The Rayaan / Jacob(smooth) Situation

[Rayaan]

But.... who's to say that Rayaan (or anyone else who is an admin) won't become bored again and use the information available to do some research on the people who are registered here?

Well, that was just a retarded comment I made. I was being more silly than serious when I said that I stalk "whenever I'm bored." I don't actually stalk whenever I'm bored. I thought that that might've ended the conversation more quickly because I said in in a tongue-and-cheek manner (I didn't think that people would actually believe me when I said that), although later I admitted that I did it because of a suspicion that I had, since the conversation kept on going and things started to get more serious.

However I think this is something which should be considered separately from the thread at hand because in truth it is far more involved than "the Rayaan / Jacob situation". I'd like to see this discussed and moved forward, but think it should be about the policy, not the people. There is certainly a broader issue.

You're right. This is a much broader issue than just "the Rayaan / Jacob situation." This is an issue that covers the entire privacy policy, which is what we'll be working on in the next few weeks, as Tiberius said already. Once we've made any changes in the wording of the policy (if we do), or anything else we've changed about the policy that members need to know about. then we will certainly let you all know.

The policy aside, however, at least I'm glad that you and I have made peace, and that you're not leaving.

[Aractus]

The fact that admins can do that, is a given when you sign up anywhere. But the fact that an admin boasts about it, leaves the rest of the population a bit restless and really thinking that this admin (and maybe others) have indeed been snooping in on the members.

Yes indeed, and the thing is that not even Tib or any other admin knows for certain whether other investigations were done in secret by admins - because that's what this one was - unless they've willingly admitted to it. I'm not accusing I'm saying we don't know.

But also, what I never saw admitted, was that when Rayaan gave out a personal detail in the thread "I read some of your stuff in a podiatrist forum :p" he has revealed something about that member to everyone - that he's a member on a podiatrist forum - something that was certainly inappropriate to do. It'd be just like saying "I found your facebook account and I know you're 34 :p".

But this issue isn't a personal thing. It's a breach of the trust that the members here have for moderators. It should not be "us and them" - that is to say that we are all equal here. Admins/Mods are not special - they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Think about it as a democracy. It isn't one, but that doesn't mean we can't apply the principles of one. In a democracy the people decide who represents them, if they don't feek their member for parliament is representing their values they can vote him out. MP's can be arrested/charged, etc just like everybody else.

So they shouldn't do things that may make it appear as if they behave as a law unto themselves. I want to repeat this isn't meant to be a personal statement directed to any one individual, it's my general feelings on the matter.

---

(this part removed to be posted below)

[LastPoet]

But this issue isn't a personal thing. It's a breach of the trust that the members here have for moderators. It should not be "us and them" - that is to say that we are all equal here. Admins/Mods are not special - they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Indeed, but we cannot post our opinions with the same freedom as regular members, as I sorely found out the hard way on this whole mess.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I thought that that might've ended the conversation more quickly because I said in in a tongue-and-cheek manner 

One has to enjoy the irony here. You said something in jest which people took seriously (that you did it cos you were bored), stalker Muslim, etc

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the very definition of poes law!

without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism

Falling foul of poes law whilst investigating if someone else is a Poe...
Oh come on, you have to see the funny side of that!

---

But this issue isn't a personal thing. It's a breach of the trust that the members here have for moderators. It should not be "us and them" - that is to say that we are all equal here. Admins/Mods are not special - they have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Indeed, but we cannot post our opinions with the same freedom as regular members, as I sorely found out the hard way on this whole mess.

You're human. You said something dumb, you too were man enough to say sorry, we all move on. :drinks:

[Aractus]

Oh I nearly forgot. I would have posted this in the original thread in off-topic had it not been locked (I never posted in that thread):

The privacy policy clearly reads this:

• "You are also required to state your religious views, which is displayed on your profile for the benefit of all members. This information is not checked for validity or accuracy, and is publicly accessible once your account is created."
  

With all due respect what Rayaan did was a clear violation of the present written policy which states very clearly that "this information is not checked for validity or accuracy". To me that phrase is very clear and it means that a person's stated religious beliefs will not be investigated by staff; yet that is exactly what was done in this instance.

Tiberius, since you didn't specifically address this part of the privacy policy in your post, could you please clarify the staff's collective opinion on whether my interpretation of this is accurate or if you have a different interpretation of this part of the privacy policy?

---

Indeed, but we cannot post our opinions with the same freedom as regular members, as I sorely found out the hard way on this whole mess.

Yes in that instance, and I too found the comment quite distasteful. But live and learn hey?

[pocaracas]

But.... who's to say that Rayaan (or anyone else who is an admin) won't become bored again and use the information available to do some research on the people who are registered here?

Well, that was just a retarded comment I made. I was being more silly than serious when I said that I stalk "whenever I'm bored." I don't actually stalk whenever I'm bored. I thought that that might've ended the conversation more quickly because I said in in a tongue-and-cheek manner (I didn't think that people would actually believe me when I said that), although later I admitted that I did it because of a suspicion that I had, since the conversation kept on going and things started to get more serious.

(bolded by me)... which just made things worse!
Live and learn... keeping people happy isn't as easy as one would think...

And sadly there's no silver bullet, one size fits all, way to go about it... It ends up being better to err on the side of caution, than risk having the members flee, for a non existent, but perceived, malpractice by the people in charge...

[Rayaan]

One has to enjoy the irony here. You said something in jest which people took seriously (that you did it cos you were bored), stalker Muslim, etc

Correct me if I'm wrong but that is the very definition of poes law!

Saying something in jest =/= being a poe.

In my view, a poe is more closely attributed to someone who is not what he identifies/describes himself to be, or if he is doing a parody.

But, yes, it's very hard to figure out sometimes. Some members may appear disingenuous to us although not really a "poe."

The privacy policy clearly reads this:

• "You are also required to state your religious views, which is displayed on your profile for the benefit of all members. This information is not checked for validity or accuracy, and is publicly accessible once your account is created."
  

With all due respect what Rayaan did was a clear violation of the present written policy which states very clearly that "this information is not checked for validity or accuracy". To me that phrase is very clear and it means that a person's stated religious beliefs will not be investigated by staff; yet that is exactly what was done in this instance.

Hmm. Well, I guess that was another privacy violation then. *shudders*

I'll discuss this one with the staff also ... or maybe Tiberius will fill us in on this if he wants to ...

And sadly there's no silver bullet, one size fits all, way to go about it... It ends up being better to err on the side of caution, than risk having the members flee, for a non existent, but perceived, malpractice by the people in charge...

I agree that I should have taken more caution in doing all this. Hence I will try to be more cautious next time.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Saying something in jest =/= being a poe.

I don't think that means what you think it means... . Where are you getting your definition of poes law from? Saying something in jest, or parody, and having someone believe you are are serious, is exactly what being a poe is.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poe

[Rayaan]

I don't use poe's law to suspect someone as a poe. It's more of a personal observation, which I certainly regard to be fallible at the same time.


Edit: You even admitted that you don't believe in the basis of Christianity. You said that it's "dishonest" to continue to describe yourself as Christian (i.e. someone who believe in Christianity).

"I'm now thinking it's dishonest to continue to describe myself as such"

[Jacob(smooth)]

Fair. So where are you getting your definition of a poe? (if not poes law)?