing to lose by being up front. If some admins have their own 'toolkits' so to speak, share them and come up with a list of useful ones that others can draw on to do checks in ways other than to actually read through a thread. If ye advertise the fact that ye occasionally do it, but never actually do then that's still insurance against the time ye do want to do it.

Big Tom Mainliner

So the people from this PFJ forum have said they're set up elsewhere so they can post PMs and slag off posters on another site.

The 22 of them should be banned from boards.ie if that is the case.

ShiverinEskimo

Big Tom Mainliner wrote: »

So the people from this PFJ forum have said they're set up elsewhere so they can post PMs and slag off posters on another site.

The 22 of them should be banned from boards.ie if that is the case.

Luckily it isn't the case, at all.

Xavi6

Big Tom Mainliner wrote: »

So the people from this PFJ forum have said they're set up elsewhere so they can post PMs and slag off posters on another site.

The 22 of them should be banned from boards.ie if that is the case.

That's not why the other forum was set up. You seem like an ideas man so maybe try again.

And while you're at it, call for a ban on all boards related social events where that sort of thing also goes on.

5starpool

Promote Big Tom I say, I like the cut of his jib.