'New'/Re-regged accounts becoming mods.

ArmaniJeanss

I've noticed some posters becoming mods with a reasonably small amount of posts and/or short time frame since they registered.

Obviously its plausible that they are 'from scratch' users who've become mods on the merits of that small amount of posting.
Conversely its plausible that they are previous 10K+ posters/mods who closed an account for whatever reason and have re-opened a new account, and a handful of people are privy to their previous username/modship/general boards history.

However its not possible for the 'regular user' like myself to know that a poster who is now a mod was previously a different user or mod.

Does boards have a general policy on this? FWIW whilst I don't think it's a huge deal I don't particularly like it. If I'm dealing with a mod in a mod-hat-on situation I'd like to at least know if I'd had dealings or prior disagreements with the mod before, and be able to see previous modding decisions they made.
Going forward I guess it'll be become a more common occurence with the 'close account' facility, so would be good to know what policy there is (if any).

Just to emphasise I'm not in any dispute or have a particular problem with any such mod at the moment.

Tombi!

I don't see why it would matter if you agreed/disagreed before.
I mean you generally do get to have a back and forward thing with mods if you're disputing so most times it'll be seen if they're picking on you.

Besides, they'll tell who they want to tell. It doesn't really matter who they were before. Plenty of people have upped and left sites for posting too much personal info over the years.

From what I've gathered with some posters or former mods it's down to a privacy thing really. If you're around a long time with a big post count people get to know you.

One example could be if you were working in a job with a superior being someone that also uses Boards but they keep it to outside work hours. They realise who you are on here and see your posts ratio during the day it can say a lot about how much you are using it during work hours which could have a negative effect on your job.

Another example is you want to change your username to avoid other awkward situations. An old account could have been used to post about a sensitive personal issue be it relationship or otherwise which you have since dealt with and you'd rather people didn't know about it going forward as it could have a negative effect on them now.

I think the main issue is privacy which I can totally see and respect in certain situations. I thought about closing my own account and re-regging because a majority of the stuff I used to post about when I first got on here were drinking, gambling and the usual ****e you see in AH. Now I don't drink at all & rarely gamble so when I look back at some old posts it's crazy to see the difference. It's like looking at Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde comparing the two!

It doesn't really bother me. I don't know why said person would have shut down their account - it is not mine to know. But if said person was a good enough mod, then why shouldn't they be made one again? Why would you want to see their previous modding experiences? It isn't really any of your business, I would say.

Femme_Fatale

If someone is only here a wet week and they're made moderator, it should be transparent that they were a long-term user/mod here before. It doesn't need to be said who they were though, IMO.

Otherwise it looks like they became a mod as a new user, which doesn't look right. A moderator is supposed to build up a good reputation as a poster before becoming a mod.

Overheal

Ruubot2 Ruubot2 RUUBOT2!!!

Tombi!

Overheal wrote: »

Ruubot2 Ruubot2 RUUBOT2!!!

I'm still confused about this.
I mean you have this... psychopath that murders the original and takes his identity and then suddenly, Boards let him be a mod.

Pretty disgusting IMO.

No I'm not serious incase anyone wonders

hullaballoo

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I'm still confused about this.
I mean you have this... psychopath that murders the original and takes his identity and then suddenly, Boards let him be a mod.

Pretty disgusting IMO.

No I'm not serious incase anyone wonders

Nobody cares about the machines. Let them fight it out and destroy each other.

Femme_Fatale

RopeDrink wrote: »

It is usually a safe assumption - No Moderator is picked without being known for contribution and a care / love / respect for the Forum(s) they are tied to - If you asked me have I seen a young 'wet week' 'upstart' ever becoming a Moderator, I'd answer that it hasn't visibly happened, not even in the ancient days where this was less a business and more a gaming community board. Honestly - A Forum/Site managed that way would have gone down the toilet long-ago with such risky Mod picking.



And you can be sure they have.

However, I'd like to think, after spending over a decade on Boards, that if I had an incident where my net access was compromised or, for a different example, became dishevelled with the amount of content I myself had posted over such a long period (I've practically grown up on Boards, from teenage cringe-worthy 1337 speak in CS days to posting some pretty personal life dilemma's in PI years ago) to the point where I wanted to regain a bit of anonymity and closed / remade an account - Well, I'd like to think that Boards would recognize that I had dedicated so much time to them and wouldn't hold it against me if I decided to remake an account and start over. The closed account feature being the norm now just cements that - And not just for Mods, but for everyone.

As a long-term User myself, I have never really cared for the stats behind the Moderators of the Forum - Why? Because I've been here long enough to know that while Boards won't be flawless, they certainly do not tread lightly when it comes to the care of their Forums (And being selective of the 'carers' responsible for them).

So if a 'wet week' upstart became a Moderator, they (to me) would most likely be someone who has past experience and a level of trust with the site on a previous account - And I wouldn't ask Boards to 'prove' that to me or 'confirm' it with me.

As an example, I had the pleasure of working with the higher uppers in their task of reinstating someone on their new account to Moderatorship - Said person had previously built up probably four times as many posts as I had and had been a Moderator for years. It didn't bother me that they had a hundred posts on their new account (And that comes from past experience) - But even if I hadn't known them from Adam, I wouldn't have questioned it.

You can be sure anyone selected to be a Moderator has been done so very selectively and through a (not flawless, but) solid system that has served Boards well for years.

You know that, I know that, but what about someone who is new or relatively new to the site? It takes a good while to get a feel for the place. I'm not sure how it work to debunk accusations of "cliques".

I assume the moderator you're referring to is the moderator whose new name alludes to their old name - and that's fine; that's very transparent.

LuckyLloyd

While I understand the site was forced to implement the Close Account option irrespective of whether it agreed with it or not, I would think that it shouldn't encourage it. In my opinion, people should own their online presence and it should have a direct link to who they are as a person. If people are unwilling to do that fair enough, but surely people who are unwilling to own their posting on this site shouldn't be selected as moderators? It automatically indicates a level of flakiness.

hullaballoo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While I understand the site was forced to implement the Close Account option irrespective of whether it agreed with it or not, I would think that it shouldn't encourage it. In my opinion, people should own their online presence and it should have a direct link to who they are as a person. If people are unwilling to do that fair enough, but surely people who are unwilling to own their posting on this site shouldn't be selected as moderators? It automatically indicates a level of flakiness.

That wrongly assumes that the only reason people close their accounts is to abandon ownership of their posts. It may be the case for some people but by no means all.

For example, some people close their account with the intent of leaving permanently, only to find they want back in after some time. Others might close their account because they had a few drinks and thought it was a good idea. There are lots of other reasons than just looking to hide behind anonymity or unwillingness to stand over previous posts.

LuckyLloyd

hullaballoo wrote: »

That wrongly assumes that the only reason people close their accounts is to abandon ownership of their posts. It may be the case for some people but by no means all.

For example, some people close their account with the intent of leaving permanently, only to find they want back in after some time. Others might close their account because they had a few drinks and thought it was a good idea. There are lots of other reasons than just looking to hide behind anonymity or unwillingness to stand over previous posts.

For the bolded, so? Surely that's no different to when people leave a laptop open while on boards in shared accomodation and get banned because someone went on an unfunny trolling spree? Your idiocy, your tough ****.

As for people changing their minds, how can you determine whether that's a genuine excuse or not? Will they change their minds again?

Real issues of privacy / abuse / etc are unfortunate, but in those situations the person taking up a modship on a new handle is surely strange? Are they deliberately changing their posting style to avoid detection? Will they mod differently if there is a genuine issue with them being 'spotted'?

It's not hard to maintain the same account stretching back over a decade. Plenty of people manage to do it without issue. Seems like that should be the example / aspired standard.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For the bolded, so? Surely that's no different to when people leave a laptop open while on boards in shared accomodation and get banned because someone went on an unfunny trolling spree? Your idiocy, your tough ****.

As for people changing their minds, how can you determine whether that's a genuine excuse or not? Will they change their minds again?

Real issues of privacy / abuse / etc are unfortunate, but in those situations the person taking up a modship on a new handle is surely strange? Are they deliberately changing their posting style to avoid detection? Will they mod differently if there is a genuine issue with them being 'spotted'?

It's not hard to maintain the same account stretching back over a decade. Plenty of people manage to do it without issue. Seems like that should be the example / aspired standard.

I stopped using this handle outside of this site a very long time ago. I was getting abuse/minor threats of violence in games, poker, anywhere by some muppet with a grudge from here (though to be fair it was worse as an AH mod than as a Politics mod).

I can really understand someone who is using a handle on here that they use in many other places not wanting to mod any controversial forum on it. I'm lucky in that I could abandon the nesf username in most places without any loss but I learned the hard way to keep my identities as separate as possible to this one. It's a pity as I was using nesf for about 4 or 5 years before I joined boards.

nesf

nesf wrote: »

I stopped using this handle outside of this site a very long time ago. I was getting abuse/minor threats of violence in games, poker, anywhere by some muppet with a grudge from here (though to be fair it was worse as an AH mod than as a Politics mod).

I can really understand someone who is using a handle on here that they use in many other places not wanting to mod any controversial forum on it. I'm lucky in that I could abandon the nesf username in most places without any loss but I learned the hard way to keep my identities as separate as possible to this one. It's a pity as I was using nesf for about 4 or 5 years before I joined boards.

I use this handle on pretty much everything I can do. I'd hate it if people would start doing that as I just wouldn't want to leave it behind - as odd as it seems, it's become a part of me.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While I understand the site was forced to implement the Close Account option irrespective of whether it agreed with it or not, I would think that it shouldn't encourage it. In my opinion, people should own their online presence and it should have a direct link to who they are as a person. If people are unwilling to do that fair enough, but surely people who are unwilling to own their posting on this site shouldn't be selected as moderators? It automatically indicates a level of flakiness.

You're assuming a person leaves only because they want to leave their posts behind - this is completely untrue. Some people leave because they felt their time has finished, some because of other posters, and some, unfortunately, left due to bullying/cliques that formed within boards. So, if those people, who have done nothing wrong and shown that they are good posters, then why shouldn't they be made moderators on their return?

nesf

Deleted User wrote: »

I use this handle on pretty much everything I can do. I'd hate it if people would start doing that as I just wouldn't want to leave it behind - as odd as it seems, it's become a part of me.

Eh. It's just a path of least resistance thing. By using a different name I don't get so much trolling aimed at me. Not a big deal.

Dav

It's a good question OP and a perfectly fair one.

My personal opinions line up alongside some of what you've said Lloyd - I think that closing your account only to come back with a brand new name and trying to distance yourself from who you were is at the very least, an act of flakiness - I'd call it cowardice. If you're not prepared to stand by what you say years after saying it or you're not willing to put your hand up and say "I was wrong/my opinion on this has changed" then that shows very little character - what have you got to hide? If you are so short-sighted that you don't understand that what you post on the internet doesn't disappear, ever, then cancel your broadband subscription, this isn't for you. There is no "nice" way to say that and I don't apologise for being this blunt about it. I've got a 15 year history on this site and I know I've made some absolutely horrifying and in several cases hilariously stupid statements about various things over the years - stuff that I think the polar opposite of now that I'm in my mid thirties. Chances are, in another 15 years when I'm 50 I'll have a different opinion about things again. All that said, the company still gave me the job

OK, putting my "work" hat back on again, I need to point out that is by far from being the main reason for someone closing an account only to come back at a future date though. I know of several people who for many very serious (and some not so serious) reasons simply need to get away from it and the closure of an account is a part of that - it draws a line under it and you get to say "that's that." Some of these reasons are harassment and it's always disappointing that someone would let the idiots win and not give us an option to help them rather than lose them. Sometimes you have the issues that Nesf mentions above too - they're the opposite sides of the same coin. then of course you have people who do it in a fit of whatever emotion - very often if this person comes back, they make no attempt to hide their past identity and have in many cases taken steps to make sure that people know who they are. From a software point of view, we can't "un-do" an account closure (unless we're doing manual database re-writes and we're not going to do that), but were such an option available, I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd exercise that option. I'd like to be able to implement a "cool-down" period on an account closure, but we were told that wasn't legally sound.

However, any person that wants to continue to use the site and avoid the "baggage" of their past can indeed close their account and re-open, and despite my fairly clear personal misgivings of such things, I certainly won't stop them at all. KaG mentioned a lot of very real scenarios and potential problems such as work and relationships, but I'd respectfully suggest that 1) you're not asked to use your real name here (in fact, our Ts & Cs suggest this is a terrible idea) and 2) no one is forcing you to post enough information to let people identify you - we even have unregistered posting for the Work & Jobs section as well as PI and LGBT so you don't have to post as your "real" boards identity.

So what happens when we're talking about Mods as the OP has suggested?

Well I think it's important to remember that Mods don't just get picked at the drop of a hat - they are peer-reviewed and then reviewed by CMods and finally the Admins. If it's not abundantly clear why someone seemingly so new or with so little a post count is modding a forum, please rest assured that we've not just picked a name out of a hat and that whatever reasons there are for this new account being created were genuine.

A fine example of this; we have recently added a Kitesurfing forum in the Sports Category. We were approached by the owner of kitesurfing.ie and asked if we were interested in taking on their forum so that their community still had somewhere to chat as they were closing their doors. aledoux who is the new mod of the forum, whilst not a prolific poster on Boards was the man who ran kitesurfing.ie so he was the obvious choice to bring in as the mod there.

So, again I'd remind you that we simply don't pick anyone to be a mod and if they're a new account, you can be sure we've got a good reason for giving them a thumbs up despite the age of the account.

LuckyLloyd

Dav wrote: »

<Good posting>

So, again I'd remind you that we simply don't pick anyone to be a mod and if they're a new account, you can be sure we've got a good reason for giving them a thumbs up despite the age of the account.

Okay, that all makes sense and it's good to see your personal opinion on the link between online persona and real person. It's also good to see case by case assessments going on.

The next question would then be in terms of the rules around how that lowcount moderator is now treated with respect to their previous history on boards. As far as I'm aware, it is not allowed to question or hint at the previous handle of users who fit straight back into posting on similar topics in a similar style to a closed account. Makes perfect sense why that is the case, and if the Close Account option exists it should work in that way - i.e. for people to forget a previous account and start again for whatever reason (serious or non serious).

However, I would be of the opinion that such a policy should not apply for moderators. They should have to stand over their posting history on the site, but particularly whatever history they have as a moderator in general or as a poster on the forums they are now moderating. As such, posters should be allowed to link the new handle to their previous closed account. Of course this is a fairly obvious point, so no doubt that is already the understood policy but I felt it was worth mentioning nonetheless.

RDM_83 again

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

However, I would be of the opinion that such a policy should not apply for moderators. They should have to stand over their posting history on the site, but particularly whatever history they have as a moderator in general or as a poster on the forums they are now moderating. As such, posters should be allowed to link the new handle to their previous closed account. Of course this is a fairly obvious point, so no doubt that is already the understood policy but I felt it was worth mentioning nonetheless.

Completely agree with the above, for example I can think of one prominent member of the site that used to have multiple feedback threads started about their moderation and biases in a certain forum (this is years ago now)

If they had a desire to I am sure they could probably moderate that forum again as they are a respected poster/member of the site and the majority of the feedback against them was generated by people with a minority view point on that forum, and certainly a absent/minority viewpoint among the moderation team.

If that poster did so as a re-reg all previous evidence of their perceived moderation issues would be absent to the common user.

I am sure the above will be denied and that a moderator would not be selected that has caused issues in the past however as the issues (or perceived issues to be diplomatic) were only coming from posters of a minority viewpoint absent from the moderation team I could honestly easily see it happening.

Why is it necessary to select re-regs that may not be open to revealing their previous username to the general poster at all, is the pool of available and willing posters in most forums not adequate to draw on those that aren;t re-reg's.
If anything doing so in one of the busier forums would certainly reinforce the clique viewpoint

Earthhorse

As a longtime user who hasn't and hasn't had to abandon his account it does - annoy is too strong a word - irk me to know that someone has returned and is moderating a forum based on their previous contributions to boards. It's not that I don't trust them or the admin team - though obviously I don't trust all users or mods on boards and don't always agree with their or admin team decisions; it's actually more like they distrust me. It feels like they know who I am but I'm not to know who they are.

I understand the many valid reasons why people retire accounts and re-reg and I know it's not that they don't trust me explicitly I'm simply saying that's how it feels and if the user-mod-admin dynamic is founded on anything worthwhile then it's trust. But it's got to cut both ways.

I would prefer, where possible, that someone who has had to, or chosen to, close and re-open an account, that an alternative mod be sought for their positions. I realise it's not always easy find new mods, I just think it should be a preference; it's good to get new blood in the site wherever we can.

Earthhorse

Dav wrote: »

I'd like to be able to implement a "cool-down" period on an account closure, but we were told that wasn't legally sound.

That's a good idea. Would it be possible, alongside the existing Close Account option, to have a "Hiatus" button? Effectively a self-banning button for a period of however long - a week, two, three - and that during that time the only other you could do is close your account. Would that absolve your legal obligation, I wonder?

Soft Falling Rain

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While I understand the site was forced to implement the Close Account option irrespective of whether it agreed with it or not, I would think that it shouldn't encourage it. In my opinion, people should own their online presence and it should have a direct link to who they are as a person. If people are unwilling to do that fair enough, but surely people who are unwilling to own their posting on this site shouldn't be selected as moderators? It automatically indicates a level of flakiness.

I think the levelment of flakiness (or cowardice as Dav put it) is quite harsh. Not everyone decides to close their account on a whim or in a drunken stupour.

Personally speaking (and I don't care if people know that I'm a re-reg), I was mulling over closing my original account for months, and I came to the decision for a number of reasons.

LuckyLloyd

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I think the levelment of flakiness (or cowardice as Dav put it) is quite harsh. Not everyone decides to close their account on a whim or in a drunken stupour.

Personally speaking (and I don't care if people know that I'm a re-reg), I was mulling over closing my original account for months, and I came to the decision for a number of reasons.

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to avail of the option. Being entitled to dumping your previous account and becoming a moderator upon your return is a different matter though.

hullaballoo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For the bolded, so? Surely that's no different to when people leave a laptop open while on boards in shared accomodation and get banned because someone went on an unfunny trolling spree? Your idiocy, your tough ****.

Yeah, that's a fair enough point, actually.

I suppose my real point was that people sometimes push the big red button out of temptation and at certain times, like when someone is drunk or down, their will becomes more pliable.

I agree generally with what you're saying, I was just pointing out that running away from one's past isn't the only reason for calling time on an account.

Soft Falling Rain

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to avail of the option. Being entitled to dumping your previous account and becoming a moderator upon your return is a different matter though.

Aye, I'd understand that there's a trust issue there, it personally wouldn't appeal to me anyway.

LuckyLloyd

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yeah, that's a fair enough point, actually.

I suppose my real point was that people sometimes push the big red button out of temptation and at certain times, like when someone is drunk or down, their will becomes more pliable.

I agree generally with what you're saying, I was just pointing out that running away from one's past isn't the only reason for calling time on an account.

Look, the thing is I do accept that there can be genuine reasons for why people would need to dump their account. What I'm failing to understand though, is how those reasons can be real and serious but they then volunteer to thrust themselves back into the spotlight again mere weeks or months later? It's either one thing or the other you know?

And regarding temptation to press buttons, if someone is tempted to close their account with a few drinks on will they be tempted to press the ban button on someone with a few beers on board? Again it just doesn't fit with a profile of reliability and predictability.

Insect Overlord

I can only think of one mod who returned. Were there others that I hadn't noticed?

Dav

I'll let you all in on a secret, when a new mod comes up for review, I'll spend 5 or 10 minutes looking through their post history and reading the recommendations and give a yay or nay and then move on to the next thing and let it go out of my head So with that said, I honestly don't know if it's a case that we're picking a lot of people who've come back after closing an account to be a mod though. I hate to single anyone out in what is a general Feedback thread and issue, but an obvious example is Ruu, but he's made it abundantly clear who he is and was and if ever a man has earned our trust it's him.

I completely understand the point being made by Lloyd and Earthhorse though and I don't just want to dismiss it with a "we'll we're ok with it, you should be to" sort of answer, but I'm really struggling to remember anyone else that would fall into this category. I can only restate that we do look at these things very carefully (my point about it vacating my head immediately not withstanding - everyone else has a much better memory than me). I know I have said no to someone who I knew was a close/re-reg sort of person on the grounds that I figured they were too much of a flake, so it's definitely a factor for me and I don't think the rest of the team would mind my speaking on their behalf when I say it's a factor for them too.

LuckyLloyd

Ruubot is Ruu, he's owning his history, that should be the standard obv.

nesf

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ruubot is Ruu, he's owning his history, that should be the standard obv.

Yeah, but remember, the average boardsie today wouldn't have a bull's notion as to who Ruu was, what they did and what they were like. He might as well be DemonKiller111!1 rather than Ruubot for these people.

5starpool

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but remember, the average boardsie today wouldn't have a bull's notion as to who Ruu was, what they did and what they were like. He might as well be DemonKiller111!1 rather than Ruubot for these people.

Of course, but by the same token those people wouldn't have had a run in with him under his previous guise as mod (not that Ruu ever had any run ins, he is probably impervious from such scurrilous acusations), and if they had they would know who he was.

Mods are meant to act in a bubble with no bias against people they dislike, and many are, or at least are sensible enough to refer things involving those they can't be unbiased against to other mods, but there have been enough things over the years to know that not all mods are.

I think this is not much of an issue at all, but it is certainly an interesting discussion to have. The main point is that the whole 'do not discuss who a person may have been before' policy is in direct contravention to someone who was a mod starting a new account and being a mod again a while later (even if 6-9 months or whatever) and part of the reason is because of who they used to be. I doubt there are many instances of this, and I don't know what made the OP create this thread as I doubt it was about Ruu, but I also can't think of another example. Boards is a big place though with many corners that I've never delved into.

Dades

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, but remember, the average boardsie today wouldn't have a bull's notion as to who Ruu was, what they did and what they were like. He might as well be DemonKiller111!1 rather than Ruubot for these people.

So what would you suggest - Ruu keeps his old moniker in a sig so that general users can assess whether they accept him? I don't think that's owed to anybody.

Like Dav, I can't think of another instance of what the OP pertains to. And the one we do have hardly suggests there's a problem in theory with re-modding someone who has returned to the fold.

nesf

Dades wrote: »

So what would you suggest - Ruu keeps his old moniker in a sig so that general users can assess whether they accept him? I don't think that's owed to anybody.

No, I think quite the opposite actually. Whether or not I knew it was Ruu or not, I'd probably like any account with Ruu behind it and him acting like usual. I'll take an account at the value of its posts, the only time I cared about history was when the person was a serious troublemaker and that's usually because the new account is being a serious troublemaker too.


People get too attached to the names above posts. I mean really, the posts I was making on here 11/12 years ago when I was 20 year old with about a tenth of the life experience than I've picked up since really don't reflect what I'm like now.

ArmaniJeanss

5starpool wrote: »

I think this is not much of an issue at all, but it is certainly an interesting discussion to have. The main point is that the whole 'do not discuss who a person may have been before' policy is in direct contravention to someone who was a mod starting a new account and being a mod again a while later (even if 6-9 months or whatever) and part of the reason is because of who they used to be. I doubt there are many instances of this, and I don't know what made the OP create this thread as I doubt it was about Ruu, but I also can't think of another example. Boards is a big place though with many corners that I've never delved into.

Dades wrote: »

Like Dav, I can't think of another instance of what the OP pertains to. And the one we do have hardly suggests there's a problem in theory with re-modding someone who has returned to the fold.

I was sure I saw one more similar instance a few hours before I started the thread, but haven't been able to find it again. ruubot2 was the other one, and obviously I've no problem with his modding.

I think it was a useful enough discussion anyway on the grounds that it becomes a more likely occurrence as time goes by.

Personally I'd be in the earthhorse/lucky_lloyd camp of it not being a good idea, though it wouldn't keep me awake.

Beasty

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I was sure I saw one more similar instance a few hours before I started the thread, but haven't been able to find it again.

Dav mentioned one case of a new mod with a low post count for the newly created Kitesurfing forum, and explained the reasons why. I have not come across any other examples (and certainly none where a mod who had closed their old account was re-modded under their new one, although it clearly could have happened without anyone ever realinsing someone was a re-reg)

I will mention one other scenario where it may happen in the future. I am aware of a situation where someone asked to be de-modded, for whatever reason, and decided to close their account simply because they wanted to post as a normal user and not as an "ex-mod" and they have been a positive contributor to the forum under their new guise. If that poster came up as a suggestion for modding again under ther new account and I thought they may be interested following an extended break from modding I would not have a problem recommending them to the Admins.

Dades

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I think it was a useful enough discussion anyway on the grounds that it becomes a more likely occurrence as time goes by.

It's a useful discussion, for sure.

The thing to remember is that nobody is going to be re-modded in such circumstances unless they have an exemplary record and would likely be welcomed back by those who recognise them.

The kitesurfing forum is a new scenario and an interesting one. But we reckon that it'll be a great move. And we always have Feedback for when things go pear-shaped.

Earthhorse

The case I'm thinking of was long before the close account feature was introduced. A user with a low post count was made mod and it seemed that they were either a re-reg or known to the other mods in real life. Either way it seemed a little off to me and I always remembered it. Not a big issue as the others have said but that's what I thought of when I saw this thread.

Beasty

I had assumed you were referring to recent incidences. The site has come a long way in recent years and I suspect the procedures for appointiing mods are a lot different from a few years ago.

pablomakaveli

Dav wrote: »

I'd like to be able to implement a "cool-down" period on an account closure, but we were told that wasn't legally sound.

Out of curiosity why is that?

It's a shame it can't be done though as i'd imagine the number of accounts being permanently closed would be reduced drastically if that option was available.

Soft Falling Rain

It's a shame a cooling down period is not legally possible, I'd be willing to wager that a few well known usernames would have been retained if they were given grace of a few days to be sure they were happy with their decision.

Beasty

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Out of curiosity why is that?

IIRC it was down to conditions laid down by the Data Protection Commissioner

Dav

Yea, I think the "cool-down" would definitely have seen a lot of people re-think, but the Commissioner's office said that when you close an account, it has to be "done" and not "pending" as this was the person's request. I will maybe raise it with them again though - I said at the time that the Close Account feature would have a negative impact on the site and they were certainly trying to find a way to work with us on it as the staff in the Data Commissioner's office are generally fans of what we're all doing here (and for what it's worth, I think the people and the ethos in their office are fantastic - Billy Hawkes is a man who puts the individual's rights ahead of business or government at all times and is never afraid to let people know that).

5starpool

It might be a bit too messy, but could there be something put in place such that a user can essentially undo it within a week (or whatever) but if it goes beyond then it can't be undone? I'm not sure if that is the situation that was proposed and rejected or not before, or even how it would work technically (password reset request still possible or something for that duration)?

Dav

That's pretty much what we were proposing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Re the close account could those closing an account not be shown a tick box option along the lines of "Do you wish to avail of a 7 day cooling off period?" if they tick the box they have 7 days to undo the closure of their account, if the don't tick account closure is the immediate.
Might be too messy or difficult just a suggestion.

Dav

I'd say it's redundant - if someone's pressing that proverbial big red button, then saying "you can tick this and we'll give you 7 days to think about it" isn't going to be helpful. If it's going to sway someone, then I'd respectfully suggest that the chances are they didn't want to do it in the first place and they should be showing more self control and just walking away from the site for a week instead.

Posy

I think you can close a facebook account, but reopen it at a later stage with all information, photos etc. in tact, so wouldn't reactivating an account be an option?
(I could be wrong, in which case never mind!) :pac:

Dav

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

h57xiucj2z946q

Dav wrote: »

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

What about your backups? Surely you don't go back and clean out accounts from backup's ? Should *everything* not include user's posts also ?

Gordon

Dav wrote: »

That's quite possibly a completely illegal (in Irish law) practice by Facebook.

You must remove everything - when we close an account we nuke your PM inbox, your avatar, your sig and of course, any details you'd given us in your profile. It must, by law (as it was explained to us), be unrecoverable - making it recoverable means that the data controller is still holding on to the data (otherwise, how could they restore it?) which the person has made it clear that they no longer gave their permission to hold it.

Afair, Facebook does do this, but not immediately. You firstly deactivate your account and then I think you have to wait a week before you are allowed to permanently remove it, ie: delete all the stuff. Their help page states (here) that you fill in a certain form, but I recall having to wait a period of time before I was either given the option to fill the form in, or before they actually removed my account after filling the form in.

Harleigh Many Muffler wrote: »

What about your backups? Surely you don't go back and clean out accounts from backup's ? Should *everything* not include user's posts also ?

Posts aren't personal data.

h57xiucj2z946q

Gordon wrote: »

Afair, Facebook does do this, but not immediately. You firstly deactivate your account and then I think you have to wait a week before you are allowed to permanently remove it, ie: delete all the stuff. Their help page states (here) that you fill in a certain form, but I recall having to wait a period of time before I was either given the option to fill the form in, or before they actually removed my account after filling the form in.


Posts aren't personal data.

But what about the backups?

On Facebook you can deactivate your account and reactivate it months later.