SE Forum Visibility (split from Crash on M8 last night...)

[Shug]

Also, your points about people posting pics - the mods would have a quiet word if these threads had any indication of location or the actual names or details of people involved. Witness previous posts about people boasting about misbehaving on the public highway and the way it's been dealt with by the forum as a whole.

[ruadh08]

Shug,

It may be an idea to try the poll, but I wouldnt have a clue how to do it!! Could you do it if poss?

I agree that if someone wants in they will get in, and we must always be aware that is the case, but I along with others do feel uncomfortable that ANYBODY can get in without any vetting, and can easily and instantly see all the posts that any particular member has posted, and quote/misquote them outside the forum.

I would also like to say at this stage, and I feel qualified to do so being one of the earlier members joining SE1 & 2, is that the standard of moderating has always been exemplary. I know you guys are always watching and correcting any spurious behaviour in the background, and this keeps the quality of the forum to a standard that we enjoy. However I do feel that we do need to batten down the hatches just a wee bit to keep things a little bit safer for us all.

I also accept that this will cause more work for you guys, and that being the case, maybe another 2 mods could be appointed to share "membership appications"?

Paul

[Shug]

Paul - I'll get to it at some stage today. Wording it so that I don't introduce bias isn't the job of a minute's post

Thanks for your comments as well - even though I've only been involved in moderating since the inception of SE2, I agree that it was excellent on SE1 and that was the slant we tried to take with SE2 (before Campbell and Robin joined the mod ranks on SE2 as well to maintain that)

WRT more mods - with the image recognition system in place, I don't really think it'll add too much work, but certainly we'll look at adding mods if we need to. The worry always is that the more mods you have, the harder it is to maintain a common moderation style.

[fd]

Shug, that would all stop if you had to have administrator approval to activate your account.

How ?

Really - just how would a mod know whether billy77@gmail.com is a journo, copper, troublemaker or some regular bloke looking for info on how they change their brake pads ? You can't . . .

Given that is the case (which as Shug has intimated - if people apply for an account they will get it) how would you propose restricting account approval to people you know . . . personal interview ? . . . personal recommendation ? . . . doesn't sound very practical . . .

Simplest solution is . . . don't post anything you don't want in the public domain . . . solves all the problems, requires no extra work, has no security flaws, etc, etc

Fd

[philthy]

Shug, that would all stop if you had to have administrator approval to activate your account.

How ?

Really - just how would a mod know whether billy77@gmail.com is a journo, copper, troublemaker or some regular bloke looking for info on how they change their brake pads ? You can't . . .

Fd

Did you read anything after my post?

[Shug]

I've split this off from the M8 thread as it's gone so far off topic on what was a thread about condolences.

[Sanjøy]

Some forums do have one or two closed sections so it would not be a two fingers up to noobs. After a few sensible posts ref buying advice etc on an open forum then Admins move them to full access. Yes it reeks of black ball golf club crap but the stuff I am writing now is google indexed ffs! Trying googling some of hte more unique usernames and you will see what I mean.

I end up splitting my time between, the board, PMs and MSN dunno what I personally would write on the private forums though!

2p

[kenny]

I would agree with Shug and Fd.

It's worth pointing out that the comments read out in court and printed in the press following 10 Pence Short's crash were taken from a forum that no part of is visible unregistered, didn't stop them.

Personally I prefer being able to view the forum without having to log in at times.

[Neil72]

Somewhere between the two extremes sounds sensible to me, i.e. just lock the whole forum for those who are not registered users. If someone registers and doesn't post within say 1 month, delete the account.

This won't provide any form of security whatsoever so we should all refrain from posting anything too personal, but if it stops any undesirable types stumbling across personal information by accident then surely that's no bad thing.

[Sanjøy]

If someone registers and doesn't post within say 1 month, delete the account.

Andy G does not take holidays shorter than 3 months

[Shug]

Somewhere between the two extremes sounds sensible to me, i.e. just lock the whole forum for those who are not registered users. If someone registers and doesn't post within say 1 month, delete the account.

This won't provide any form of security whatsoever so we should all refrain from posting anything too personal, but if it stops any undesirable types stumbling across personal information by accident then surely that's no bad thing.

Neil, would mean we'd need to enter this info about new members into some database somewhere and be notified when that month is up. Big bag of work for no appreciable gain IMO - if a Journo wants in for information for some smear campaign, he'll sign up, farm the info and the harm will be done. A one-month grace would do nothing at all.

Edited to add - this covers Sanjoy's idea as well. We're not full-time mods and we certainly don't have the time to monitor this sort of thing and 'upgrade' users as required - would be a nightmare to keep tracks of. Not doable unless we start paying people to manage the forums - non starter.

[GregR]

Crikey, how reminiscent of the debate that followed 10penceshort's trial and incarceration is this?

Shug has made some extremely valid points. If you're concerned about anyone reading something that you have posted then don't post it. We have already got a locked-to-joe-public 'Meets' section to guard against the scenario where plod/aggreived person trys to blame the collective for the actions of a participant on a run.

If you liken the forum to a loud conversation in the pub, then one solution is to keep conversations on sensitive issues quiet and use email between you and the mates you're 'conversing' with. The problem really is that some people like to be seen to be funny/controversial/sadistic/"considerably richer than yeaow" so post up their loud pub conversations on-line. That's the stuff that gets people into trouble 9 times out of ten. I'm personally not a fan of making it harder for newbies to access the site to protect those that like to shoot off their mouths about this or that where, in a grown up world, we would all agree it should be kept quiet (or at least has no place on the forum) in any event.

as ever, just my 2p

[Neil72]

You've maybe misunderstood me there Shug.....I really just meant accounts set up but never used could be deleted as a good housekeeping exercise. No need for any form of strenous policing or databases.

Somewhere between the two extremes sounds sensible to me, i.e. just lock the whole forum for those who are not registered users. If someone registers and doesn't post within say 1 month, delete the account.

This won't provide any form of security whatsoever so we should all refrain from posting anything too personal, but if it stops any undesirable types stumbling across personal information by accident then surely that's no bad thing.

Neil, would mean we'd need to enter this info about new members into some database somewhere and be notified when that month is up. Big bag of work for no appreciable gain IMO - if a Journo wants in for information for some smear campaign, he'll sign up, farm the info and the harm will be done. A one-month grace would do nothing at all.

Edited to add - this covers Sanjoy's idea as well. We're not full-time mods and we certainly don't have the time to monitor this sort of thing and 'upgrade' users as required - would be a nightmare to keep tracks of. Not doable unless we start paying people to manage the forums - non starter.

[Shug]

Not sure about that though Neil... There are a few members that have joined up to read about meets but never posted, or certainly don't post regularly... Would it just make people post more crap to maintain membership, instead of adding anything to discussions etc. Appreciate your housekeeping slant, I believe Simon has gone through the database before and trimmed a lot of older sign-ups that hadn't visited in over a year. Maybe time to do that again.

[jason]

What I'm about to post here may be considered controversial - but it's my /2p and input to this debate...

I would agree with Shug and Fd.

And I would agree with Shug, Fd and Kenny.

We are all aware this is a public place - and if not, perhaps a wee reminder when a newbie member joins in a "Welcome to SE message..." or whatever. A degree of self-moderation demands no extra work/time of the mods/admins. I expect most of us already practice this self-moderation - which helps keep SE in a good public light - this would be lost if it became a closed, secret forum.

[Devil's advocate mode] ...and, I stress, with absolutely no intention of linking this to any specific recent (and sad) stories

Hypothetical scenario: If my wee Johnny was knocked down whilst playing in our street by 'ForumMemberA', and it transpired 'ForumMemberA' regularly posted about his/her full-bore starts from the driveway, or demonstrated a consistently inappropriate attitude to speed/behaviour in certain road conditions/environments, or whatever else may/may not relate to the situation ForumMemberA had since been involved in (different things apply to different scenarios)... then could it be considered inappropriate (at best) to withhold such info?

A very challenging moral/ethical question... a question I'm not sure would be fair to ask anyone other than the orig poster (ForumMemberA).

[/Devil's advocate mode]

If the forum went private, then that could be interpreted as if we were all trying to hide something. The transparency/openness is arguably a good thing IMHO.

/2p