And no one had a problem with this at the time. Also, wasn't veritas outted as ruther/sept just for funsies? I don't recall her starting any drama as veritas when it was revealed who she was.
I'll admit to being in on that drama. Didn't have a problem at the time because I was participating in it. Upon further reflection what happened to her was just as wrong as the TWW thread situation. If she wasn't banned for being malicious then let the drama play out but no to Admins doing the checks and outing.
ETA I think I was hungry for drama that day cause I definitely remember going HAM on her. That was wrong.
+1 to this, involved & thirsty for the dramaz that day. It was my suggestion to admin to check her IP, but looking back yeah, it's crossing a line. If she wants to start fresh with another AE, have at it. I was being a bitch that day & I'm sorry.
Number One: Born 06.16.2009 BFP: 01.17.2014 / MC 02.05.2014 BFP: 03.08.2014 / MMC: 05.07.2014 Dx: Partial Molar/GTD. Benched until 01.2015 Number Two: Born 07.22.2016
I'll admit to being in on that drama. Didn't have a problem at the time because I was participating in it. Upon further reflection what happened to her was just as wrong as the TWW thread situation. If she wasn't banned for being malicious then let the drama play out but no to Admins doing the checks and outing.
ETA I think I was hungry for drama that day cause I definitely remember going HAM on her. That was wrong.
+1 to this, involved & thirsty for the dramaz that day. It was my suggestion to admin to check her IP, but looking back yeah, it's crossing a line. If she wants to start fresh with another AE, have at it. I was being a bitch that day & I'm sorry.
So I see in the TOU updates it was mentioned what will happen to the AEs that are created by the same person in which they are acting like they are all different people.
Did I miss the part that explains how admins will come to that conclusion? Like are they just gonna check members/ips whatever whenever they are suspicious? Or whenever someone asks?
I just don't see where its explained how they will come to the conclusion that a person has multiple AE accounts.
Or am I to assume that part was left out intentionally because that's not up for discussion/debate?
Typically someone else reports a user as suspicious, usually another user or a moderator. Although in the past one user did create multiple accounts over a period of minutes which triggered a red flag in our security panel. We look into it typically using the "member" button discussed and we will PM or ban accordingly based upon those results. We will be keeping the information found to ourselves, unless there is a reason that a forum moderator might also need to know, such as an issue on a board they are moderating that we need them to keep an eye on. I hope that helps to answer your question!
Post by frankenboom on Nov 29, 2016 18:03:28 GMT -5
So if someone who wasn't banned but left under not good circumstances makes a new SN (AE), is asked if they're the previous poster and denies it, and someone reports this to Admins because their spidey senses are tingled this person can be warned or banned? NariaDreamingtheophaniabibliothecary
Also, how are you defining funny AEs? Lungbutter specifically comes to mind. I assume made to be funny but very much not funny and actually verging on gross most of the time.
Post by lupineaura on Nov 29, 2016 18:03:30 GMT -5
I see the TOU have been updated, so these comments are a little late. Feel free to ignore this unasked-for advice.
You (admins) do not need to come to decisions about TOU/culture of the board/bigger issues so SUPER QUICK. We know you are listening to us. Posting this thread to changing the TOU in under a day is fast. I actually don't think that's necessarily a good thing- please do take time to meet (I'm guessing virtually) and carefully consider all of your options. Have someone play the bad guy and think of all the "what ifs?" of a situation. I'm not saying you haven't met (clearly you have) or been careful (I think you generally are) but don't feel pressured to just quick post an update with a decision. Take time to deliberate.
This isn't the first time an important, general board-wide poll/discussion has been posted and closed in under a day. Just know that when you do that, you are sampling only your most devoted members and those who happen to check in during the time of the poll. If you really want to survey the feelings of your members, I would recommend AT LEAST 24 hours. Many people can only check TCF once a day (or less) and if it's the wrong time of day, they miss out on giving their input. I'm not saying you have to survey your members about board changes, but if you do, give people a chance to respond.
I see the TOU have been updated, so these comments are a little late. Feel free to ignore this unasked-for advice.
You (admins) do not need to come to decisions about TOU/culture of the board/bigger issues so SUPER QUICK. We know you are listening to us. Posting this thread to changing the TOU in under a day is fast. I actually don't think that's necessarily a good thing- please do take time to meet (I'm guessing virtually) and carefully consider all of your options. Have someone play the bad guy and think of all the "what ifs?" of a situation. I'm not saying you haven't met (clearly you have) or been careful (I think you generally are) but don't feel pressured to just quick post an update with a decision. Take time to deliberate.
This isn't the first time an important, general board-wide poll/discussion has been posted and closed in under a day. Just know that when you do that, you are sampling only your most devoted members and those who happen to check in during the time of the poll. If you really want to survey the feelings of your members, I would recommend AT LEAST 24 hours. Many people can only check TCF once a day (or less) and if it's the wrong time of day, they miss out on giving their input. I'm not saying you have to survey your members about board changes, but if you do, give people a chance to respond.
Thanks again for all of the hard work you do.
The change to the TOU was planned because the situation was popping up too much to not be addressed. We just wanted to know how the community felt it should be addressed which is what the poll was for. We had already determined our options in advance and from there it was fairly simple to add the clarifications in the appropriate places of the TOU (which AEs are okay and which are not). It's something we should have had in there before honestly we just did not foresee how much of an issue people using multiple accounts would become.
The poll was up for over 24 hours though and with the number of members that responded and the percentage of each response statistically speaking it's clear that the majority of the board preferred a PM sent to outing an AE. If it had been a closer vote, then we would have kept it open, but there was a clear winner.
I see the TOU have been updated, so these comments are a little late. Feel free to ignore this unasked-for advice.
You (admins) do not need to come to decisions about TOU/culture of the board/bigger issues so SUPER QUICK. We know you are listening to us. Posting this thread to changing the TOU in under a day is fast. I actually don't think that's necessarily a good thing- please do take time to meet (I'm guessing virtually) and carefully consider all of your options. Have someone play the bad guy and think of all the "what ifs?" of a situation. I'm not saying you haven't met (clearly you have) or been careful (I think you generally are) but don't feel pressured to just quick post an update with a decision. Take time to deliberate.
This isn't the first time an important, general board-wide poll/discussion has been posted and closed in under a day. Just know that when you do that, you are sampling only your most devoted members and those who happen to check in during the time of the poll. If you really want to survey the feelings of your members, I would recommend AT LEAST 24 hours. Many people can only check TCF once a day (or less) and if it's the wrong time of day, they miss out on giving their input. I'm not saying you have to survey your members about board changes, but if you do, give people a chance to respond.
Thanks again for all of the hard work you do.
The change to the TOU was planned because the situation was popping up too much to not be addressed. We just wanted to know how the community felt it should be addressed which is what the poll was for. We had already determined our options in advance and from there it was fairly simple to add the clarifications in the appropriate places of the TOU (which AEs are okay and which are not). It's something we should have had in there before honestly we just did not foresee how much of an issue people using multiple accounts would become.
The poll was up for over 24 hours though and with the number of members that responded and the percentage of each response statistically speaking it's clear that the majority of the board preferred a PM sent to outing an AE. If it had been a closer vote, then we would have kept it open, but there was a clear winner.
Oh, look at me, mixing up a.m. and p.m.
It's been a day. I gave my maiden name to a customer service rep today...I've been married since 2010.
I'm sorry, and withdraw my suggestion re: the polls
So if someone who wasn't banned but left under not good circumstances makes a new SN (AE), is asked if they're the previous poster and denies it, and someone reports this to Admins because their spidey senses are tingled this person can be warned or banned? NariaDreamingtheophaniabibliothecary
Also, how are you defining funny AEs? Lungbutter specifically comes to mind. I assume made to be funny but very much not funny and actually verging on gross most of the time.
We would look into the situation and make sure only one active account was being used. They would be requested to choose one account and use it. If they left under questionable circumstances then those situations would have to be judged individually.
As for what's funny, we're really splitting hairs here aren't we? That's pretty subjective which is why we used the cavet that it's obviously not a real person. A malicious, not real person would be a different story.
So if someone who wasn't banned but left under not good circumstances makes a new SN (AE), is asked if they're the previous poster and denies it, and someone reports this to Admins because their spidey senses are tingled this person can be warned or banned? NariaDreamingtheophaniabibliothecary
Also, how are you defining funny AEs? Lungbutter specifically comes to mind. I assume made to be funny but very much not funny and actually verging on gross most of the time.
We would look into the situation and make sure only one active account was being used. They would be requested to choose one account and use it. If they left under questionable circumstances then those situations would have to be judged individually.
As for what's funny, we're really splitting hairs here aren't we? That's pretty subjective which is why we used the cavet that it's obviously not a real person. A malicious, not real person would be a different story.
Ok. I'm really attempting to get this. Let me use a real life example and see if it can be cleared up for me. Rutherily left GKU (the only or at least the primary board she posted on) under REALLY not good circumstances. She came back as Veritas. She was posting regularly and seemed to be getting along well until myself and several others decided to call her out. NOW - had her Veritas details matched exactly her Ruther details, the detective ass bitches in this community would have known in about 2 minutes and immediate pitchforks would have ensued. No way to come back like that. So in order to come back and play nice she changed some life details and got herself a new name - right here, she is technically cat fishing. But if she wants to come back, what other choice does she have, really? People alerted y'all to her and asked to check and lo and behold she's unveiled. I understand a public unveiling wouldn't happen under Rules 2.0, but what exactly would happen, present day, if this same situation were to arise? NariaDreaming (tagging because I don't know what you're logged into)
We would look into the situation and make sure only one active account was being used. They would be requested to choose one account and use it. If they left under questionable circumstances then those situations would have to be judged individually.
As for what's funny, we're really splitting hairs here aren't we? That's pretty subjective which is why we used the cavet that it's obviously not a real person. A malicious, not real person would be a different story.
Ok. I'm really attempting to get this. Let me use a real life example and see if it can be cleared up for me. Rutherily left GKU (the only or at least the primary board she posted on) under REALLY not good circumstances. She came back as Veritas. She was posting regularly and seemed to be getting along well until myself and several others decided to call her out. NOW - had her Veritas details matched exactly her Ruther details, the detective ass bitches in this community would have known in about 2 minutes and immediate pitchforks would have ensued. No way to come back like that. So in order to come back and play nice she changed some life details and got herself a new name - right here, she is technically cat fishing. But if she wants to come back, what other choice does she have, really? People alerted y'all to her and asked to check and lo and behold she's unveiled. I understand a public unveiling wouldn't happen under Rules 2.0, but what exactly would happen, present day, if this same situation were to arise? NariaDreaming (tagging because I don't know what you're logged into)
Again, those situations would have to be judged individually, which I am aware is probably not the answer you want. It would also not be fair to say that all people who come back should be judged exactly the same. If that exact situation happened in present day, we would respond to concerned members that we are looking into it and send a PM to her.
Ok. I'm really attempting to get this. Let me use a real life example and see if it can be cleared up for me. Rutherily left GKU (the only or at least the primary board she posted on) under REALLY not good circumstances. She came back as Veritas. She was posting regularly and seemed to be getting along well until myself and several others decided to call her out. NOW - had her Veritas details matched exactly her Ruther details, the detective ass bitches in this community would have known in about 2 minutes and immediate pitchforks would have ensued. No way to come back like that. So in order to come back and play nice she changed some life details and got herself a new name - right here, she is technically cat fishing. But if she wants to come back, what other choice does she have, really? People alerted y'all to her and asked to check and lo and behold she's unveiled. I understand a public unveiling wouldn't happen under Rules 2.0, but what exactly would happen, present day, if this same situation were to arise? NariaDreaming (tagging because I don't know what you're logged into)
Again, those situations would have to be judged individually, which I am aware is probably not the answer you want. It would also not be fair to say that all people who come back should be judged exactly the same. If that exact situation happened in present day, we would respond to concerned members that we are looking into it and send a PM to her.
[
Ok we're getting closer. You'd send a PM to her saying what? Tell the truth or you're banned?
This is what I'm trying to understand. What is the point of the PM? What does it accomplish for both concerned members and the poster in question?
If the person wasn't banned prior to them leaving and they're not doing anything malicious then what is the problem?
FTR and to be transparent, I'm asking because I really don't think this was well thought out and I'm trying to figure out what PMing AEs is going to accomplish other than ensuring people don't get second chances. Why not tell concerned members that while you understand, of the poster isn't being malicious there is nothing that can be done and they have the choice to block or ignore?
Unless you're going to define cat fishing as a bannable offense and in that case it just needs to be very clear to people that basically if they fuck up and go out in flames one day there likely isn't a chance of them fully assimilating back into the community ever again.
Post by helloerrbody on Nov 29, 2016 19:38:47 GMT -5
I understand that the admins have spent a lot of time creating and maintaining this board for us. I realize that they are volunteers. I am grateful for what they do, I really am.
However, it has been said many times that their goal for this place is to become a profitable site, increase site traffic, maintain a website with content, etc. For those things to happen - we - the posters- must stay and remain active on the boards. We must also attract and keep new posters. No, it is not possible to keep everyone happy, but business owners should actively make attempts to make their customers or clients as happy as possible.
Ok we're getting closer. You'd send a PM to her saying what? Tell the truth or you're banned?
This is what I'm trying to understand. What is the point of the PM? What does it accomplish for both concerned members and the poster in question?
If the person wasn't banned prior to them leaving and they're not doing anything malicious then what is the problem?
FTR and to be transparent, I'm asking because I really don't think this was well thought out and I'm trying to figure out what PMing AEs is going to accomplish other than ensuring people don't get second chances. Why not tell concerned members that while you understand, of the poster isn't being malicious there is nothing that can be done and they have the choice to block or ignore?
Unless you're going to define cat fishing as a bannable offense and in that case it just needs to be very clear to people that basically if they fuck up and go out in flames one day there likely isn't a chance of them fully assimilating back into the community ever again.
We have no interest in prosecuting AEs for existing. To be frank, looking up IPs is both time consuming and difficult on mobile. I believe the poll results showed heavily that members are in favor of a PM telling the AE that they are borderline catfishing. To the admins, catfishing would be best defined as pretending to be someone else with malicious intent. Trolling, info mining, that type of thing.
One clarification question though - the hypothetical poster in question that would be reported as suspicious doesn't have to be doing anything wrong? So they aren't being malicious, trolling, etc. they just need to have set off someone's spidey senses or have details matching a previously rogue poster or be very exclamatory!!!!!!! And admins would look into?
Looked into, PM sent, and that would hopefully be the end of it. Again, we have no interest in prosecuting AEs. I assume some people have good reason to want to start over or create an account with fewer identifying bits of info. If they aren't acting with malicious intent, I have no interest in pursuing the matter.
Post by risscaboobs on Nov 29, 2016 20:12:57 GMT -5
But I'm still confused about the PM. Let's use the veritas example. Before the mob ascended, of which I too was party to and feel bad about now, she was doing nothing at all malicious at all. She was actually really nice.
So you send the PM that she's borderline cat fishing. What are you asking her to do? Reveal herself? Leave? Nothing? I'm genuinely curious/confused.
But I'm still confused about the PM. Let's use the veritas example. Before the mob ascended, of which I too was party to, she was doing nothing at all malicious at all. She was actually really nice.
So you send the PM that she's borderline cat fishing. What are you asking her to do? Reveal herself? Leave? Nothing? I'm genuinely curious/confused.
Our involvement ends with the PM, provided the member does not go on to troll or catfish. Should other members wish to block a person about whom they have suspicions, or not permit them into private groups, that is up to them. We will not out members, per the decisions made by the voters in this thread.
The TOU sticky refers to a definition of catfishing that is not listed in the TOU sticky. So where the heck is that definition so people will read it.
Since this is the TOU for TCF which is totally different than the TOU for proboards, at which point in registering to post here does a person actually see this TOU and agree to it?
Where is it located?
And this discussion is ongoing and should have remained stickied, with a link to the TOU change and perhaps a link to this thread in the TOU changes at least temporarily.
The TOU sticky refers to a definition of catfishing that is not listed in the TOU sticky. So where the heck is that definition so people will read it.
Since this is the TOU for TCF which is totally different than the TOU for proboards, at which point in registering to post here does a person actually see this TOU and agree to it?
Where is it located?
And this discussion is ongoing and should have remained stickied, with a link to the TOU change and perhaps a link to this thread in the TOU changes at least temporarily.
This is the current language on catfishing as it is in the TOU. "Catfishing”- deliberately pretending to be someone they're not, used to create false identities, particularly to pursue deceptive online relationships.
We are working to amend this definition to include malicious intent, or a similar clarification, so that harmless AEs do not feel unduly concerned about their status.
We are not able to make viewing the TOU part of signing up. We can encourage members to read the TOU, as it is part of every stickied welcome thread for each forum section. As we do not own proboards, it cannot be made part of their generic registration process.
While this discussion is no longer stickied, we are continuing to respond to posts and welcome feedback. As the poll clearly reflected the desires of the board, it was felt that action to change the TOU would be preferable to waiting.
The TOU are available in the About Us section, as well as linked in this thread and announced at the top of every section.
So we have a TOU but nobody ever has to agree to it when signing up? or at any time while a member.
Since it's not linked on every board all the time why not a link in the top header??
the new definition has to be listed in the TOU right where the word is used.
The definition has been there from the start and the new information is under the appropriate section, we just broke out the changes in the bottom post. Additionally, as with many sites, using the site is the agreement to the TOU.
We will look into a place to put it that is easier to find since stickied in "About Us" is not working.
Post by Cherhorowitz on Nov 30, 2016 9:54:57 GMT -5
I just want to say I am disappointed in how a lot of things were handled in this thread. Including, but not limited to, this thread being unpinned when the conversation seemed to go a new way.
I think part of my confusion lies in the fact that there are actually two "governing" documents being discussed as if they are one.
The tou terms of use for tcf. Which is totally different than the community guidelines document which is what is actually being changed.
And then there is the legally binding tou that everyone agrees to when they make an account here on proboards to use tcf. The tcf terms of use and community guidelines are internally used documents that nobody ever sees until way after they join and post and then they may be posted as a sticky for a while when there are changes. Real websites with tou changes make you log out and log back in and agree to big changes.
But tcf doesn't have that option since they don't own the actual site. That's why most places just buy message board software and host their own so they can set it all up the better way if they are having a website as well.
Not really sure why if the about us board is supposed to be for important things like tou and community rules that it would also hold so many other unimportant threads.
I just want to say I am disappointed in how a lot of things were handled in this thread. Including, but not limited to, this thread being unpinned when the conversation seemed to go a new way.
Well said. I am having the same feels. Sometimes this "transparency" gets very opaque.
Post by wanderingheart on Nov 30, 2016 11:23:01 GMT -5
I don't think the thread went the way you thought it would. A lot of this would blow over if we could get one apology for how things were handled. I'm sure the OP of that TWW thread who was outed would definitely appreciate it too.
What we're hearing is that the community wants AE use to be left unchecked, barring their use for trolling or malicious circumstances. The poll results showed strongly in favor of sending a polite PM to those using an AE.
As it stands, the forum currently abides under both the Proboards and TCF TOU. Proboards TOU is available at sign up. We understand that the community is now expressing concern that the TCF TOU is not as available as you would prefer, prior to signing up. We will work to make it more readily available. As we do not own Proboards, we do not have the option of making it a part of the sign up process, nor can we force members to log off and back in to view any updates to the TOU.
The decision to unannounce this thread was made because we were replacing this thread in the announcements with the updates to the TOU. The updates are meant to reflect the desires of the community as a whole, and are an ongoing conversation between the admins and members, as it should be.
What we're hearing is that the community wants AE use to be left unchecked, barring their use for trolling or malicious circumstances. The poll results showed strongly in favor of sending a polite PM to those using an AE.
As it stands, the forum currently abides under both the Proboards and TCF TOU. Proboards TOU is available at sign up. We understand that the community is now expressing concern that the TCF TOU is not as available as you would prefer, prior to signing up. We will work to make it more readily available. As we do not own Proboards, we do not have the option of making it a part of the sign up process, nor can we force members to log off and back in to view any updates to the TOU.
The decision to unannounce this thread was made because we were replacing this thread in the announcements with the updates to the TOU. The updates are meant to reflect the desires of the community as a whole, and are an ongoing conversation between the admins and members, as it should be.
...but we can't comment on the announcement you have stickied so it's not really an ongoing conversation, is it?
And we still never got anything clear on what the point of the PM to the AE would be? What would it say/solve?
We regret how things were handled with the AE. If we could offer an apology to her, we would. She is obviously welcome back, with the firm understanding that nothing like that will happen again, to her or another AE. If any of you are in contact with her, please let her know that.
What we're hearing is that the community wants AE use to be left unchecked, barring their use for trolling or malicious circumstances. The poll results showed strongly in favor of sending a polite PM to those using an AE.
As it stands, the forum currently abides under both the Proboards and TCF TOU. Proboards TOU is available at sign up. We understand that the community is now expressing concern that the TCF TOU is not as available as you would prefer, prior to signing up. We will work to make it more readily available. As we do not own Proboards, we do not have the option of making it a part of the sign up process, nor can we force members to log off and back in to view any updates to the TOU.
The decision to unannounce this thread was made because we were replacing this thread in the announcements with the updates to the TOU. The updates are meant to reflect the desires of the community as a whole, and are an ongoing conversation between the admins and members, as it should be.
...but we can't comment on the announcement you have stickied so it's not really an ongoing conversation, is it?
And we still never got anything clear on what the point of the PM to the AE would be? What would it say/solve?
The community voted to send a PM to the AE. Roughly, the PM would say that AE use is acceptable for farcical or privacy concern reasons, but cannot be used maliciously or to catfish fellow members.
We regret how things were handled with the AE. If we could offer an apology to her, we would. She is obviously welcome back, with the firm understanding that nothing like that will happen again, to her or another AE. If any of you are in contact with her, please let her know that.
You would have better access to her contact email than we would. And a generic apology from the generic admin user ID is not what the community asked for.
It's also not a good idea to have multiple admins ever using the same generic admin user ID. That is not transparent.
Then Comes Family, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising
program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.