Who can see Private Hosted Forums?

Quazzie

Private Hosted Forums which are invite only I always assumed were private, but who can actually see them?

Do Admins have access to these forums, and if so how often do they exercise the right to access the forum? Do Cat Mods, Mods, also have access?

Liam McPoyle

AFAIK it's only admins & Boards employees that can view private forums, hosted or otherwise.

Gordon

That's correct afaiu. Admins very rarely go into private fora, there is no desire on our part to snoop. But we need to be able to access them just in case.

Quazzie

Gordon wrote: »

That's correct afaiu. Admins very rarely go into private fora, there is no desire on our part to snoop. But we need to be able to access them just in case.

Should Admins announce their arrivals in a similar way to how a landlord has to give notice if he wants to go into his house. Sure the landlord owns the house, but no tenant wants to be watching TV in their sitting room and then suddenly see the landlord walking through the kitchen.

seamus

Quazzie wrote: »

Should Admins announce their arrivals in a similar way to how a landlord has to give notice if he wants to go into his house. Sure the landlord owns the house, but no tenant wants to be watching TV in their sitting room and then suddenly see the landlord walking through the kitchen.

From my time as an Admin I can tell you that private forums don't operate in that way.

Admins can and have stepped in where private forums are breaking sitewide rules, distributing illegal materials, using the forum to co-ordinate bullying behaviour on other forums and a pile of other things.

I don't think those using the forums have any reasonable right to ask for absolute privacy, considering they are users of a service. It's a condition of having a private forum that admins will have access and use it when appropriate.

But rest assured, the admins aren't reading your "When did you first start wearing your Granny's knickers" thread.

Quazzie

seamus wrote: »

But rest assured, the admins aren't reading your "When did you first start wearing your Granny's knickers" thread.

But it's the risk of getting caught that makes it so exciting

Just FYI - I can access your hosted forum quazzie. Not sure if it's meant to be private.

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

Just FYI - I can access your hosted forum quazzie. Not sure if it's meant to be private.

Anyone can see it, ATWR was never private

Dades

Fwiw, I've never even clicked into more than a handful of the hosted forums - and only then when there's reports of behaviour like seamus mentions going on.

Doctor DooM

I've a couple of private forums to my name but the only time I've seen an admin dive in was when I requested it at my wits end over another user who was effectively using one to talk falsehoods (sorry I was watching Knightmare on Challenge the other morning) about me.

Dav

TRUTH ACCEPTED!

Honestly, we've got enough to be looking at without worrying about what people in private forums are talking about unless we're specifically asked to go and look at something.

knucklehead6

Just in relation to hosted private forums, where there is a dispute on Mod actions/banning what is the procedure? Does it go straight from pming mod to Admin level? Or is there an intervening Cmod-like level? or is it a case of Mod action being final?

I'd be happier having at least one layer of oversight myself. We haven't had a requirement for too much mod action over on ODG and any mod action has been taken on board by our users without the need for appealing them.

Added to that the fact that we'd chat amongst ourselves before most mod actions (there are always one or two where it's a case of ACT NOW) but i think it is important for the users (And mods) to know what the stages are.

Lovely Bloke

Surely the private hosted forums are "by invite only" - if someone steps out of line, just boot them. If a P-HMod is acting the bollix, then it's up to the other mod/s to reign him in before the Admin feel the need to intervene.

Although, they aren't all the same, of course. I know of one where only 4 people have reading/posting priveleges (not including Admin/staff), so it hardly needs Admin attention at all.

knucklehead6

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Surely the private hosted forums are "by invite only" - if someone steps out of line, just boot them. If a P-HMod is acting the bollix, then it's up to the other mod/s to reign him in before the Admin feel the need to intervene.

Although, they aren't all the same, of course. I know of one where only 4 people have reading/posting priveleges (not including Admin/staff), so it hardly needs Admin attention at all.

ODG is mostly by request. There are a few users we have invited, through seeing their posts elsewhere on boards but most users there have requested access.

As I said, in ODG we (the mods) chat amongst ourselves and reach a consensus before most mod actions are carried out. I would assume that most mod actions in other forums are the same, but sometimes the user doesn't agree, thus resulting in a DRP, where the user can question whether or not the mod team was correct to infract/ban them.

So if me and the other ODG mods are agreed that someone deserves a month long ban for something, but the user doesn't, then they should they not have the right to appeal? I would think they should.

Lovely Bloke

I could be wrong here, but I don't think Hosted forums come under the remit of DRP, and issues within them shouldn't be posted there.

If they are, then I'd argue that if they are causing issues for the Admin/Staff of Boards.ie, then the platform should simply stop hosting the forum, tell them to go somewhere else.

Hosted forums are essentially for groups of people who Boards kind "rents" space to (free rent, but bear with me), where they as the landlord don't poke around the property, but can kick the tennants out if they cause trouble.

knucklehead6

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

I could be wrong here, but I don't think Hosted forums come under the remit of DRP, and issues within them shouldn't be posted there.

If they are, then I'd argue that if they are causing issues for the Admin/Staff of Boards.ie, then the platform should simply stop hosting the forum, tell them to go somewhere else.

Hosted forums are essentially for groups of people who Boards kind "rents" space to (free rent, but bear with me), where they as the landlord don't poke around the property, but can kick the tennants out if they cause trouble.

You are misunderstanding me, i'm not saying that the hosted forums SHOULD come under the DRP but it would be nice (as a mod of a hosted forum) to know what levels of appeal are available for the users.

Considering most users will not know the difference between a hosted forum (like the Online Dating Group), and a forum (like The Gentlemen's Club where the ODG was born in 3*10000 post threads) then would it not make sense to have some form of established procedure?

Lovely Bloke

Yeah, was misunderstanding.

It seems to me ODG (thanks for spelling it out, had no idea what it stood for) was stuck as a Hosted Forum for reasons other than what I understood Hosted forums, historically, are/were for.

I can also see the need for a proper "Dispute Resolution" channel for a forum like it (and others, if they exist).

The Hill Billy

I would have thought that the Hmods ruling would be sufficient. Using the Landlord analogy- start knocking down walls & the admins step in no matter what, nicking someone's cornflakes & not buying your share of toilet roll - well that's up to the Hmod subletting to the posters.

Asking admins to take on additional DRPs for forums that are, strictly speaking, not their concern is another overhead on an already busy team. Another DRP forum to monitor (I'm sure you wouldn't want to air your laundry in public), plus the hassle of mediation as there are no CMods. Also, given the very diverse nature of the hosted forums I'd imagine that establishing the DRP ground rules would be very difficult.

Dades

The only time we should be hearing about issues in hosted forums is when a user or group of users is engaging in behavior that is unacceptable under the Boards umbrella, and the mods feel it should be brought to the attention of the admins or HQ.

It's up to the mods of the forums to run their own ship, which also includes saying who they allow in or kick out.

Of course we can be contacted with concerns but day to day concerns (including DR type stuff) should be all done in-house as if the forum was on its own.

seamus

Back in my day, when people from private forums started whinging to admins about being banned from private forums, the analogous response from the admins was, "Keep it down back there or nobody gets any ice cream".

In short, if you get banned from a private forum, it's tough ****. If the mod wants to ban everyone and have his own little playforum, he can knock himself out, admins don't really care.

Lovely Bloke

seamus wrote: »

Back in my day, when people from private forums started whinging to admins about being banned from private forums, the analogous response from the admins was, "Keep it down back there or nobody gets any ice cream".

In short, if you get banned from a private forum, it's tough ****. If the mod wants to ban everyone and have his own little playforum, he can knock himself out, admins don't really care.

Yes, that is "how it used to be" back in the halcyon days.

But, a forum like an Online Dating Group probably needs a stricter eye kept on it, well above the usual HForum level, I'd imagine.

It's all well and good for the Model-T Ford Enthusiasts Forum to be left alone, and be referred to as "not really a part of Boards.ie", I mean if one of them dudes crashes his car it's unlikely to make national headlines.

However, an online dating group, using Boards.ie as a platform IS linked to Boards.ie, no matter how many times it gets said in Feedback that HForums aren't a part of the real Boards.ie.

IF something happened to some young innocent girl, and it subsequently came out that she'd met the man who'd done it on the "Boards.ie Dating Site", I can't imagine Dav explaining to the Irish Daily Mail that, well, technically, it's nothing to do with us.

"Boards chief washes hands of dead girl"

Extreme? Maybe, but an online dating group, in particular, is a different animal to most other HForums.

knucklehead6

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

Yes, that is "how it used to be" back in the halcyon days.

But, a forum like an Online Dating Group probably needs a stricter eye kept on it, well above the usual HForum level, I'd imagine.

It's all well and good for the Model-T Ford Enthusiasts Forum to be left alone, and be referred to as "not really a part of Boards.ie", I mean of one of them dudes crashes his car it's unlikely to make national headlines.

However, and online dating group, using Boards.ie as a platform IS linked to Boards.ie, no matter how many times it gets said in Feedback that HForums aren't a part of the real Boards.ie.

IF something happened to some young innocent girl, and it subsequently came out that she'd met the man who'd done it on the "Boards.ie Dating Site", I can't imagine Dav explaining to the Irish Daily Mail that, well, technically, it's nothing to do with us.

"Boards chief washes hands of dead girl"

Just to clarify the ODG isn't a dating site section of boards... just an area where aspects of online dating can be discussed.

And I know you knew that Baldy, I just want to point it out to anyone else who might be reading this thread.

(expects an influx of PM's requesting access)

Lovely Bloke

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Just to clarify the ODG isn't a dating site section of boards... just an area where aspects of online dating can be discussed.

Aaaahhh right.


So kind of "I use XXXDating.Com, anyone else use that - is it just weirdos"? kind of discussions, yes?

knucklehead6 wrote: »

And I know you knew that Baldy, I just want to point it out to anyone else who might be reading this thread.

I actually didn't. I was chatting about the Dating Group with my wife the other night, and I commented "I never thought Boards.ie would get involved with a Dating thing, weird". (even at the time it didn't click ODG=Dating Group)

Incidentally, I actually met my wife at a Boards.ie event, as it happens. So I don't have any inherent opposition to Boards.ie being used as a site where people meet partners, far from it.

knucklehead6

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

So kind of "I use XXXDating.Com, anyone else use that - is it just weirdos"? kind of discussions, yes?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Apart from saying that people who use online dating aren't weirdos!!

Baldy Conscience

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

"Boards chief washes hands of dead girl"

Well. that escalated quickly :eek:

Actually Baldy, without giving away very many details, what you have described simply wouldn't happen. I've seen first hand of the steps the Dav et al will take to protect both the site and its members within private forums so rest assured "it's a private part of the site so it's nothing to do with us" will never be anything uttered by any of the staff.

Private forums must comply with the main sitewide rules e.g. no porn, illegal activities etc but the house rules are to be agreed and enforced by the hmods, that's why it's best to have a team of hmods rather than just the one. Three I think is the optimum number. Admin should only have to get involved in exceptional circumstances. Private forums should run themselves and there should be minimal modding required, each member of the forum should have equal responsibility in keeping the forum tidy and hmods should rarely have to intervene.

Lovely Bloke

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually Baldy, without giving away very many details, what you have described simply wouldn't happen. I've seen first hand of the steps the Dav et al will take to protect both the site and its members within private forums so rest assured "it's a private part of the site so it's nothing to do with us" will never be anything uttered by any of the staff. .

So have I

cyberwolf77

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I've a couple of private forums to my name but the only time I've seen an admin dive in was when I requested it at my wits end over another user who was effectively using one to talk falsehoods (sorry I was watching Knightmare on Challenge the other morning) about me.

That was a thoroughly unpleasant time

5starpool

Dav wrote: »

TRUTH ACCEPTED!

Honestly, we've got enough to be looking at without worrying about what people in private forums are talking about unless we're specifically asked to go and look at something.

This is incorrect.

There is a private forum that I post in, and an admin posted a warning today for a post that was made a while ago. Obviously I can't be sure but there is almost no chance this posted was reported or any admin was asked to specifically look into it, yet Beruthiel (named as she is so cavalier with privacy) waded in feet first as usual.

The post in question was saying that a non member (a mod of a forum, but that is irrelevant in this case) does something like a w*nker. It was essentially a standalone post with a couple of other things discussing them said. That's it, there was no overspill, no threats to do anything anywhere else on the site, nothing, yet Beruthiel felt the need to come in and threaten to close down the private hosted forum.

I know as well as any that if needs be these forums are liable to enforcement of sitewide rules by admins, and we all accept that as a condition of existence. For full disclosure there was a thing 5 ago in there (before I was a member) where Devore (rightly in that case) gave them a severe dressing down for breach of rules. After that things were tightened up, and in the 5 years since I've been in there no admin has had reason to look in there as far as I know.

However, I am pretty sure that in lots of private forums on here there are throwaway remarks made calling people outside of the forum names. If certain admins are monitoring certain forums and reading back through threads looking for things outside of boards rules we should be made aware of this.

This is how people/communities get driven from this site with 'input' from this by people like Beruthiel.

No one on here has a right to privacy, I understand that, but in this case it seems to have been a flagrant disregard for even the basic pretence of privacy.

Quazzie

I agree with 5starpool. The very reason I started this thread was because an Admin showed up in the "Currently active users" on the bottom. I just thought it was a bit odd that an Admin would be in looking at private forums with no apparent reason.

It really made me wonder are we wrong in assuming that what we post in there is private and how big is the audience.

Mitch Connor

5starpool wrote: »

This is incorrect.

There is a private forum that I post in, and an admin posted a warning today for a post that was made a while ago. Obviously I can't be sure but there is almost no chance this posted was reported or any admin was asked to specifically look into it, yet Beruthiel (named as she is so cavalier with privacy) waded in feet first as usual.

The post in question was saying that a non member (a mod of a forum, but that is irrelevant in this case) does something like a w*nker. It was essentially a standalone post with a couple of other things discussing them said. That's it, there was no overspill, no threats to do anything anywhere else on the site, nothing, yet Beruthiel felt the need to come in and threaten to close down the private hosted forum.

I know as well as any that if needs be these forums are liable to enforcement of sitewide rules by admins, and we all accept that as a condition of existence. For full disclosure there was a thing 5 ago in there (before I was a member) where Devore (rightly in that case) gave them a severe dressing down for breach of rules. After that things were tightened up, and in the 5 years since I've been in there no admin has had reason to look in there as far as I know.

However, I am pretty sure that in lots of private forums on here there are throwaway remarks made calling people outside of the forum names. If certain admins are monitoring certain forums and reading back through threads looking for things outside of boards rules we should be made aware of this.

This is how people/communities get driven from this site with 'input' from this by people like Beruthiel.

No one on here has a right to privacy, I understand that, but in this case it seems to have been a flagrant disregard for even the basic pretence of privacy.

Should also be noted that at the time it was specifically said that we could call anyone on the site anything, as long as the users didn't use the private forum as a platform for organised bullying or the like - this statement has been proven to be a lie (even so far as you can't say a trait a user displays is w@nkerish)

Lovely Bloke

Quazzie wrote: »

It really made me wonder are we wrong in assuming that what we post in there is private and how big is the audience.

You are absolutely, 100% wrong in assuming that, and the audience is all the Admins, Staff, plus the "special status" normal users who have Admin acces that is not indicated, their name is not in bold/italics. I am aware of at least one user in the past who was like this, I am not aware of any at the moment.

although, in fairness, no Admin has ever said they they do not have access, but they have said that they don't snoope without "good reason" - this morning that has proven not to be the case.

A three week old post was dug up, and a warning issued, pretty much a threat that the forum would be closed.

A non-member of the private forum's posting style was described thusly

X does Y like a wanker

on the 21st January 2014.

This morning - how many weeks later? 3? - an Admin picked that post out, and issued the warning.

Even though, at a previous time, DeVore stated in the forum that it WAS acceptable to

have your opinions of anyone you like, you can sit in here and b*tch and whinge about who you think is a knob end

Nobody from the Admin side stated to us that that had changed, it's the model we've been operating under, and if anything even looked like it was going to spill out into "public" it was nipped in the but straightaway by a VERY viginant mod team there.

Quazzie

Baldy Conscience wrote: »

You are absolutely, 100% wrong in assuming that, and the audience is all the Admins, Staff, plus the "special status" normal users who have Admin acces that is not indicated, their name is not in bold/italics. I am aware of at least one user in the past who was like this, I am not aware of any at the moment.

I always knew they had access but I was under the impression that it was only be used in the role of their admin duties. Seeing an admin browsing around when there has been no need at all for them did seem very much like snooping.

Fratton Fred

It would appear more likely to see an admin in a private forum than in feedback these days.

dr.bollocko

If you don't allow people to insult non members of your private forum then, you know, problem solved.

Fratton Fred

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If you don't allow people to insult non members of your private forum then, you know, problem solved.

Why stop there, why not just ban any form of insults all together, member or non member.

Hell, the comments made would barely have earned an infraction elsewhere and to be honest, the mod would probably laugh at it anyway.

This was seagull moderating from an admin.

dr.bollocko

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why stop there, why not just ban any form of insults all together, member or non member.

Hell, the comments made would barely have earned an infraction elsewhere and to be honest, the mod would probably laugh at it anyway.

This was seagull moderating from an admin.

From a practical point of view an admin is not going to go reading every post made in a private forum to look to be offended.

Any private forum I've ever been a member of the core rule is always no insulting non-members. There are a number of good reasons for that rule being there. I'm sure you're aware, why bother going into it.

Now I didn't see the post in question where somebody called a non-member a wanker, (insinuated it) but the term wanker does sound somewhat insulting. You can't really turn it around so much. It's not complimentary.

There is a certain level of responsibility that each private forum has to adhere to the rules of boards as a whole. And, you know, digs made in private can lead us down a bad road.

I would wager that the reason the warning was made was to ensure that this is nipped in the bud.

Not having seen the post or the warning, but having been privy to similar before, I would think it best to accept, perhaps in private, that the post may have crossed the line (Perhaps there's a pattern - I just don't know) and also accept that the freedom to post away from the eyes of non-members is there - however you may still be called to account by those tasked with keeping things in check for your posts. Ergo, snip any discussion of non-members that could lead down a bad road.

That way, problems like this don't happen in future. They don't get reported to admins and nobody has to worry.

If you want true privacy and that's a must, I would think that the only way you're going to do that away from admin eyes is by taking the forum off of boards.ie... As other groups have done in the past. I'm not saying "If you don't like it, GTFO", however, as a practical concern, if you don't trust the admins who have access automatically then your problem with your group is not going to be resolved here in feedback.

5starpool

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If you don't allow people to insult non members of your private forum then, you know, problem solved.

DeVore himself mentioned 5 years ago that if people wanted to do that and it remained in there, that's no problem. Hiding behind an inappropriate (in this case) rule is usually what happens in cases like this, and true to form Dav posted to say that due to the one incident 5 years ago that particular forum was being monitored more closely than others.

We don't expect any sort of anything approaching an apology or admittance of overstepping boundaries, but the long and the short of it is that admins can and do read what they like. Not all of course, but it is not something that only happens when things are reported.

This was a nothing issue. The particular private forum is populated by about 30 or so mostly long serving members, and nothing close to the incident 5 years ago has occurred since.

Dr B's post is far too simplistic, and high-horse-like. How would the admin in question have seen a non reported post without some sustained snooping?

Lovely Bloke

Nobody was called a Wanker though.

Nobody got abused.

Ad Admin was snooping, found a three week old post and used it as an excuse to weild some power.

Dr B, you won't know this, but the Admins will, seeing as they've admitted to regularly reading the forum to make sure all is tickety-boo.

If ANYTHING ever looks like it might even have the slimmest possibility of moving out into the wider boards community, posters are reminded of the "incident". Usually in a jocular fashion, but still, it's there, it's to the forefront of everyone's posting in that forum, and a line is not crossed. That line was drawn by DeVore, it is NEVER crossed - the Admins, of course, know this. Actually, if anyone posts a link to a post on Boards with a "lol, look at this post" very few comments are passed in the forum, and in fact, there is usually zero interaction in or around the post/forum linked, simply because once anything is raised within the confines of the private forum, it is abundantly clear that it is now no longer kosher for any member of the forum to interact in any way with what has been linked - that is simply just in case it blows up, nothing has been "started" in the private forum, and if you mess up, you don't bring the whole private forum with you. It's how we operate, it's how we were told to operate by Admin, and now we are being threatened with closure because of it. It's pretty shítty that people have posted some pretty personal stuff in there, thinking that Admin would only post or read under the auspices which Dav posted above in this thread. In fact, we now find out that they have been snooping around for 5 years.

How is that good? We were told the incident was, essentially, closed. DeVore gave his judgement and we all (we thought) moved on. Now we find out that is not the case.

Not cool.

So why was one post, three weeks old, singled out like this?

Lovely Bloke

dr.bollocko wrote: »

They don't get reported to admins and nobody has to worry

I don't know if it wasn't made clear, or what, but nothing was reported to an Admin, nobody asked Admin to get involved, and they've actually told us that they've been "monitoring" the forum for 5 years, and we didn't know about it.

So, in effect, the post that Dav posted above didn't apply to our private hosted forum at all, and the only people who knew that were the Admins.

The Admins have also seemingly moved the goalposts on the rules we are supposed to operate under, again, without telling us. And they have used those moved goalposts to issue a threat of closure.

I fail to see what we've done wrong here, in fact, we've gone over and above what was asked of us, and still, here we are.

Spud83

My main concern is this is something that wasn't brought to the admins attention, and it wasn't something they seen be accidentally clicking into a thread or link. It was a three week old post, the conversation in thread had long since moved on, and yet the admin still came across it and found it necessary to post a warning about it.

To me it means that admins are deliberately reading private forums, which is against what was stated here, and it is to highlight to other private forums that this kind of activity is ongoing.

We know we won't get much feedback here, and I would expect any feedback regarding our issue with the admins to be dealt with within our own forum. This is to highlight to general private forums that this kind of activity does go on, even though it has been stated otherwise that is all.

Ken.

Spud83 wrote: »

My main concern is this is something that wasn't brought to the admins attention, and it wasn't something they seen be accidentally clicking into a thread or link. It was a three week old post, the conversation in thread had long since moved on, and yet the admin still came across it and found it necessary to post a warning about it.

To me it means that admins are deliberately reading private forums, which is against what was stated here, and it is to highlight to other private forums that this kind of activity is ongoing.

We know we won't get much feedback here, and I would expect any feedback regarding our issue with the admins to be dealt with within our own forum. This is to highlight to general private forums that this kind of activity does go on, even though it has been stated otherwise that is all.

How do you know it wasn't reported by someone?. I don't know the ins and outs of reported posts on hosted forums. Can you as a mod see reported posts like normal mods or is it different?.

Quazzie

ken wrote: »

How do you know it wasn't reported by someone?. I don't know the ins and outs of reported posts on hosted forums. Can you as a mod see reported posts like normal mods or is it different?.

HMods can't see the reported posts forums but they are notified when a post is reported.

Ken.

Quazzie wrote: »

HMods can't see the reported posts forums but they are notified when a post is reported.

Ok. Was just wondering what way it worked.

Trojan

I'm an admin. Here's some times when I read private forum posts:

1) I'm a member of the forum.

2) Someone links me directly to a post, thread or forum. This may be innocuous (friendly "this is cool") or investigative (report from PM, Clinic thread, etc). Usually for the former, I often don't even notice it's a private forum, for the latter I usually do.

3) I'm looking at a user's post history for some reason, usually investigative. This might be based on a PM report, a reported post, a DRP, or they might be up for a mod nomination. This is occasionally innocuous, someone wrote something interesting and I check their back posts to see what else they posted, but as a logged in admin I will see more than a regular user will do. Note that quoted posts can often come to attention this way.

4) There's a discussion thread in admin forum about a user, post, thread or forum. This is kind of a subset of (2) but worth mentioning explicitly. Almost every incident and "-gate" has a thread about it, sometimes multiple threads. Sometimes these languish in the admin forum history, sometimes they're bumped to the front page because something relevant may have happened. Sometimes they are bumped not because of the forum itself, but because a username was searched and returned posts from that thread in the results, it was replied to, etc.

5) I accidentally find a post via search of some kind.

Apart from the above, I don't specifically look at other private forums, threads or posts. There's simply too many forums and posts, for one thing. But as an admin, I can't guarantee that I won't see them.

If a private forum is brought to my attention for any reason, it's almost guaranteed that at the very least I'll look at the titles of the threads on the forum homepage, and possibly post contents of those threads, depending. One time I did come across a private forum where there was an explicit "admin please read me" sticky, which asked admins not to read the forum contents. I honoured that request because I had no need to read it and it was a fair request. That said, if someone had reported something in that forum I'd ignore it in order to carry out any necessary admin tasks.

TL;DR: don't normally bother with private forums, unless they're flagged, in which case I'll almost certainly look at posts there.

Fratton Fred

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a practical point of view an admin is not going to go reading every post made in a private forum to look to be offended.

Any private forum I've ever been a member of the core rule is always no insulting non-members. There are a number of good reasons for that rule being there. I'm sure you're aware, why bother going into it.

Now I didn't see the post in question where somebody called a non-member a wanker, (insinuated it) but the term wanker does sound somewhat insulting. You can't really turn it around so much. It's not complimentary.

There is a certain level of responsibility that each private forum has to adhere to the rules of boards as a whole. And, you know, digs made in private can lead us down a bad road.

I would wager that the reason the warning was made was to ensure that this is nipped in the bud.

Not having seen the post or the warning, but having been privy to similar before, I would think it best to accept, perhaps in private, that the post may have crossed the line (Perhaps there's a pattern - I just don't know) and also accept that the freedom to post away from the eyes of non-members is there - however you may still be called to account by those tasked with keeping things in check for your posts. Ergo, snip any discussion of non-members that could lead down a bad road.

That way, problems like this don't happen in future. They don't get reported to admins and nobody has to worry.

If you want true privacy and that's a must, I would think that the only way you're going to do that away from admin eyes is by taking the forum off of boards.ie... As other groups have done in the past. I'm not saying "If you don't like it, GTFO", however, as a practical concern, if you don't trust the admins who have access automatically then your problem with your group is not going to be resolved here in feedback.

It was nipped in the bud though. There was a total of nine posts on the subject, two of which were digs at a moderator, two were in his defence and the rest slagging the poster that made the remarks. The thread then moved on to completely unrelated subjects.

This was three weeks ago. The bud was nipped. This morning an admin threatened to close the forum down when at the very most all it needed was a "hey lads, don't do this again".

5starpool

Trojan wrote: »

I'm an admin. Here's some times when I read private forum posts:

1) I'm a member of the forum.

2) Someone links me directly to a post, thread or forum. This may be innocuous (friendly "this is cool") or investigative (report from PM, Clinic thread, etc). Usually for the former, I often don't even notice it's a private forum, for the latter I usually do.

3) I'm looking at a user's post history for some reason, usually investigative. This might be based on a PM report, a reported post, a DRP, or they might be up for a mod nomination. This is occasionally innocuous, someone wrote something interesting and I check their back posts to see what else they posted, but as a logged in admin I will see more than a regular user will do. Note that quoted posts can often come to attention this way.

4) There's a discussion thread in admin forum about a user, post, thread or forum. This is kind of a subset of (2) but worth mentioning explicitly. Almost every incident and "-gate" has a thread about it, sometimes multiple threads. Sometimes these languish in the admin forum history, sometimes they're bumped to the front page because something relevant may have happened. Sometimes they are bumped not because of the forum itself, but because a username was searched and returned posts from that thread in the results, it was replied to, etc.

Apart from the above, I don't specifically look at other private forums, threads or posts. There's simply too many forums and posts, for one thing. But as an admin, I can't guarantee that I won't see them.

If a private forum is brought to my attention for any reason, it's almost guaranteed that at the very least I'll look at the titles of the threads on the forum homepage, and possibly post contents of those threads, depending. One time I did come across a private forum where there was an explicit "admin please read me" sticky, which asked admins not to read the forum contents. I honoured that request because I had no need to read it and it was a fair request. That said, if someone had reported something in that forum I'd ignore it in order to carry out any necessary admin tasks.

TL;DR: don't normally bother with private forums, unless they're flagged, in which case I'll almost certainly look at posts there.

Since you are here, and I know you have been in for a look in the forum in question today, do you think there was a need to post a warning today, especially considering that in the resolution of the only single incident in there that warranted admin intervention people were told they could bitch and moan about outside members in there to their hearts content? Alternatively do you believe DeV was wrong, or that in the intervening time what is acceptable in private forums has changed, but people were not told?

Trojan

I don't know how that post "came to admin attention" to use an awful phrase, but it could have been any of the reasons I listed above. When you ask do I think there was a need to post a warning today, well if the implication there is that it would have been ok 3 weeks ago - i.e. when it was posted - but not now 3 weeks later, I'd disagree, it's either deserved or not deserved, which I'll address below. (The other thing is that the 3 week delay shows you that there is not real time admin monitoring.)

You said there was only a single incident there that warranted admin intervention, it might be more true to say that there was only a single incident that warranted admin attention that you're aware has been flagged to admin. There may be many more incidents there that warrant admin intervention, that may or may not have been flagged to our attention. At this point I haven't looked at the forum in any detail, just a cursory glance at that particular thread.

Regarding DeV's position, well I disagree with him on occasion, and this is one for sure. Personally I don't think any private forum should be allowed slag off another user outside the forum, we've seen where that's ended up in the past and it's not a good place.

And on that basis, is it official policy, is that deserved, and if so why were people not told? I don't think it's official policy, but I could be wrong on that. Perhaps it should be, although when introducing rules and policy, there are always concerns about complexity and rules lawyering - I much prefer the old school "don't be a dick" rule of thumb. This is the most heavily moderated forum in Ireland, and it's the most successful by many measures. Is there a direct relationship between the protection of users in this way, and the success of the site? I'd suggest there is. I'm a libertarian leftie in many ways, which makes this an interesting one to think about.

What about you, do you think it should allowed?

LoLth

Actually this opens up an interesting topic for discussion:

what is a Private forum?

is it:
a: a forum safe from random wandering users

or

b: a section of the site marked as inaccessible to site users that have no need to access it

or

c: a section of the site that is completely exempt from any all site policies or rules and so does not fall under the responsibility of the site admins or staff when it comes to content.

---

with respect to the issues raised:

no, no one was called a wanker, it was just posted that they sign off their posts like a wanker. they were called a tit and told to **** off in two other posts. And this isn't the first of the "lets discuss other users posting styles/habits and have a group hate-in about people who cannot defend themselves or know that they are being spoken about".

I dont follow football, I don't read PFJ but given this event I had a quick scan. A very quick flick through and I see:

users being ordered to never report a post for fear of admins seeing it.

mods giving moderator forum details to non-mod users (very minor details but still, makes me wonder what level of detail would be considered not-ok to share in a private forum)

links to streaming sites. Not allowed elsewhere on the site.

Grammar Nazi type posts, also not allowed elsewhere posted up with a link for other to join in the ridicule.

User private messages posted on thread without the other users' permission
Then that user discussed and repeatedly called a lot worse than "wanker" as well as repeated laughing and joking about how they get badly treated in other forums.

---

lets be clear here. I don't WANT to read PFJ. Ever. Its on a topic I don't care about and it seems like its populated by a clique that I really don't want to be part of. I'm sure the posts were fun at the time and are described as "harmless" but reading back on them, I'm genuinely concerned that they may not be harmless and could be considered inciteful.

so please, no high horses here and no pretending that some complete innocence has been lost.

---

generally , users and mods don't see private forums. Private forums can have a "don't tell" policy enforced by the members - we've seen it already in PFJ (post reported for racism , panic because the admins will see it, reporter who did it for a laugh called lots of names and berated by his peers ?) and we saw it in the Thunderdome - lots of post about the "rat" and accusations flying. That forum was ultimately closed down because of content that had gone unnoticed by the admins because it went unreported by the users. So, yes, things have changed. Damn right they have. I wont take responsibility for content like the thunderdome again and if that means having to skim forums to satisfy myself that everything is ok, then so be it.

What if someone posts something illegal and the rest let it go or, worse, participate and it becomes the acceptable level of interaction? Who is responsible for that content? Does boards.ie have any responsibility? who is charged with looking after the site and its reputation?

As I said, I generally don't read private forums, I have no interest in them and neither do most of the staff or admins. Thing is, we have to to make sure everything is ticking over. A post from 3 weeks ago was commented on by an admin. what does that say? that admins are constantly monitoring posts in private forums? or we didn't know about it until 3 weeks after the fact? Which is it? We cant be berated for constant snooping along with belated reaction times dragging up incidents from the past.

To me, and I think this is the way it should be: Private forum = safe from random users wandering in. NOT hidden from admins or staff who need to check at irregular intervals to ensure nothing bad is going on.

If you want a fully private forum that the boards.ie admins wont look at, then I suggest you host one somewhere else. If I'm signing my name to take responsibility for content then I'm going to do whatever it takes to ensure I do that job correctly and if its on boards.ie then it falls under my remit as an administrator of the forum and it falls under Beruthiel's (who has every right to post a reprimand and no, doesnt laugh about it because she is not the cartoon villain some people like to paint her as because of unrelated incidents in the past) remit and Dav's as a member of staff.

5starpool

Trojan wrote: »

I don't know how that post "came to admin attention" to use an awful phrase, but it could have been any of the reasons I listed above. When you ask do I think there was a need to post a warning today, well if the implication there is that it would have been ok 3 weeks ago - i.e. when it was posted - but not now 3 weeks later, I'd disagree, it's either deserved or not deserved, which I'll address below. (The other thing is that the 3 week delay shows you that there is not real time admin monitoring.)

You said there was only a single incident there that warranted admin intervention, it might be more true to say that there was only a single incident that warranted admin attention that you're aware has been flagged to admin. There may be many more incidents there that warrant admin intervention, that may or may not have been flagged to our attention. At this point I haven't looked at the forum in any detail, just a cursory glance at that particular thread.

Regarding DeV's position, well I disagree with him on occasion, and this is one for sure. Personally I don't think any private forum should be allowed slag off another user outside the forum, we've seen where that's ended up in the past and it's not a good place.

And on that basis, is it official policy, is that deserved, and if so why were people not told? I don't think it's official policy, but I could be wrong on that. Perhaps it should be, although when introducing rules and policy, there are always concerns about complexity and rules lawyering - I much prefer the old school "don't be a dick" rule of thumb. This is the most heavily moderated forum in Ireland, and it's the most successful by many measures. Is there a direct relationship between the protection of users in this way, and the success of the site? I'd suggest there is. I'm a libertarian leftie in many ways, which makes this an interesting one to think about.

What about you, do you think it should allowed?

Thanks for the reply. The fact of it being 3 weeks old isn't really part of my problem with it.

I'm not a fan of too rigid rules, and I'm generally all for the old fashioned "don't be a dick" rule as the overarching principal.

However in this particular case, someone basically said "this guy posting like this is ridiculous, f*ck off!", and someone else said "he does X like a w*nker". That is pretty much it with very little other discussion going on around it and some positive posts about that person too. If there was a concerted set of posts or a thread demonising a person that would be different, but it doesn't happen. Occasionally A.N. Other poster will be called a twat or whatever, but that's about it. I think that for a private forum that is more than fine. There is a line, certainly, but this is far behind it. I would be amazed if similar low levels of this did not go on in other private forums as well.

Xavi6

Ah so the gloves are off and we're naming the forum involved now as well as what else goes on there?

Sound

Fratton Fred

Trojan, at the risk of "being a dick", Bertie Ahern would be proud of that answer.

How did the particular post come to the attention of the admins that intervention was required at 7:45am three weeks after the event?

Did the post in question warrant that level of intervention?