Privacy concerns from [split] AF Hall of Shame (Post Edition)

[Jacob(smooth)]

I second Lemons motion for action.

This:

---

---

did the trick.

Haters.

Hating is both unnecessary and irrelevant. And as I've said I have no interest in anyone's resignation. To me that would be both unnecessary, redundant and more importantly, tangent to the issue. That issue being the interpretation of the privacy policy and how far it is extended.

I don't think that looking up users on other forums is needful, and I certainly don't think that it's implied within the privacy policy, which specifically refers to use of information INTERNALLY.

I think "your information is used internally only when necessary " infers exactly that. Monitoring people's activities on other forums is clearly EXTERNAL. The example given, keeping IP addresses, is germain, I can see the application because it can directly lead to a" conviction" for sock puppeting. I can't see the need to see what people are saying on other forums.

Let's say there was a user who claimed atheism here but espoused strong religious views on another forum. Is that against the forum rules? Don't see how it could be. The best that could be said for finding that out is that it might alert the staff to the possibility the person MIGHT be LIKELY to break a rule. But until they do, nothing can be done. So really, how needful is it?

I will be interested in the mods deliberations on this when they are ripe. If might be so presumptuous as to make a suggestion. If as Rayaan suggests such investigation is necessary, even of established board members, a rewording of the privacy policy to reflect this might be in order. Something on the lines of :-

"in order to protect the smooth running of the forum, it may be necessary to use information given to the Admin team to investigate your activities elsewhere on the Internet and to check posts you've made on other forums to identify if the Admin team needs to keep a closer eye on you"

That would be an honest reflection of what seems to be going on and would be a t&c I would not have agreed to had it been so written.

[houseofcantor]

Ya want privacy, get off the fucking internet and move to Antarctica.

[Mystical]

[quote='Rayaan' pid='573475' dateline='1388483006']

Haters.

I'm not hating on anyone, I actually like you a lot and am heartbroken that I am having to choose what's right over, well, you.
I concluded that you called Lemon out with that meme, and I stood up with him because he hardly deserves it, and I think your actions aren't very becoming of a mod. Jacob doesn't deserve this mess one bit either, but here we are. You have blatantly and boldly made one bad choice after another for me to conclude your entire attitude is to blame, not a simple human mis step.

Frankly, I'm over it. I'm merely concerned with whether or not other members in past have left because of you based on your inappropriate and even bully-ish ways displayed here secondarily, and invested in ensuring Jacob and other members feel comfortable with staying: primarily. I really don't give a flying &#*$ if you investigate me, cuz honestly what you find is not that big of a deal to me, I have nothing to lose. Others do, though. You violated the rules and again: here we are. It's no ones fault but yours.
I don't like this one bit. As a person I've come to like you. That said, yeah. You stepped over the line. Instead of mocking members' legit concerns, I'd suggest you shush it and let the other mods clean up your mess.

[Whateverist]

I can't see the need to see what people are saying on other forums.

Let's say there was a user who claimed atheism here but espoused strong religious views on another forum. Is that against the forum rules? Don't see how it could be. The best that could be said for finding that out is that it might alert the staff to the possibility the person MIGHT be LIKELY to break a rule. But until they do, nothing can be done. So really, how needful is it?

Agreed. What does it matter if people are consistent in their views or persona on every forum they participate in? Why would that be a reason to expect trouble on this forum?

Vinny is someone who made a big effort to come off as an atheist to bring up subjects he hoped would shake up our beliefs. Yeah, it was dishonest and a reason to hold him in low esteem, but anyone who took part in those threads got something out of the exchange. Were we not entertained? Hopefully no one missed work in order to set right the guy on the internet who was being wrong.

[Lemonvariable72]

Ya want privacy, get off the fucking internet and move to Antarctica.

Yes we all understand that. However when a mod pm's you with a picture of your family and your posts in another forum plus your YouTube channel. That's different. Plus the way he usedbthe words "skillz" and "Muslim stalker" which he had to apologize for.

[Whateverist]

Ya want privacy, get off the fucking internet and move to Antarctica.

I agree but I still think the privacy policy should either be adhered to or else changed to reflect actual practices. It's an integrity issue.

[houseofcantor]

From what I read, Jacob issued a challenge and Rayaan answered it. Whatever happened in PM is between the communicators, and in this case it appears Jacob violated his own privacy.

[Angrboda]

It also occurs to me that "I know who you are" [on other forums] is an implied threat. It's asserting that you have power over the person that they weren't aware you had. What's the implication there? That you'll use that power to become fast friends? Or that you'll use that power asymmetry to your advantage if the other person disappoints you, or something similar. It's an implied threat, but a threat all the same.

I'd be happy seeing an unconditional apology, and leaving it at that, given my sympathy towards his situation based on what I know of moderating, the situation, and human nature in general. Mistakes, one or many, can be forgiven. I'm not sure his image as a staff member and administrator can recover, as there are significant segments of this community who would have trust issues if he were to remain in power. The staff may come to a decision exonerating him in their discussions, but you can't establish trust by the fiat of a staff discussion.

[Whateverist]

From what I read, Jacob issued a challenge and Rayaan answered it. Whatever happened in PM is between the communicators, and in this case it appears Jacob violated his own privacy.

I saw that too. I think there was a miscommunication about what was happening there. Jacob got more than he bargained for but in a sense only because he issued the 'dare'.

Still I think the critique about the privacy policy as stated and as practiced is still valid.

[Angrboda]

I think "your information is used internally only when necessary " infers exactly that. Monitoring people's activities on other forums is clearly EXTERNAL. The example given, keeping IP addresses, is germain, I can see the application because it can directly lead to a" conviction" for sock puppeting. I can't see the need to see what people are saying on other forums.

I think you're misinterpreting that clause. To my mind, that simply means that the information will be used for the internal, i.e. staff access only, purposes. That does include the investigation of a member's behavior elsewhere. Tibbs and staff have done a good job in making the rules keyed more on the explicit behaviors rather than based on inferring what the intent of the poster is. However, intent, and context, as factors in administering a forum, can never be totally eliminated. The goal is to minimize the amount of subjective judgement involved, but judging intent from context is likely always going to be a necessary part of administering a forum. And that includes context that extends beyond the forum's borders. In this case, specifically, I suspect the motivation was that you were suspected of being duplicitous, with the aim of manipulating discussions, members, and the forum as a whole; looking at your other activity elsewhere might give some indication as to whether your behavior elsewhere supported such a theory, or supported an alternative hypothesis. Your behavior was inconsistent with the behavior of even liberal theists we've come to know; and Rayaan's view on it, as a Muslim who has interfaced with Christians may have furnished him his own wisdom on the matter. So, I think you're misunderstanding that clause. It doesn't mean the information collected will only be collected from internal sources, only that its use - not collection - will be limited to staff deliberations, decisions, and as support for confirming the appropriateness of specific staff actions. Staff, in my view, may use both internal and external information gathered to perform their duties, it's only the restriction on the *usage* of that information that is specified must be kept internal, i.e. limited to administrative duties, discussions, and decisions.

It's possible Rayaan went a little overboard because he was bored. It's also possible he uses such researches for his own amusement, and not solely to further the interests of the forum. However, on the basis of the information available to you and me, I don't think this conclusion can be confidently drawn. Rayaan has, at least, implied that his original motivation was to collect information which might be useful in coming to administrative decisions regarding your presence and conduct on this forum. Not having access to what's in staff discussions, and more importantly, what's in Rayaan's head, I'm compelled to give him the benefit of the doubt - not because I'm sympathetic or being charitable, but because that is the strongest conclusion that I, personally, can draw, based on my understanding of things. To my view, the conclusion that Rayaan was behaving improperly by collecting the information cannot be rationally and logically justified; as a matter of reason, I must settle for the innocent conclusion because, in my view, reason demands it. I do not have sufficient confidence that "I know" otherwise to go beyond that conclusion, that Rayaan's conduct may have been and could have been entirely innocent and within the limits proscribed for him as an administrator.