More Msscribe Stuff

[angua9]

I truly don't want to pile on heidi8 when she is down, demanding instant apologies, explanations, and justification of all her actions and inactions over the past three years. That isn't polite or reasonable. On the other hand, what she is saying on her LJ is infuriating me. Here is what I just posted to her:

When I got Angua's email, I spoke about

Comments

[praetorianguard]

Hi Angua

[praetorianguard]

But...

...how is someone leaving an excuse for not investigating what they might have done *during* their time as an FA mod?

Say I stole $10,000 from a company. If, feeling the walls close in, I say, "Well, I quit," is that going to stop them from investigating to see if I broke their rules during my time of employment? I highly doubt it.

You had a lot of evidence that MsScribe did things as/while an FA mod. I have no idea how her quitting makes investigation less worthy. I'm not even talking legally, as I wouldn't, not being a lawyer; I'm talking morally, ethicially, whatever-ly that says we should find out if someone on our team is trying to hurt a hell of a lot of people...

[praetorianguard]

I wouldn't blame you for thinking this is dumb, but she didn't do anything to FA. Your example is based on stealing from the company and that hurts the company. In that instance, the company would have a right to go after her for theft. The only recourse companines have against employees committing actions outside of the company is firing, and we couldn't fire her because she'd already left. I know this sounds like a pack of excuses, and I'm sorry for that, but absent something she'd done to the company, or her continued "employment" by the company, our hands were tied.

Like I said, this doesn't excuse anyone personally, and it doesn't. All it does is explain why FA as a corporation couldn't act and didn't say anything public untiil today.

[phoenixwriter]

FA didn't investigate anything against Msscribe because she didn't hurt FA, do I get that right? What about other sites and most above members who might get harassed and flamed by her?

I'm only questioning the position of FA here, not you.

[praetorianguard]

Not quite right, no. Let me try again.

FA didn't have any information that, on its own, indicted anyone for anything. We had IP addresses that tied Dionne to Clara (and maybe Clara to Sarah? I can't remember), but Dionne had already said that Clara used her computer, and that Clara had Sarah's passwords. Therefore, the IP addresses that we had were inconclusive. Maybe they meant that Dionne was Clara, but maybe they meant exactly what Dionne said they meant. We couldn't release these IP addresses to other sites or the public to see if they matched because our ToU prohibits our producing personally identifiable information (including IPs) without a subpoena or the consent of the poster. Am I making sense so far?

Angua's e-mail certainly gave us grounds to investigate, but we could only investigate, per corporate law, as to (i) her actions that she took as an agent of FA (so, her actions as a mod), (ii) actions she took on FA (that is, posts on the site), and (iii) whether or not she was a suitable mod. This circumstance

[phoenixwriter]

It makes it clearer but it let one think your ToU actually opens doors for people like Msscribe and get away with it.

Angua's e-mail certainly gave us grounds to investigate, but we could only investigate, per corporate law, as to (i) her actions that she took as an agent of FA (so, her actions as a mod), (ii) actions she took on FA (that is, posts on the site), and (iii) whether or not she was a suitable mod.

Just one question, doesn't this all center on what Msscribe did on FA and in the name of FA but as long as she acted on her own you couldn't do anything nevermind how wrong it might have been or am I mistaken?

[praetorianguard]

You're exactly right. This does all center on what she did on FA, or as an agent of FA, but there was little we could do other than fire her for things she did that were unconnected to FA.

Unfortunately, the flip side is a ToU that allows us to release personally identifying information whenever we want to. My guess is that people wouldn't be particularly comfortable with that either.

[phoenixwriter]

First thank you that you even bother to answer annoying questions, I really appreciate it.

Unfortunately, the flip side is a ToU that allows us to release personally identifying information whenever we want to. My guess is that people wouldn't be particularly comfortable with that either.

That's internet everywhere you go you leave your IP-adress it would be much to assume that a site can't properly investigate against a troll, a dangerous member without their agreement. Nobody who likes to play such games will give you that.

But I do understand your position on this though I have to admint as Mod of another board I certainly ignored some rules if I had to act as Mod. I believe the ToU of FA aren't either 100% followed thats why I find it bit bothersome that in such a case they were followed religiously while in others they aren't.

[praetorianguard]

You're quite welcome. I know it's confusing and it probably looks completely stupid, so thank you for slogging through it.

I certainly hope that the ToU at FA are 100% followed! I suppose that's a bit too much to ask, but please know that when it gets to the lawyer level, they definitely are 100% followed. In the rare occasions that I am consulted on something, I'm always checking the ToU to make sure we're following them.

[phoenixwriter]

I just remembered that around this time on FA was a big argument whether "Can't stand"-threads violate the ToU and technical they did yet they weren't forbidden. But excuse me if I think it made a big different that Msscribe was a Moderator for FA herself and that opposite shippers claimed this things of her rather than if it had been a complete unknown member to you at that time.

I hope you won't take it the wrong way because I certainly can understand this position and find it's a human nature to doubt.

[rustleaf]

I just remembered that around this time on FA was a big argument whether "Can't stand"-threads violate the ToU and technical they did yet they weren't forbidden.

Really? Can you remember the details.

I have to admit that I hate the CS threads, and it is what stopped me from posting when I first came across that site. I think they generate a very bad atmosphere between people on the site.

[phoenixwriter]

Well, of course I do because it lead to the Forum "VOMIT" and "Templates" what killed any discussion at that time.

http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52843

^That's the thread.

[rustleaf]

Ta for that :)

[praetorianguard]

This may have been the same time that the shipping threads were revamped into debate threads because of the rampant insults and flaming. I can't remember exactly what the timeline on that was, but I know that the constant violations were the impetus for the debate threads.

[alexandramuses]

I know I was working for the coding team by the time the discussion on the CS-threads was going on, so that would have been after Dec 2004/Jan 2005, if you want a reference. In fact, I think it was around March 2005 that the threads were revamped.

[praetorianguard]

Oh, I see. I just checked with a former mod, and I didn't realize the discussion went on that long before the threads turned over. I was consulted on this as a ToU violation a long time before that. Thanks, Eighth!