Open Letter to the Jedi Council Forums from a Former Moderator

So this issue is more dead than the 14th thread about things we didn't know about AmazingB?

 

It's as redundant as a very fat, talentless man drinking a diet coke along with his 3 Big Macs.

 

I'm just going to add my add voice to the long list of users who are completely disgusted over this. I'm not going to go into detail as enough people have already done so but the simple fact is that a lot of people who have done an awful lot to make the JC such a special place have been treated like dirt.

 

"the simple fact is that a lot of people who have done an awful lot to make the JC such a special place have been treated like dirt. "

Finally, I get some recognition.

 

Ok, I've read the first post and would like to comment on some specific points:

[Mr. P]: "A number of us had the feeling that it [the modsquad leak] might have been a mole - perhaps one of the admins who no longer really liked the JC for any number of reasons, and maybe was hanging around only for reasons of personal power."

This makes sense, and it sounds like a good reason for ownership to have their real names and addresses, doesn't it?

[Mr. P]: "TFN does not need to know if a moderator is Asian or Jewish or Black or Caucasion or a communist or a criminal or what. If they do their job, so what?"

Right... what does this have to do with anything? Come on people, please realize that the race card doesn't have to be played in every single issue. How about we stay with real issues instead of making stuff up, hmm?

[Mr. P]: "If you are still having the security issue, how long will it be before those addresses are out in the open? That's VERY dangerous to the moderators."

Not really, since addresses are usual publicly available anyway unless you're in the witness protection program. There are usually easier ways to find out someone's address than to hack into a secure Internet site. If someone wants to find out an existing mod's name and address, they could've found them at any time before this all started without much difficulty. Someone may indeed hack into the site, but it would be just for the heck of it, not to find out names and addresses that are already readily available.

[Mr. P]: "... if they will then be under any copyright liability for the website - even though they are volunteers, not owners - and who will have access to that information."

Why do people continually bring this up? The mods are not legally liable. End of story.

[Mr. P]: "Remember that they are't getting paid - they can get up and leave any time they like."

Yes, and guess what? They could leave even if they were paid. And a whole bunch of mods have left already, and still there are many people on this board unaware of this whole drama. If they all left that might be a different story, but we all know that's not going to happen, it's an empty threat.

I think the expiry date on this drama has passed. Please begin new drama now.

 

5 rhetoric questions in one post.

 

It's as redundant as a very fat, talentless man drinking a diet coke along with his 3 Big Macs.

Leave me out of this.

 

Great post, Mr. P.

 

Not really, since addresses are usual publicly available anyway unless you're in the witness protection program. There are usually easier ways to find out someone's address than to hack into a secure Internet site. If someone wants to find out an existing mod's name and address, they could've found them at any time before this all started without much difficulty. Someone may indeed hack into the site, but it would be just for the heck of it, not to find out names and addresses that are already readily available.

Yes, you can find addresses easily. I have a big book of them at home underneath my telephone.

However, it's much more difficult to match a name and address up with an online identity without hacking into an Internet site. That is the concern. If any mod had openly given out his or her real name and general location, it would be fairly simple to track them down; however, they could have been completely anonymous (or nearly so) otherwise.

 

Excellent post, Mr. P.

 

Good lord, Darth_AYBABTU, STOP hijacking threads argh!

And you want to be a Mod?

Agreed with you DarthSapient sold his soul, but other than that I see nothing about Mr. P's post that is not well said.

Besides, as long as DarthSapient remains a GOOD mod, who cares in the end what his true intent was, anyway?

 

>Yes, you can find addresses easily. I have a big book of them at home underneath my telephone. <

You can opt out your information out of the White pages in every way, so what's your point?

 

My point was, even if a mod's information is available to the public, it's not available under their mod alias. If I know someone's real name and general location, I might be able to pin them down; however, in order to find a specific mod's address it probably would be simpler to hack into a database on the internet.

 

>But just because you have the right to doesn't mean that you should.<

I think this statement sums up the issue very well.

All the Hackers, threats, being minors, want family safety, race matter, and other legitmate concerns is all support for this statement.

Just because Mr. wise OWN this place, and have the right to do whatever he want, Doesn't mean it's right.

 

Just because Mr. wise OWN this place, and have the right to do whatever he want, Doesn't mean it's right.

Thank you for stating it for the 2123094th time.

 

a) Your friendly neighbourhood communist agrees
2) Not sure why I was lumped with DP...?
iii) You were only 15 when I knew you? I must say I'm impressed, you seemed much more mature, I only assumed you were at least an adult.

• Never trust incorrectly numbered results

 

Just gonna up this (I can hear the "Oh but this issue has been dealt with" cry babies coming out).

Mr.P, great letter and I agree 100%.


And you know what there are still Mods who want "e-power" and gave their details to Philip. Bunch of spineless yes men. That includes Sapient.

 

Another 2 cents worth from moi.

I am reminded by all this fuss about 'sell-out' mods of what Gandhi said when he changed his mind about an issue he had been very firm on: "Today I know more about the issue than I did yesterday, so I have changed my mind."

 

Well, I'll pop my icon back on later on today. I removed it for almost a week.

I knew it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference for TFN management, but at least I was able to show some support for the Mods.

 

I am reminded by all this fuss about 'sell-out' mods of what Gandhi said when he changed his mind about an issue he had been very firm on: "Today I know more about the issue than I did yesterday, so I have changed my mind."

Does that mean that he got a firewall?

 

I am reminded by all this fuss about 'sell-out' mods of what Gandhi said when he changed his mind about an issue he had been very firm on: "Today I know more about the issue than I did yesterday, so I have changed my mind."

Yes. And in spite of what some people think, no one knows everything that goes on behind the scenes.

I don't agree with the idea of having to hand over real life information to Philip, and I would not do it myself. But if someone else doesn't have a problem with doing it themselves, it's really none of my business and who am I to judge?

 

[womberty]: "However, it's much more difficult to match a name and address up with an online identity without hacking into an Internet site. That is the concern. If any mod had openly given out his or her real name and general location, it would be fairly simple to track them down; however, they could have been completely anonymous (or nearly so) otherwise."

Point taken, it does introduce a risk that didn't exist before. However, I would argue that risk is small compared to the already existing risks of being identified in real life. I think the original author's claim that this is dangerous is greatly exaggerating the risk in complying with this policy. People that are uncomfortable with it certainly should not be supplying their personal info, but to imply that the policy is an unreasonable breach of privacy is unfounded in my view.

 

it does introduce a risk that didn't exist before. However, I would argue that risk is small compared to the already existing risks of being identified in real life.

There is the risk of someone finding you in real life, and then there is the risk of someone looking for you with a vengeance. The things we say and do online are sometimes done in the comfort of anonymity. How many of us, in real life, would tell someone their behavior is unacceptable and lock them out, especially with the knowledge that the person might be able to break back in and wreak havoc?

Some users will have reason - however psychotic - to want to know where the mods live. Requiring them to store that information on a server that has some internet access increases the risk that the disgruntled users will find it.

 

I think the original author's claim that this is dangerous is greatly exaggerating the risk in complying with this policy.

I don't think it's exaggerating the risk at all. I just did a search on myself. I put in my real name and the place I live at. The first two results will tell you the place where I live at. From there, it's not that hard to find my address.

I don't trust hackers, I never will. I watched something on TechTV that said companies will hire hackers to find holes in their security and fix them. There is not a doubt in my mind that there is not a safe place at all on the net from a hacker.

*whacks spelling errors*

 

womberty, I don't think I explained my point very well, let me try again.

There already exists a risk of moderators of message boards being identified. This new policy introduces an additional risk, but in my view, it doesn't make the risk significantly greater than it was before the policy was introduced.

JediStarMoonstruck, I'm not saying that there is a safe place on the Internet, but I think the popular media exaggerate the dangers of the Internet when compared to the dangers in real life. I'm not saying the risk doesn't exist, I'm saying the new policy doesn't significantly increase the risk.