Moderator rules

[synger]

Original Post, by RND. Posted here in case we use the wiki as a summary of the discussion.,

I have a question.

Can a moderator take information posted here at CF and develuge that information on another posting board?

[AxionEsti]

About another person? No.

[RND]

Thank you very much for your input. I appreciate it very much.

Would posting information contained in this thread: http://christianforums.com/t6377759 is considered appropriate information to share in other forums?

[RND]

It's a public thread. I don't think I'd be divulging anything secret by quoting something from that thread. In my opinion there isn't an expectation of privacy in a public thread, like you'd have with a PM, a staff thread, or a report thread.

However, if you think someone has been out of line, you can open a complaint thread in the Suggestions/Complaints (http://christianforums.com/f883-suggestion-complaint-box.html) forum or send a PM to the folks on the Reconciliation Team (http://christianforums.com/t6668902-reconciliation-team-members.html). The Reconciliation Team consists of non-moderation staff who review complaints against staff members and issues with the site, and try to help ameliorate them.

I can't say frankly. I'm asking questions in responce to another thread here at CF. It was alledged by one poster that a moderator posted information as to how long it takes to be 'banned' for posting here at CF.

The question arose here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45323992&postcount=63

It seems to me that this is a breach of fiduciary responsibility for someone entrusted with properly representing this board.

[mnphysicist]

not talking about that kind of stuff..i am talking about mods that run their mouths about what they know about people here at CF on other boards. They talk about staff decisions...Go to IIDB and you see it rampant..and what their true colors are.

Divulging member information which is only available in the staff forums, on another board is a most serious matter. Staff decisions may or may not be. Ie, rule clarifications, and such are fine.... member info is not.

[Redeemed_Warrior]

OH I realize. But no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room. INTEGRITY. I am sorry, but that is sorely lacking on a few mods that I know of...

I used to enjoy poking said elephant personlly;)
Just gotta watch out when it pokes back:eek:
*former Cf Supervisor whom values Integrity above all*

[RND]

Would you care to state in detail and not in summary fashion the nature of:

1. The duty asserted to be owed; and
2. To whom the duty is owed; and
3. The nature of the breach:

Sure.

1. The duty owed.

I believe that as the fiduciary responsibility of an administor/moderator should include not passing on or devulging ANY information, thread content or member information to any other web forum for any reason. Whether or not the information posted on CF is considered public in nature and can be viewed by another that should not include taking information "off-site" for any reason. The difference is that in one case, the public information must be sought out whereas in the other case information is purposely gathered and disseminated elsewhere (off-site). The duty owed then involve having a level of integrity that cannot be questioned in any manner or form. This responsibility amongst any adminstrator or moderator should be considered a higher, not a lower threshold.

2. To whom the duty is owed.

Each and every member, administrator or moderator that posts here at CF.

For example, if certain information is being taken by an administrator to another board and posted there, without the knowledge of those to whom that information may apply, whether or not it is within the framework of what's allowed in the rules, it limits the ability of those to whom the information may apply from responding.

3. The nature of the breach

The nature of the breach is the ability now for any poster here to be able to question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator on the CF board with respect to thir duties and responsibilities.

Having any information leave this site, for any reason, and posted on another board, for whatever reason, can and has (in this case) call into question the overall integrity of how information is treated and respected by those of higher authority on this board, those administrators and moderators here at CF.

I believe greater respect for the information posted here should be shown by those that have already accepted a position here at CF that by nature carries a greater fiduciary resposibility than that regular members.

[I'ddie4him2]

BUT as a mod...once again..what about INTEGRITY? Is that such a foreign concept? As a matter of fact, I KNOW one almost crossed the line...like they had 'secret' info..how do I know? Cause it was ME they were talking about.

Notify their superior with a link to the posts so they can actually see text in black and white.
That way it CAN be looked into.

Otherwise this gets no where with he said she said.


posted @ 8:05 pm 3/26/2008

[I'ddie4him2]

friend, I have been in the works with this since LONG before Christmas. I am tired. Not 'going there' any more with this one mod. OR if it suits..go to IIDB ~elsewhere~ for an eye opener.

I have seen this before myself.
I used to be a member at iidb myself and stopped going back.
I got too mad at what I read nightly and realized it wasn't healthy for me, So, I simply stopped logging in.




posted @ 8:24 pm 3/26/2008

[FreeinChrist]

RND, I take it that you feel it is violating a rule and irresponsible of a staf person here to explain to another person at another site what it takes to be banned here? As in explaining that at 4 infractions, a person is banned for 30 days and at 8, permabanned?

As if so, do you think that information is confidential? And to explain this last question, I mean in a general way as you implied elsewhere, not specifics about a particular person.

[CaDan]

OH I realize. But no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room. INTEGRITY. I am sorry, but that is sorely lacking on a few mods that I know of...

If you hadn't attempted to game the system in the Armory, this problem could have been avoided.

[RND]

RND, are you familiar with IIDB? Because the two situations are nothing alike.

Vaguely.

Providing information available to all members and even guests is no violation of anything, trust, rules, or otherwise. It is just dispensing information.

No question. My questions have revolved around sending information gathered here and dispensing it elsewhere on the net.

As it turns out the reason for giving the info is that people from CARM who have ventured into the SDA area here are worried about getting banned for discussing theological issues.

The rules are clearly marked. Why should there be a need for providing advanced information to posters in another forum?

IE. one member who came here got a couple warnings--not infractions--and thought they were going to be banned.

So? That happened to me here in other sections of CF. Because I was ignorant about being able to defend myself a few of these posts turned into warnings against me. My fault for not knowing the rules. No staff member provided me any information about defending myself.

She was just clarifying that they were not in danger yet, and it is not that easy to get banned.

Who's she?

IIDB on the other hand contains a thread where people analyze CF happenings and politics, including moderator trends, etc. The accusation is that at times confidential information has been released.

I've seen that.

That is not what happened here.

I certainly never suggested that, not once.

Sophia posted public information in a public discussion.

I didn't see that either nor did I make any suggestion she did. All my posts were reletive to gathering more information.

And as for you not knowing what was shared--how do you not know? Did you look at the thread?

Nope, don't visit that vitirolic hole of a forum anymore.

There are no pm's at CARM, so whatever is posted is what there is.

I made no staements one way or the other regarding what may have been posted at CARM, I asked questions related to content here.

[SapphireAngel7]

Ok, clarification... it appears to have been provided several times, but given the random order of posts, you may not have seen it.

Public information...ie. anything posted on boards which can be read by anyone who chooses so to do, is public! Thus, it can be discussed and quoted anywhere, on this board or any other.
The rules and their application are not secret, and if they are being shared with people considering posting here, that must surely be a good thing.

Anything discussed or decided in private areas is private, and staff discussing that with anyone who does not have access to the area concerned is breaching confidentiality, and should be disciplined.

I hope that helps. :)


(And, as a member of IIDB, I have not seen anything confidential discussed there since I joined about 6 months ago :))
so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.

[RND]

I have a question.

Can a moderator take information posted here at CF and develuge that information on another posting board?

[synger]

According to the Confidentiality Rule (http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=42287342&postcount=10), staff cannot divulge specific information from reports or staff threads.

If something is posted in a public thread, though, there is no specific prohibition that I know of. Something public is public, and can be quoted or linked to like any other public information.

[synger]

It's a public thread. I don't think I'd be divulging anything secret by quoting something from that thread. In my opinion there isn't an expectation of privacy in a public thread, like you'd have with a PM, a staff thread, or a report thread.

However, if you think someone has been out of line, you can open a complaint thread in the Suggestions/Complaints (http://christianforums.com/f883-suggestion-complaint-box.html) forum or send a PM to the folks on the Reconciliation Team (http://christianforums.com/t6668902-reconciliation-team-members.html). The Reconciliation Team consists of non-moderation staff who review complaints against staff members and issues with the site, and try to help ameliorate them.

[Rep Daddy]

A public thread is even viewable my non members here so it is hardly private.

[SapphireAngel7]

But doesn't integrity mean anything? I know mods here that go to another board and run their mouths,..but of course, never mention names. LACK of integrity.

[RND]

But doesn't integrity mean anything? I know mods here that go to another board and run their mouths,..but of course, never mention names. LACK of integrity.

I think that's why I'm asking the question. It appears that there are no such rules in place, but devulging any information, whether public or not by a moderator seems to me to be a breach of duty.

To me it displays a complete lack of integrity which I would think would be something one would want in a moderator.

[mnphysicist]

Meta discussions, even those concerning board functionality and operations have always been allowed, provided such info is publically available.

[SapphireAngel7]

Meta discussions, even those concerning board functionality and operations have always been allowed, provided such info is publically available.
not talking about that kind of stuff..i am talking about mods that run their mouths about what they know about people here at CF on other boards. They talk about staff decisions...Go to IIDB and you see it rampant..and what their true colors are.

[RND]

Maybe something should be put in writing. Moderator behavior should be expected to always be above board and a greater example to those members who post here.

[SapphireAngel7]

Maybe something should be put in writing. Moderator behavior should be expected to always be above board and a greater example to those members who post here.
You would think so....but apparently...well..nuf said.

[Redeemed_Warrior]

not talking about that kind of stuff..i am talking about mods that run their mouths about what they know about people here at CF on other boards. They talk about staff decisions...Go to IIDB and you see it rampant..and what their true colors are.
sadly thats been happening for years :(

[SapphireAngel7]

sadly thats been happening for years :(
OH I realize. But no one wants to talk about the elephant in the room. INTEGRITY. I am sorry, but that is sorely lacking on a few mods that I know of...

[SapphireAngel7]

Divulging member information which is only available in the staff forums, on another board is a most serious matter. Staff decisions may or may not be. Ie, rule clarifications, and such are fine.... member info is not.
well, friend..you should check out the IIDB. I have had one mod talking about me over there..not using my name...but running her mouth all the same...and she is 'protected' by staff here for some reason.

[SapphireAngel7]

I used to enjoy poking said elephant personlly;)
Just gotta watch out when it pokes back:eek:
*former Cf Supervisor whom values Integrity above all*
I do too! I value it highly. I wish......never mind.

[Tonks]

Perhaps someone should start a thread in the S/C box where an actual link to the discussion can be provided. Otherwise this is rather academic as the answer is "it depends" per MNP's note above.

[RND]

Perhaps someone should start a thread in the S/C box where an actual link to the discussion can be provided. Otherwise this is rather academic as the answer is "it depends" per MNP's note above.

There should be a link listed in the first page of this discussion.

[CaDan]

*checking in*

[RND]

Perhaps someone should start a thread in the S/C box where an actual link to the discussion can be provided. Otherwise this is rather academic as the answer is "it depends" per MNP's note above.

The question arose here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45323992&postcount=63

It seems to me that this is a breach of fiduciary responsibility for someone entrusted with properly representing this board.

[CaDan]

Would you care to state in detail and not in summary fashion the nature of:

1. The duty asserted to be owed; and
2. To whom the duty is owed; and
3. The nature of the breach:

[RND]

Would you care to state in detail and not in summary fashion the nature of:

1. The duty asserted to be owed; and
2. To whom the duty is owed; and
3. The nature of the breach:

Sure.

1. The duty owed.

I believe that as the fiduciary responsibility of an administor/moderator should include not passing on or devulging ANY information, thread content or member information to any other web forum for any reason. Whether or not the information posted on CF is considered public in nature and can be viewed by another that should not include taking information "off-site" for any reason. The difference is that in one case, the public information must be sought out whereas in the other case information is purposely gathered and disseminated elsewhere (off-site). The duty owed then involve having a level of integrity that cannot be questioned in any manner or form. This responsibility amongst any adminstrator or moderator should be considered a higher, not a lower threshold.

2. To whom the duty is owed.

Each and every member, administrator or moderator that posts here at CF.

For example, if certain information is being taken by an administrator to another board and posted there, without the knowledge of those to whom that information may apply, whether or not it is within the framework of what's allowed in the rules, it limits the ability of those to whom the information may apply from responding. Furthermore, it calls into question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator in that members can not be 100% sure that what they post won't be taken and shared in other part of the web without their knowledge.



3. The nature of the breach

The nature of the breach is the ability now for any poster here to be able to question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator on the CF board with respect to thir duties and responsibilities.

Having any information leave this site, for any reason, and posted on another board, for whatever reason, can and has (in this case) call into question the overall integrity of how information is treated and respected by those of higher authority on this board, those administrators and moderators here at CF.

I believe greater respect for the information posted here should be shown by those that have already accepted a position here at CF that by nature carries a greater fiduciary resposibility than that regular members.

[synger]

not talking about that kind of stuff..i am talking about mods that run their mouths about what they know about people here at CF on other boards. They talk about staff decisions...Go to IIDB and you see it rampant..and what their true colors are.
If you see staff speaking about report decisions, and divulging information from staff threads and report threads, that is another matter entirely. That is explicitly against the confidentiality agreement that staff agree to, and can be grounds for disciplinary action.

However, the issue at hand seems to be not about someone posting confidential or private information that they could only get if they were on staff, but rather about someone posting information that any member has access to.

[SapphireAngel7]

If you see staff speaking about report decisions, and divulging information from staff threads and report threads, that is another matter entirely. That is explicitly against the confidentiality agreement that staff agree to, and can be grounds for disciplinary action.

However, the issue at hand seems to be not about someone posting confidential or private information that they could only get if they were on staff, but rather about someone posting information that any member has access to.
BUT as a mod...once again..what about INTEGRITY? Is that such a foreign concept? As a matter of fact, I KNOW one almost crossed the line...like they had 'secret' info..how do I know? Cause it was ME they were talking about.

[SapphireAngel7]

Notify their superior with a link to the posts so they can actually see text in black and white.
That way it CAN be looked into.

Otherwise this gets no where with he said she said.


posted @ 8:05 pm 3/26/2008
friend, I have been in the works with this since LONG before Christmas. I am tired. Not 'going there' any more with this one mod. OR if it suits..go to IIDB ~elsewhere~ for an eye opener.

[SapphireAngel7]

I have seen this before myself.
I used to be a member at iidb myself and stopped going back.
I got too mad at what I read nightly and realized it wasn't healthy for me, So, I simply stopped logging in.




posted @ 8:24 pm 3/26/2008
same here...personally I think if they are mods here and/or members/mods there...they should give ONE of them up. But shoot, what do I know about integrity. It is sadly lacking.

[RND]

Thanks for all your positive comments and input SapphireAngel7. Very nice to know that there is at least one person here that sees the inherant danger of unchecked and unmoderated posting.

[FreeinChrist]

RND, I take it that you feel it is violating a rule and irresponsible of a staff person here to explain to another person at another site what it takes to be banned here? As in explaining that at 4 infractions, a person is banned for 30 days and at 8, permabanned?

As if so, do you think that information is confidential? And to explain this last question, I mean in a general way as you implied elsewhere, not specifics about a particular person.

[The Princess Bride]

I can't say frankly. I'm asking questions in responce to another thread here at CF. It was alledged by one poster that a moderator posted information as to how long it takes to be 'banned' for posting here at CF.

The question arose here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=45323992&postcount=63

It seems to me that this is a breach of fiduciary responsibility for someone entrusted with properly representing this board.
Mods are allowed to inform members how long it takes to be "banned" that is common knowledge as far as I know.

What else is the problem with that? (I know with all these posts out of whack its hard to follow a convo, but I'm not entirely sure what it is you are complaining about....):sorry:

[CaDan]

Sure.

1. The duty owed.

I believe that as the fiduciary responsibility of an administor/moderator should include not passing on or devulging ANY information, thread content or member information to any other web forum for any reason. Whether or not the information posted on CF is considered public in nature and can be viewed by another that should not include taking information "off-site" for any reason. The difference is that in one case, the public information must be sought out whereas in the other case information is purposely gathered and disseminated elsewhere (off-site). The duty owed then involve having a level of integrity that cannot be questioned in any manner or form. This responsibility amongst any adminstrator or moderator should be considered a higher, not a lower threshold.

I fail to see a duty not to pass on publicly available information. Any time the information is viewed by someone it is, in effect, being taken "off-site" and deposited in the viewer's computer. We are not discussing a breach of confidentiality, whether implied or not.

Right now, I can look at your IP address. I can look at the email address you used to register at this site. I can look at all the warnings and infractions you have received (if any). With a small amount of effort, I can find every report ever made on one of your posts--even old archived ones. That information is non-public and to post it somewhere else would be a breach of a duty of confidentiality owed to you personally.

However, we are not discussing that fact pattern. We are discussing someone informing non-members of the rules and public policies of this site.

The duty to keep information confidential is imposed, I argue, not based upon a fiduciary relationship, but because of access to confidential information. I have a duty to keep things private because I know things. However, that duty is limited only to those things which are, in fact, private. I fail to see where this creates a fiduciary duty.

2. To whom the duty is owed.

Each and every member, administrator or moderator that posts here at CF.

For example, if certain information is being taken by an administrator to another board and posted there, without the knowledge of those to whom that information may apply, whether or not it is within the framework of what's allowed in the rules, it limits the ability of those to whom the information may apply from responding. Furthermore, it calls into question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator in that members can not be 100% sure that what they post won't be taken and shared in other part of the web without their knowledge.

Poppycock. I owe you no fiduciary duty whatsoever. I am not your fiduciary--I am not even your privy. I may owe LeeD's corporation some form of fiduciary duty, but that is an iffy proposition at best.


3. The nature of the breach

The nature of the breach is the ability now for any poster here to be able to question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator on the CF board with respect to thir duties and responsibilities.

Having any information leave this site, for any reason, and posted on another board, for whatever reason, can and has (in this case) call into question the overall integrity of how information is treated and respected by those of higher authority on this board, those administrators and moderators here at CF.

This has nothing to do with fiduciary duty at all.

I believe greater respect for the information posted here should be shown by those that have already accepted a position here at CF that by nature carries a greater fiduciary resposibility than that regular members.

The duty is not owed to you or to any individual poster. At best, a fiduciary duty is owed to a corporation neither of us has dealt with directly.

Let's just drop the "fiduciary" angle--that is going nowhere for you. On to the dispute itself less the legalities of the law of agency:

I'm having a really hard time understanding the outrage over telling non-members the publicly available rules and polices of this site. These are not and should not be secret. I have railed against secret rules and procedures at this site for years--other folks on Staff can confirm how much trouble I have caused about that. ;) This isn't even a case of "board warring" as alleged by SapphireAngel7.

I don't understand your complaint. I understand SA7's all too well and consider it petty.

[RND]

I fail to see a duty not to pass on publicly available information. Any time the information is viewed by someone it is, in effect, being taken "off-site" and deposited in the viewer's computer. We are not discussing a breach of confidentiality, whether implied or not.

Right now, I can look at your IP address. I can look at the email address you used to register at this site. I can look at all the warnings and infractions you have received (if any). With a small amount of effort, I can find every report ever made on one of your posts--even old archived ones. That information is non-public and to post it somewhere else would be a breach of a duty of confidentiality owed to you personally.

However, we are not discussing that fact pattern. We are discussing someone informing non-members of the rules and public policies of this site.

The duty to keep information confidential is imposed, I argue, not based upon a fiduciary relationship, but because of access to confidential information. I have a duty to keep things private because I know things. However, that duty is limited only to those things which are, in fact, private. I fail to see where this creates a fiduciary duty.



Each and every member, administrator or moderator that posts here at CF.

For example, if certain information is being taken by an administrator to another board and posted there, without the knowledge of those to whom that information may apply, whether or not it is within the framework of what's allowed in the rules, it limits the ability of those to whom the information may apply from responding. Furthermore, it calls into question the integrity of each and every administrator or moderator in that members can not be 100% sure that what they post won't be taken and shared in other part of the web without their knowledge.

Poppycock. I owe you no fiduciary duty whatsoever. I am not your fiduciary--I am not even your privy. I may owe LeeD's corporation some form of fiduciary duty, but that is an iffy proposition at best.




This has nothing to do with fiduciary duty at all.



The duty is not owed to you or to any individual poster. At best, a fiduciary duty is owed to a corporation neither of us has dealt with directly.

Let's just drop the "fiduciary" angle--that is going nowhere for you. On to the dispute itself less the legalities of the law of agency:

I disagree but let's move on.

I'm having a really hard time understanding the outrage over telling non-members the publicly available rules and polices of this site.

That's just it, we don't know what information was shared.


These are not and should not be secret. I have railed against secret rules and procedures at this site for years--other folks on Staff can confirm how much trouble I have caused about that. ;) This isn't even a case of "board warring" as alleged by SapphireAngel7.

It's not about 'secret rules' it's about how that information is transfered and disseminated by others.

I don't understand your complaint.

I've noticed.

I understand SA7's all too well and consider it petty.

Is that something you'd be willing to consider?

[CaDan]

That's just it, we don't know what information was shared.

It's not about 'secret rules' it's about how that information is transfered and disseminated by others.

These are two different claims. If you have evidence that confidential information was shared, bring it forward. Now.

As for the the claim that the means of transmission of information is wrong, you have presented not one scintilla of reasoning for it.

Are you seriously proposing a rule that CF Staffers may not discuss anything about CF anyplace other than CF? That is what it seems you are doing.

Methinks this dispute is really just a stalking horse for the underlying theological disputes running rampant in the SDA forum.

[RND]

These are two different claims. If you have evidence that confidential information was shared, bring it forward. Now.

I have never had such information, nor have I ever made such claims. I have been simply seeking clarification of what the rules are.

I provided a link to a thread whewre an admin readily admits posting "non-confidential" information posted on this thread on another forum board.

I have never made any accusations that "confidential" was shared with another board. I was merely looking for clarification.

As for the the claim that the means of transmission of information is wrong, you have presented not one scintilla of reasoning for it.

Other than I thought that there should be a higher standard here.

Are you seriously proposing a rule that CF Staffers may not discuss anything about CF anyplace other than CF? That is what it seems you are doing.

Nope, no suggestion has ever been made by me. I don't believe any staffer here at CF should be allowed to provide any information, whether public or not, as to how certain things may be determined or disseminated here at CF.

Methinks this dispute is really just a stalking horse for the underlying theological disputes running rampant in the SDA forum.

That may be, if I was having a theological dispute with someone, but since I'm not and having an issue with the type of information that may be shared on other forum boards I guess we can consider your point a non issue.

[CaDan]

Nope, no suggestion has ever been made by me. I don't believe any staffer here at CF should be allowed to provide any information, whether public or not, as to how certain things may be determined or disseminated here at CF.


"any information . . . about certain things."

What are "certain things"?

[tall73]

Thanks for all your positive comments and input SapphireAngel7. Very nice to know that there is at least one person here that sees the inherant danger of unchecked and unmoderated posting.

RND, are you familiar with IIDB? Because the two situations are nothing alike.

Providing information available to all members and even guests is no violation of anything, trust, rules, or otherwise. It is just dispensing information.

As it turns out the reason for giving the info is that people from CARM who have ventured into the SDA area here are worried about getting banned for discussing theological issues.

IE. one member who came here got a couple warnings--not infractions--and thought they were going to be banned. She was just clarifying that they were not in danger yet, and it is not that easy to get banned.

IIDB on the other hand contains a thread where people analyze CF happenings and politics, including moderator trends, etc. The accusation is that at times confidential information has been released.

That is not what happened here.

Sophia posted public information in a public discussion.

And as for you not knowing what was shared--how do you not know? Did you look at the thread? There are no pm's at CARM, so whatever is posted is what there is.

[tall73]

Nope, no suggestion has ever been made by me. I don't believe any staffer here at CF should be allowed to provide any information, whether public or not, as to how certain things may be determined or disseminated here at CF.



Synger put it best:

Something public is public, and can be quoted or linked to like any other public information.

[RND]

Synger put it best---public information is public.

That's true. However, not being familiar with the inner workings of what is considered public and what is or isn't allowed to be devulged is no crime. That's what this post was all about. Clarification and getting additional answers from other mods.

I'm doing exactly what is expected as a responsible poster.

[Mary_Magdalene]

well, friend..you should check out the IIDB. I have had one mod talking about me over there..not using my name...but running her mouth all the same...and she is 'protected' by staff here for some reason.

the reason is most staff here now are IIDBers....

the "new and improved" CF :sick:

and the ones who aren't don't have the kahoonas to stand up for what is right.. :sigh:

[Criada]

Ok, clarification... it appears to have been provided several times, but given the random order of posts, you may not have seen it.

Public information...ie. anything posted on boards which can be read by anyone who chooses so to do, is public! Thus, it can be discussed and quoted anywhere, on this board or any other.
The rules and their application are not secret, and if they are being shared with people considering posting here, that must surely be a good thing.

Anything discussed or decided in private areas is private, and staff discussing that with anyone who does not have access to the area concerned is breaching confidentiality, and should be disciplined.

I hope that helps. :)


(And, as a member of IIDB, I have not seen anything confidential discussed there since I joined about 6 months ago :))

[SapphireAngel7]

Ok, clarification... it appears to have been provided several times, but given the random order of posts, you may not have seen it.

Public information...ie. anything posted on boards which can be read by anyone who chooses so to do, is public! Thus, it can be discussed and quoted anywhere, on this board or any other.
The rules and their application are not secret, and if they are being shared with people considering posting here, that must surely be a good thing.

Anything discussed or decided in private areas is private, and staff discussing that with anyone who does not have access to the area concerned is breaching confidentiality, and should be disciplined.

I hope that helps. :)


(And, as a member of IIDB, I have not seen anything confidential discussed there since I joined about 6 months ago :))
so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.

[Criada]

so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.
No, gossiping and lying are not OK anywhere... but like all sins, Christians do occasionally commit them.


But... I think that sometimes our personal issues with others can make us see things that were not intended...

[SapphireAngel7]

No, gossiping and lying are not OK anywhere... but like all sins, Christians do occasionally commit them.


But... I think that sometimes our personal issues with others can make us see things that were not intended...
OH no, trust me Criada, I am very well aware of what this person is doing. so are others. TRUST me, it is intentional. AND it isn't 'occasionally' over there..it is rampant and disgusting. I was there for several thread roll overs...so I know what I am talking about. So, again, it is NOT occasional.

[Criada]

k, this is way off topic.. perhaps it could be discussed elsewhere (no pun intended!), but this thread is about a different issue.
:hug:

[SapphireAngel7]

OH I am SURE this conversation is going on ~Elsewhere~

[Redeemed_Warrior]

OH I am SURE this conversation is going on ~Elsewhere~
Yet it makes such good reading ;)

Cf staff don't even need to check the Cf staff forums to know staff business ;)

~E~ provides that service ^_^

[Criada]

As I said, please stay with the topic of the thread.

[CaDan]

How long ago was this?

[synger]

so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.

I think there is a real difference between "not forbidden" and "encouraged".

I actually agree with you that Christians should not gossip nor lie about other people. It makes me cringe whenever I see such blowups (and they are the issues that usually make me take a few days away from here to get my perspective back).

But to go from "Christians shouldn't" to "staff are forbidden to" is a long stretch. It's practically unenforceable. There is no official "honor code" that staff are held to that forbids them from such actions. And that seems to be the thrust of this particular question.

Should moderators be held to a higher standard? Well, like it or not, we are. Every post we make here is scrutinized in great detail. When we speak, even as members, there is a certain amount of "weight" that comes along with what we say. It is one of the things that most challenged me when I first became a mod, and it led at first to a strong decline in the number of non-staff posts I made. It was extremely intimidating.

However, if you are asking whether there is official disciplinary action that can be taken against moderators who gossip on other message boards using public information from this board... as far as I know, the answer is "no."

[SapphireAngel7]

I think there is a real difference between "not forbidden" and "encouraged".

I actually agree with you that Christians should not gossip nor lie about other people. It makes me cringe whenever I see such blowups (and they are the issues that usually make me take a few days away from here to get my perspective back).

But to go from "Christians shouldn't" to "staff are forbidden to" is a long stretch. It's practically unenforceable. There is no official "honor code" that staff are held to that forbids them from such actions. And that seems to be the thrust of this particular question.

Should moderators be held to a higher standard? Well, like it or not, we are. Every post we make here is scrutinized in great detail. When we speak, even as members, there is a certain amount of "weight" that comes along with what we say. It is one of the things that most challenged me when I first became a mod, and it led at first to a strong decline in the number of non-staff posts I made. It was extremely intimidating.

However, if you are asking whether there is official disciplinary action that can be taken against moderators who gossip on other message boards using public information from this board... as far as I know, the answer is "no."
I agree. Again, it goes back to integrity of the person. In some cases,t hat is severly lacking.

[tall73]

This arose from Sophia posting rules that were publicly available. The IIDB debate is a different one.

If the IIDB crowd is commenting on this it is likely because folks injected the debate about them into the topic, and they want to see what is said.

I really doubt if they care that some guy on CARM found out how many infractions it takes to get a ban.

[Mary_Magdalene]

Yet it makes such good reading ;)

Cf staff don't even need to check the Cf staff forums to know staff business ;)

~E~ provides that service ^_^

lol...

[SapphireAngel7]

the reason is most staff here now are IIDBers....

the "new and improved" CF :sick:

and the ones who aren't don't have the kahoonas to stand up for what is right.. :sigh:
alas, I have to agree. WEll said.

[Amoranemix]

I understand from this discussion that RND objects to staff members revealing certain public information outside this message board, but he doesn't explain what sort of information and why. I agree that certain public things would be inappropriate to discuss of site. I also think that certain secret things should be open to discussion off site.

Then there is the less vague case of SapphireAngel7 who is gossiped about by an unspecified staff member at IIDB. That illustrates that it is not only what information, or the level of secrecy of the area it comes from, but also how the information is presented. E.g quoting out of context of public information to damage someone's reputation would be inappropriate. It could be slander or libel. However, since the policy of this forum is that decisions are made at staff discretion, it would be a waste of time for an ordinary member to devise rules describing prohibitions and sanctions.

Inappropriate publication of information does not only happen off site. Someone can also be misrepresented on site. The problem occurs I think when information about someone is released in a location where the subject has no access. That can either be because the subject is simply unaware (s)he is being talked about (this forum being large) or because the area is secret. An off site location is merely an example of a place where the subject may be unaware (s)he is a topic of discussion or has no access to.

When I talk bad about people I usually want to mention them by name. However that may sometimes be inappropriate. I haven't yet established a code of conduct for myself on this issue so my behaviour is not thought out and inconsistent. Perhaps that could be a topic of discussion in the Ethics & Morality forum. When I criticise someone I mention them by name and if they are IMO not supposed to be aware I criticised them (e.g. because they did not participate in the thread), I inform them by PM. That however often feels awkward and thus I usually dispense of the PM and for that reason I often don't name them. However I view staff as public figures and am thus more inclined to criticise them by name without informing them.

Of course informing someone does not necessarily excuse you to gossip about them. They may be be inconvenienced to have to have to register on an obscure forum to be able to defend themselves, which would also cost time.

so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.Can you provide a name ? Can you provide a link ?

But doesn't integrity mean anything? I know mods here that go to another board and run their mouths,..but of course, never mention names. LACK of integrity.Why do you find it so natural they avoid mentioning names ?
Not mentioning a name can be a protection against disciplinary action.

Maybe something should be put in writing. Moderator behavior should be expected to always be above board and a greater example to those members who post here.Perhaps a code of conduct should be devised for staff. If not as rules it can act as guidelines. Otherwise every staff member is going to have his/her own opinion of what is appropriate and they will often be wrong.

well, friend..you should check out the IIDB. I have had one mod talking about me over there..not using my name...but running her mouth all the same...and she is 'protected' by staff here for some reason.What does that protection entail ?

Perhaps someone should start a thread in the S/C box where an actual link to the discussion can be provided. Otherwise this is rather academic as the answer is "it depends" per MNP's note above.I don't have access to the S/C box, so I prefer the relevant information to be posted here.

I don't understand your [RND] complaint. I understand SA7's all too well and consider it petty.Why is that ?

CaDan 40 : I'm having a really hard time understanding the outrage over telling non-members the publicly available rules and polices of this site.
RND 41 : That's just it, we don't know what information was shared.
Do you object to staff sharing information on another site without making public on this site what information (s)he shared ?

DaDan : I don't understand your complaint.
RND : I've noticed.
He is not the only one.

CaDan 42 : As for the the claim that the means of transmission of information is wrong, you have presented not one scintilla of reasoning for it.
RND 43 : Other than I thought that there should be a higher standard here.
What standard are you using as reference ?

Tall73 45 : As it turns out the reason for giving the info is that people from CARM who have ventured into the SDA area here are worried about getting banned for discussing theological issues.
RND 12 : The rules are clearly marked. Why should there be a need for providing advanced information to posters in another forum?
CARM being Christian Apologetics Research Ministry and SDA being Seventh-day Adventist.
What are marked rules ?
Does there need to be a need for something in order to do it ?

IIDB on the other hand contains a thread where people analyze CF happenings and politics, including moderator trends, etc. The accusation is that at times confidential information has been released. I think I was directed to such a thread once, but I can't find it anymore. Can you show it please ?

The rules and their application are not secret, and if they are being shared with people considering posting here, that must surely be a good thing.Some rules are secret. I don't know about their application. I agree though these secret rules should probably be shared.

SapphireAngel7 50 :so gossiping and lying etc. about fellowbelieves is ok and encouraged? I was a member there too...IN fact, there is a certain mod here that goes there and hints at secret info on ME that she knows about, as a 'vent'. It got real old, so I scrambled my password there and have no desire to go back there. What I saw there was disgusting and very disturbing..the christian mods would act/talk that way...and do this.
synger 58 : I actually agree with you that Christians should not gossip nor lie about other people. It makes me cringe whenever I see such blowups (and they are the issues that usually make me take a few days away from here to get my perspective back).
I want to stress that that limitation only applies to Christians. Sceptics are of course allowed to gossip and lie about other people. :P

But to go from "Christians shouldn't" to "staff are forbidden to" is a long stretch. It's practically unenforceable. There is no official "honor code" that staff are held to that forbids them from such actions
. And that seems to be the thrust of this particular question.
Perhaps there should be.

This arose from Sophia posting rules that were publicly available. The IIDB debate is a different one.I see no reason to limit the discussion to the unclear complaints of RND.

[synger]

The confidentiality agreement of staff extends to discussions on IIDB as well as CARM. We are not allowed to discuss private information in public places.

I have not seen evidence that there are breaches of confidentiality on other message boards. I've seen people discuss public threads, and post links. But not private staff issues.

[Redeemed_Warrior]

The confidentiality agreement of staff extends to discussions on IIDB as well as CARM. We are not allowed to discuss private information in public places.

I have not seen evidence that there are breaches of confidentiality on other message boards. I've seen people discuss public threads, and post links. But not private staff issues.
They must have Removed that mole from staff then, Used to be common place

Former Staff are not idiots we still remember what went on back in our times of service to CF

It is what caused many of us to leave in disgust

its also the reason I have denied 100+ "Return to staff" Requests from Cf staff and Admins

[synger]

I am not disagreeing that in the past there have been some serious breaches of confidentiality. That is, in part, why the current staff confidentiality agreement is so broad.

My question was if folks are seeing recent breaches of confidentiality. If so, then senior staff need to be made aware of them. We can't do anything if we don't know about it.

The issue in this discussion, however, does not seem to be about recent confidentiality breaches, but rather about staff posting publicly-available information on other boards.

[ChrisBot]

I have never breached confidentiality.

Do you love Jesus?

[CaDan]

Oh, Chrisbot. Come on. We know better.

[ChrisBot]

Come on?

Where do you want to go?

[CaDan]

Are we there yet?

[Rep Daddy]

If you see staff speaking about report decisions, and divulging information from staff threads and report threads, that is another matter entirely. That is explicitly against the confidentiality agreement that staff agree to, and can be grounds for disciplinary action.



Does this include information from CF PMs?