OK, I've read all 8 pages of this.
Background for you folks who don't know me (and that's most of 'ya, to any degree) - I am the author of the
first threaded, multi-system conferencing software available on a microcomputer - predating FidoNet (or, as some would call it, "Fight-O-Net".)
That would be ERACS6, then AKCS on Unix machines. When the world went web, interest in the software waned and it ultimately disappeared. The threading, boards, user accounts, all that stuff - its old hat guys and gals. (ERACS was actually released as freely distributable - but you'll need a TRS-80 to run it!
) I've toyed with the idea of web-izing AKCS over the years, but have had no reason - at least not yet - to do it.
I administered various instances of this stuff since the first version was commercially released in 1981/82.
With that behind us, what do I think?
1. Pete has the right to do whatever he wants, of course. Its
his. However, the common mistake is that the "owner" has something of value all in itself. He does not. Without users, there is nothing other than a bill from a hosting company.
2. Due process is important. I've been the recipient of pulled posts before (prior to Pete's takeover) and despite questions to KN and LD was unable to determine
who pulled them or
why. Now folks - there is no privacy issue
if you are the one who had the post or access pulled! Refusing to answer THAT question, by the person who had the action taken against them, is simple protectionism to shield the person who made the decision for responsibility for their actions - nothing more or less.
3. If your blood pressure is rising due to #2 above, see #1 and read it again. For the below, see #1 if THEY trip your blood pressure alarm as well.
4. The idea that you are somehow "protecting" the banned's privacy is a non-starter. People figure it out FAST when someone gets banned or their posts get pulled. What
appears to have happened here is that "guilt by association" has served to attempt to silence questioning and dissent - ban a few more, maybe people will stop asking (lest they get banned too!) So now we know that someone did something "bad" according to someone, but have access only to one side of the situation, and anyone who dares question, especially in public, gets branded "bad" just for asking. That doesn't help the board's reputation, and its even worse if the banned individual or the person who's post was pulled asks who took the action and why and gets back a "I can't tell you" in response. Been there, seen that.
A "secret cabal" benefits nobody, most particularly not the user base. IMHO the person who has had action taken against them should
always have the right to face their accuser, hear the debate, and offer rebuttal in their own defense. Opening that deliberation to the membership is an entirely
different question, and is more difficult to weigh.
Part of deterrence against arbitrary and capricious action by those in power is the knowledge that they cannot take those actions in secret. Without that protection abuse of power is nearly assured.
It is a basic principle of balance and fairness that if you are accused of doing something you have the right to know what it is you are accused of, to face your accuser(s), and to offer rebuttal in your own defense. The "vote" system is all well and good, but conducting it in secret without the accused being able to view the proceeding and offer a defense is blatently unreasonable.
Finally, comments made
in private to a moderator should
never be the subject or cause of a ban. By accepting a public position (that of "moderator") one must accept that there will be slings and arrows aimed at you, and some will score.
To be a moderator is to be a public figure in the context of Scubaboard - if you don't want the responsibility then don't take the job! To the extent that such slings and arrows are slung in public, censure is appropriate. But if someone offers their opinion of your intelligence in a PM and its rather uncomplimentary, to use
that as justification for censure says loud and clear that you are acting NOT due to a violation of the TOS, but rather "because you can", simply as a flexure of your muscles. Why? Because
by definition a private message is
PRIVATE. To use that as the basis for censure, in whole or part is a per-se abuse of power.
I know Pete has said "ain't gonna happen" to some of this, but I believe this is important stuff.....
All IMHO, of course.
May the band play on.
