What's the Hullabaloo?

[_Yoda]

I would assume the control panel used by the mods to perform their tasks has access to less functions that an administrator's.

Does anyone know if a moderator actually has access to IP addresses or user' PMs (other than their own)?

I could be wrong but I suspect not. If I am correct, then I am not seeing that Liz's actions whether I approve of them or not (not) as being an abuse of her mod privileges.

We do not have access to PM's. Even Admin does not have access to PM's. As far as IP addresses are concerned, we do have access to those. However, as any good IT person knows, IP addresses can be skewed due to proxy servers. I have always taken them with a grain of salt. They can easily place people in places where they actually are not. And, considering that most everyone here has a desire to remain anonymous, even utilizing IP addresses really isn't an effective tool, even if someone WANTED to use them.

I also, for the record, flatly deny that I used IP addresses in any way in an attempt to "out" Scratch or anyone else.

[_Kishkumen]

DCP made up his own mind regarding Scratch's identity. I just noticed that Jason Echols was on his friends list. Since DCP claimed not to know Jason Echols, and Pahoran had some strong inclincations that Echols was Scratch, I suggested to DCP that it might be a good idea to unfriend him. That was the extent of my involvement as far as the whole Scratch=Echols debacle is concerned. What I suggested simply made common sense.

As far as my remark goes, it was a little "out there". Shades had always stated that we were free to "speak as a man" as long as we were not acting as Moderators in our Moderator red font.

The comment I made to Scratch was information that was available on a public Facebook page. And it is information that would not have even been taken as any kind of insult but more as a WTF reaction if there wasn't some connection between the two of them.

Scratch has not bothered to state why my remark bothered him.

I guess I can better understand the situation from what you have shared. I don't pretend to know what is going on in the minds of Daniel Peterson, Pahoran, and Doctor Scratch, and, frankly, I don't care to know. I prefer to keep my personal involvement with the various parties minimal, and they seem to prefer the same. That works for me.

Who you have as your friends is your business, and I can't complain about this group being broad enough to include me too. At the same time, you have to understand that the fact you were consulting with Daniel Peterson on how to deal with his Doctor Scratch problem, even in the most rudimentary of ways, erodes any trust in you that others here may have.

Because whatever stresses may impact Daniel, he has no business doing what he did on his blog to anyone.

[_Chap]

I would assume the control panel used by the mods to perform their tasks has access to less functions that an administrator's.

Does anyone know if a moderator actually has access to IP addresses or user' PMs (other than their own)?

I could be wrong but I suspect not. If I am correct, then I am not seeing that Liz's actions whether I approve of them or not (not) as being an abuse of her mod privileges.

The issue is not how Liz came into possession of what she believed to be in real life information on Scratch. It is, rather, that she took an action that broke a fundamental rule of this board, in using that in real life information in a way that might be seen as designed to tell a poster that his cover was blown, so he had better watch out.

Once a mod does that, I don't feel happy about his or her impartiality, however much they try to separate their personal and moderatorial identities.

[_Yoda]

DCP made up his own mind regarding Scratch's identity. I just noticed that Jason Echols was on his friends list. Since DCP claimed not to know Jason Echols, and Pahoran had some strong inclincations that Echols was Scratch, I suggested to DCP that it might be a good idea to unfriend him. That was the extent of my involvement as far as the whole Scratch=Echols debacle is concerned. What I suggested simply made common sense.

As far as my remark goes, it was a little "out there". Shades had always stated that we were free to "speak as a man" as long as we were not acting as Moderators in our Moderator red font.

The comment I made to Scratch was information that was available on a public Facebook page. And it is information that would not have even been taken as any kind of insult but more as a WTF reaction if there wasn't some connection between the two of them.

Scratch has not bothered to state why my remark bothered him.

I guess I can better understand the situation from what you have shared. I don't pretend to know what is going on in the minds of Daniel Peterson, Pahoran, and Doctor Scratch, and, frankly, I don't care to know. I prefer to keep my personal involvement with the various parties minimal, and they seem to prefer the same. That works for me.

Who you have as your friends is your business, and I can't complain about this group being broad enough to include me too. At the same time, you have to understand that the fact you were consulting with Daniel Peterson on how to deal with his Doctor Scratch problem, even in the most rudimentary of ways, erodes any trust in you that others here may have.

Because whatever stresses may impact Daniel, he has no business doing what he did on his blog to anyone.

I have no control of what Dan decides to post on his blog. I had no idea he was going to do that. That was his call.

If my suggestion to simply unfriend someone to play it safe is a form of eroding trust, then so be it. I don't really see how it is. All I really did to Dan was to state the obvious. It is really something that Dan should have thought of doing himself as far as precautions go. The only reason I even mentioned to him that it might be a good idea to unfriend Jason is because he had indicated that he didn't know who Jason was. He is not that familiar with how Facebook works, and I was just trying to help him out. My thought was....if Jason is NOT Scratch, it is not going to hurt anything for Dan to unfriend him because he doesn't know him anyway. If Jason IS Scratch, then it is a good idea to unfriend him. Remember, I am NOT the one who suggested to Dan that Jason Echols was Scratch. Pahoran did that. The only thing I did was to point out the obvious as far as what would make sense regarding who he keep as a friend on Facebook.

[_Drifting]

I dunno, Kish, liz acted in a way that eroded trust. Mods have access to in real life information and liz participated in a campaign to expose Scratch's in real life information. Moderating and exposing confidential information seem to be in conflict.

H.

For the record, there was no campaign. I never used any in real life information such as IP addresses. The only thing I did was tell DCP to unfriend Jason Echols based on information that Pahoran had given me, as well as DCP.

The remark I made to Scratch was information available on a public Facebook page, and shouldn't have even bothered Scratch if the ID was incorrect.

Liz, what was the strength/robustness of the information on which you acted to advise DCP about his Facebook friends?

Given that the information was clearly incorrect, have you now apologised to the person who's name you divulged (and keep divulging on this board)?

[_Yoda]

Liz, what was the strength/robustness of the information on which you acted to advise DCP about his Facebook friends?

Given that the information was clearly incorrect, have you now apologised to the person who's name you divulged (and keep divulging on this board)?

I simply stated to DCP that in order to play it safe, it would probably be a good idea for him to unfriend Mr. Echols from his list since he didn't know who he was.

What, exactly, am I apologizing to Mr. Echols for? I mentioned work that he, himself, had mentioned on his public Facebook page. He is undoubtedly proud of his work or his page would be private, and the information woud have been unavailable for anyone to access.

[_Stormy Waters]

If all Liz did was recommend that Dan remove someone from his Facebook friend list then I don't think she did anything that disqualifies her from being a mod. It was known that someone was leaking Dan's Facebook information. If I had a friend who had private Facebook information being shared publicly I may have done the same thing.
The vague swipe while a violation of the rules is a not a disqualifying offense.
Still accusing someone of being Scratch publicly while not being 100% sure it actually was said person was a dick move by Pahoran and Dan. From the sounds of it they only have circumstantial evidnence.

[Guest]

I have no control of what Dan decides to post on his blog. I had no idea he was going to do that. That was his call.

And I guess you have to ask yourself: what kind of person pulls crap like that?

Seriously.

If this were a mere lapse, it would be one thing. Unfortunately, it seems to be part of the package. Daniel gets ticked off, loses his patience, or what have you, and the poorly aimed character assassination begins. My most recent clash with him on Facebook is an excellent example. I was rude about a political comment he made, and he basically imploded right on David Bokovoy's wall, implying very strongly that I am Doctor Scratch in front of everyone in a place where I do use my real name, as you know.

Well, I am not Doctor Scratch. Daniel and I may have our differences, but that does not make me someone who I am not. And yet he doesn't seem to care whether that is true, or whether Jason Echols has anything to do with anything, because the only thing that matters in all of this, in his eyes, is himself.

He cared not a bit how Jason Echols might have felt about being accused falsely.

If my suggestion to simply unfriend someone to play it safe is a form of eroding trust, then so be it. I don't really see how it is. All I really did to Dan was to state the obvious. It is really something that Dan should have thought of doing himself as far as precautions go. The only reason I even mentioned to him that it might be a good idea to unfriend Jason is because he had indicated that he didn't know who Jason was. He is not that familiar with how Facebook works, and I was just trying to help him out. My thought was....if Jason is NOT Scratch, it is not going to hurt anything for Dan to unfriend him because he doesn't know him anyway. If Jason IS Scratch, then it is a good idea to unfriend him. Remember, I am NOT the one who suggested to Dan that Jason Echols was Scratch. Pahoran did that. The only thing I did was to point out the obvious as far as what would make sense regarding who he keep as a friend on Facebook.

I think the problem is that your connection with Daniel and Pahoran is tighter than most people are comfortable with. That is what erodes trust, not what you may or may not have said regarding Daniel's list of Facebook friends. As I said, that is all your business. I am just observing that having certain kinds of friends will impact how others feel about you. I think that a lot of the discomfort with having you as a mod came down to exactly that.

[_Yoda]

If all Liz did was recommend that Dan remove someone from his Facebook friend list then I don't think she did anything that disqualifies her from being a mod. It was known that someone was leaking Dan's Facebook information. If I had a friend who had private Facebook information being shared publicly I may have done the same thing.

Thank you, Stormy. I was simply following common sense.

[_Kishkumen]

If all Liz did was recommend that Dan remove someone from his Facebook friend list then I don't think she did anything that disqualifies her from being a mod. It was known that someone was leaking Dan's Facebook information. If I had a friend who had private Facebook information being shared publicly I may have done the same thing.
The vague swipe while a violation of the rules is a not a disqualifying offense.
Still accusing someone of being Scratch publicly while not being 100% sure it actually was said person was a dick move by Pahoran and Dan. From the sounds of it they only have circumstantial evidnence.

I agree with all of the above, and I never suggested that liz should be removed from her moderating duties.

She has removed herself, in any case, and I don't blame her for doing so.