State of the Board

[NUance]

 

 

<snip>

 

With that said, we cannot be everywhere, nor do we wish to be. We have only and will only review PM messages when we have grounds to suspect that the system is being misused, such as when another member makes an accusation of threats occurring within their PM conversation.

 

This particular incident occurred from a PM conversation between three members and an Administrator. It subsequently was broadened as a result of a member sending us quoted comments another member sent them via PM. To verify the authenticity of the claim, we had to verify with our own eyes to ensure there was no fabrication. We determined these were slanderous & offensive comments that had to be addressed. Again, regardless of the fact that Huskerboard is not legally responsible for what members post or say, we must protect ourselves from the threat of litigation. Further, we will not stand by and allow other members to be threatened or bullied and look the other way.

 

With that said, we have no interest in playing Big Brother and monitoring all PM conversations. We respect member privacy and will only take this step when verifiable proof is required to make a decision on an accusation or misconduct or abuse of the system, threats, or similar situations. I want most of my time consumed with talking Huskers.

 

To maximize members privacy, as we have always done, these actions will be recorded & securely logged by the owners of Huskerboard, but will not be shared with anyone for the sake of privacy unless legally compelled to do so, such as a subpoenaed in a court of law.

 

A formal privacy policy and update to the terms outlining these policies will be posted within the week.

Perhaps, going forward, you should consider changing the PM privacy policy to remove some of the perceived privacy rights. A person should have no expectation of privacy for a PM containing content that could get them banned. In a situation where a poster gets banned due to a PM, the Mod or Admin would then have the option of publishing a portion of the offensive PM itself in The Village of the "Banned" thread in the Shed (assuming the content itself wasn't illegal; e.g., child porn). Alternatively, the Mod or Admin could, at his discretion, choose to post a synopsis of the offensive post (e.g., something like: "the banned person sent a PM that included a threat of violence."). Such a policy change would serve two purposes. It would provide a feedback loop to other members, informing them about a behavior that could get them banned, thus reinforcing the rules. And it would prevent the controversy and discord that results from others being upset over a poster getting banned due to unknown reasons. Just a suggestion.

 

Finally, most of us are a bit sad to see the ten or so members leave the board over this debacle. I'm sure you are as well. Nonetheless, we certainly appreciate your efforts to make HB a great Husker message board.

There is a report link for PMs, so what is the need for an updated policy? If the link is there then you'd expect the same policy for public post to be true for private. I've never thought my PMs weren't susceptible to scrutiny by mods and administration and honestly I'm really surprised long time members didn't know this either.

 

 

I guess I should have explained what I meant by "privacy" a little better. I didn't mean PMs are private in the sense that they are not susceptible to scrutiny by Amins or Mods. They can be reviewed. And they have been. (Or at least I know the Admins can. I'm not sure about Mods.) I meant PMs are accorded privacy in the sense that they are not published to others. That's why we don't know what went on in the back and forth of PMs that got these guys banned (or at least some of them).

 

My suggestion is that if a poster sends something in a PM that causes him to get banned, he forfeits any expectation that that PM will be kept private. The Admins / Mods should have the option to publish the offending PM or paraphrase it in the Shed. That would put everyone else on notice not to do such a thing. (Since, from time to time, we seem to forget the rules.) That's all I meant.

[Landlord]

Admins/mods,

 

 

Maybe there is a bit of a misunderstanding of how things work here. I've heard 100 times, "We don't ever ban someone without letting them know why." Well, when I've been suspended, the way I was notified was via PM, but I wasn't able to access my PMs while I was suspended. Eric, do you care to divulge what channel you supposedly let these guys know about their fate? Because it's been said that you did, but they say they have no idea why.

 

I'm just wondering if the staff maybe doesn't know that we don't have access to those things when we've been given the boot? idk man

[DaveH]

Thanks, Eric, for the post.

 

My opinion is that you should treat the PM system as private, but not secret. Private in the sense that it's not for the rest of the board to see. The conversations are between you, the distribution list and administration. Except that administration doesn't really care and doesn't read them unless there is a reason to care and read them.

 

I mean, really, the admins can read anything if they choose, whether the board software presents an easy way or not. It's all in a database accessible by them because it has to be.

[zoogs]

" Well, when I've been suspended, the way I was notified was via PM, but I wasn't able to access my PMs while I was suspended.

Oh? I think we're going to have to take a look at that actually.

 

I know when we add a warning level to anyone, there's a "message for user" box. This doesn't seem to be sent as a PM, however, so lately I've been copy/pasting this message as a PM.

 

In the case of suspensions, I'm also using the "remove ability to post content" feature rather than a full suspension from the board, so that they can read their PM notice. I think otherwise it's the same.

 

I think in this case we could've done a better job about avoiding confusion everywhere. Hope we will in the future.

[GM_Tood]

When I had my timeout, I received an e-mail with the explanation.

[Junior]

[Count 'Bility]

This was very reassuring. I'm glad it was posted. And my thoughts were reaffirmed. Those banned and/or suspended were so for a reason. ALL of them. And sounds like definitely the first 3. Those thereafter simple acted beyond childish and asked for it. That was last weekend when I just sat back, watched the "show" and spent a lot of time laughing. Just asking to be booted.

 

Other thing is the supposed privacy of PM's and was is now an apparent lack of common sense in it's use. I now laugh at those thinking that admins shouldnt be able to view private messages within this board's domain. I'm no expert, lawyer, or inet wiz, but to me, it's common sense. For those that went off in a PM saying something that they thought wouldnt ever been seen, well, that's too bad.

 

Yeah, we lost a lot of good members. But new ones will arise. These guys came from somewhere at some point.

[Junior]

So cyber bullying is the story? Just curious where the line is draw on razzing and bullying. Because I've seen some posters be rather nasty to other members and they are still around...

[Count 'Bility]

So cyber bullying is the story? Just curious where the line is draw on razzing and bullying. Because I've seen some posters be rather nasty to other members and they are still around...

Use common sense. Seriously.

[Junior]

 

So cyber bullying is the story? Just curious where the line is draw on razzing and bullying. Because I've seen some posters be rather nasty to other members and they are still around...

Use common sense. Seriously.

 

 

I mean the woodshed has threads started by mods PosterX vs. PosterY, and we are supposed to believe they were banning people over bullying??? Come on. I think I'm the only one using common sense here when I call BS.

[Junior]

There's a 131 page thread called the "Douschebag Hall of Fame". Participated in by numerous mods and admins. Yet bullying is the excuse for why they banned the original three members?

[DaveH]

You're implying that "bullying" is a concept that's either black or white. I don't think that's the case all the time.

[Junior]

You're implying that "bullying" is a concept that's either black or white. I don't think that's the case all the time.

 

So, I ask where the line is. A 12 page thread in the Woodshed dedicated to how to "deal" with NUPolo8? That's ok?

[Eric the Red]

This was very reassuring. I'm glad it was posted. And my thoughts were reaffirmed. Those banned and/or suspended were so for a reason. ALL of them. And sounds like definitely the first 3. Those thereafter simple acted beyond childish and asked for it. That was last weekend when I just sat back, watched the "show" and spent a lot of time laughing. Just asking to be booted.

 

Other thing is the supposed privacy of PM's and was is now an apparent lack of common sense in it's use. I now laugh at those thinking that admins shouldnt be able to view private messages within this board's domain. I'm no expert, lawyer, or inet wiz, but to me, it's common sense. For those that went off in a PM saying something that they thought wouldnt ever been seen, well, that's too bad.

 

Yeah, we lost a lot of good members. But new ones will arise. These guys came from somewhere at some point.

[Junior]

 

This was very reassuring. I'm glad it was posted. And my thoughts were reaffirmed. Those banned and/or suspended were so for a reason. ALL of them. And sounds like definitely the first 3. Those thereafter simple acted beyond childish and asked for it. That was last weekend when I just sat back, watched the "show" and spent a lot of time laughing. Just asking to be booted.

 

Other thing is the supposed privacy of PM's and was is now an apparent lack of common sense in it's use. I now laugh at those thinking that admins shouldnt be able to view private messages within this board's domain. I'm no expert, lawyer, or inet wiz, but to me, it's common sense. For those that went off in a PM saying something that they thought wouldnt ever been seen, well, that's too bad.

 

Yeah, we lost a lot of good members. But new ones will arise. These guys came from somewhere at some point.

 

 

So why encourage bullying with the woodshed?