"Just let them Froth" Topic

Yes well said Bandit, it is what I was trying to convey to him last night, but you have
stated it more eloquent than I did by far. It is how we all feel.

Regards
James

Italian revolutionary, space station security chief, and a delicious pastry? Talk about being well-rounded.

Well said Bandit, if anything the reactions on here have done more to highlight the issues than anything posted on Frothers.

Back to the OFM's OP:

In other words, pretend they do not exist.

I don't think burying your head in the sand is the answer. When injustices have been perpetrated against you, you must fight back. Bill found evidence that certain TMP members were involved in inflammatory posts about him and his employees on another forum and decided to do something about it. While I'm not a Frother and never even heard of this development until recently, I'm in Bill's corner on this one.

I remember when Bill introduced one of his new assistant editors (I forgot which but it doesn't matter) someone immediately posted the question if he slept with her. WTH kind of question is that???!!! The only thing I'm surprised with is that it took Bill so long to finally push back.

If untrue he reports it to the ISP, who are required to take action.

Sock puppet accounts are legal by your rules and you've even encouraged them at times so I don't see how they can be good Monday through Thursday but bad on Friday if you get my meaning. Democracy can't be good all the time but bad when a country elects someone we don't like. It might be inconvenient but either you are for or against democracy and similarly for or against sock puppets.

Sock puppets in general are allowed. Banned users returning via sock puppets is not allowed. Trolls are never welcome.

Many? Really? You've banned / locked / whatever "many" accounts that turned out to be just regular members, i.e. friendly fire. That right there should tell you that the methods used were ineffective and harmful.

Not really. If there's a question, I might lock an account and PM the person – if they seem reasonable, they get unlocked. Quick and easy.

Yep, one line with no explanation mixed in with all the other news of the day on Wednesday. On Thursday there was an explanation without context which didn't help much more since many of us had no idea what the heck "drive by" was supposed to mean or why this was occurring. That wasn't useful to many of us and being basic members we aren't even in a position to post at that time to inquire of the general populous as to what it means. I realize a PM can be sent to you but that begs the question as to why it wasn't made more clear and prominent in the first place.

Actually, the announcement was in the regular editorial spot, not mixed with the Hobby News. Making the editorial section more prominent might be a good idea, though most editorial announcements aren't that exciting.

Or the other side has just realized they don't need to aggressively screw with TMP because after a small amount of disruption TMP screws with itself.

Well, it's gotten quiet here, but Frothers is getting close to 500 pages…

Look, hopefully this all goes away but the "solutions" applied to this just demonstrated that if some random group of people on the internet get frustrated with you, they can convince you very easily to do harm to your own website and community without much effort on their part. Make up some rumors apparently and they can get you to respond, create a couple fake accounts and post some pot stirring comments or threads and you'll ensure it impacts the entire user base of TMP.

I think this was a fairly unusual situation. Normally, if someone is doing a drive-by at night, we can just delete it in the morning, no harm done. In the case of a privacy attack, however, they've done damage even if the post only stays up for a few hours. If this issue concerns you, feel free to start a new topic to discuss alternate policies, I'm always open to suggestions.

If this was a "flame war" as you call it, then they won, cause they redirected all your energy and a lot of this communities attention towards their agenda. In the future I hope should such thing either continue or happen again, more restraint is used and perhaps the damage can be more contained.

Does anyone "win" a flame war? How would you keep score? Some people were upset. Others were entertained. A few people changed sides. Life goes on.

Just as an aside, where is TMP 4.0? I recall the push for supporting memberships in 2013 was to hire more help to push out 4.0.

To clarify, the main purpose of hiring staff is to take workload off me, so that I have the time to bring TMP 4.0 to pass.

After 19 years of running TMP solo, working with staff has definitely been a learning experience! Of course, it has added extra burdens of administration and training to my load (although Editor Hebber is now training a newbie!). I also underestimated how complicated TMP is! We're still in the transitional phase of getting fully staffed, trained, and the tasks handed over to the "next generation."

The only "improvement" has been the Ignore feature (ahem) and all the squabbling, drama, and bugs associated with that.

That was, unfortunately, an improvement to TMP 3.0 base code.

Granted, it seems at least supporting membership money has been going to improve a website, even if not this website. :p

Definitely not true. You shouldn't listen to gossip.

Fair enough.

Bill,

Several times in various threads you said there were attacks on privacy. So what privacy attack actually occurred?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Why was ShrapNells post deleted? It seemed quire reasonable and his query about how to contact you after his original account (as Ensign I think) was locked seemed valid.

Why was ShrapNells post deleted?

Banned members are not allowed to start new accounts. He also invaded the privacy of our editors.

Also, as far as I know, even banned members can send a PM to an editor.

His query about how to contact you after his original account (as Ensign I think) was locked seemed valid.

My email address is freely available: editor@theminiaturespage.com

So what privacy attack actually occurred?

I'm not sure I understand your quection. Are you asking for a list of all the drive-bys?

Bill,

I'm not sure I understand your quection. Are you asking for a list of all the drive-bys?

You've said there was a privacy attack, I'm asking what that attack was, I'm not asking for you to repost it so I can read it but what type of information was posted, where was such information obtained, what causes the attack to be categorized as a "privacy attack"?

He also invaded the privacy of our editors.

How? According to his last post which you deleted, all the information he cited and obtained was publicly available. Is this untrue? If he obtained non-public information I am curious how he went about getting it… if he obtained public information then I'm confused how it can be a privacy attack.

Cheers,

The Bandit

what causes the attack to be categorized as a "privacy attack"?

Revealing information about someone in their workplace which they do not wish to have known. People do not lose their right to privacy simply by accepting a job.

According to his last post which you deleted, all the information he cited and obtained was publicly available. Is this untrue? If he obtained non-public information I am curious how he went about getting it… if he obtained public information then I'm confused how it can be a privacy attack.

Let's say that I'm somehow able to dig up some information about you, information that you would rather not disclose. For instance, maybe you dress as Spiderman on the weekends. Would it be proper behavior for me to go to your workplace, and tell everyone what I found out about you?

Bill,

Let's say that I'm somehow able to dig up some information about you, information that you would rather not disclose. For instance, maybe you dress as Spiderman on the weekends. Would it be proper behavior for me to go to your workplace, and tell everyone what I found out about you?

There is a difference between "me not wanting it known" and the information being private. Essentially I'm asking if it was private information, how the heck was it obtained? If it was obtained from resources in the public space – how could it be private? The post I read here prior to its deletion claimed it was found on a public Facebook page and from on these forums… That is the opposite of private.

So I dress like Spiderman on weekends – out in public, at a mall for instance or in my front yard visible from the street. And someone sees me and then comes to work and says, "Hey I saw Bandit dressed like Spiderman on Saturday." That isn't a violation of my privacy. It might be in poor taste for them to tell people but it isn't a privacy issue.

Let's say they publish my phone number on a website – which I have given out to dozens of businesses and individuals – also not a breach of privacy because I've given that information out to a general audience.

But for a change of pace, let's say they peak in my windows while I'm at home and realize I wander around my house dressed as Spiderman and they tell everyone that – that is a breach of my privacy – not a criminal act in the US (maybe the peaking in the windows but not the telling people) but it does breach my privacy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

There privacy was ended the day they posted on the internet there is no privacy in
www land it is public domain.
If different then show me were it says its law on the internet.

There privacy was ended the day they posted on the internet there is no privacy in www land it is public domain.
If different then show me were it says its law on the internet.

That is what confuses me. I post something on the internet, someone finds it and reposts it. That may be inconvenient to me, it may be upsetting to me, I don't see how it is a privacy issue.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit – This is post right here on TMP under profiles tell me that isn't a breach of privacy…
down right disturbing, asking an employee questions like that…

TMP link

General Brock,

Bandit – This is post right here on TMP under profiles tell me that isn't a breach of privacy…
down right disturbing, asking an employee questions like that…

I don't know if it is disturbing, it is certainly awkward and reads like it was scripted (no I am not claiming it was scripted, I'm saying it reads that way which is to say in the scheme of interview quality it is low). The purpose of the questions is obviously to address all these "rumors" but I still don't see how that does anything but give the rumors more air time.

I do think it is kinda wack that Bill is telling us this is all in defense of an employee's privacy when an HR professional would never allow most of those questions to be asked (in the US) due to concerns over potential legal actions by the employee.

On another website, they say that if it is on the internet, then it is public knowledge. Do you agree?
The reason I used a different name was to keep my personal life private, while sharing ideas or educating people to wake up and give them knowledge about dealing with life on the right path. I wanted to inspire other people from my life story. I wish those people would respect my privacy here on TMP, though.

This is the point I disagree with, it is akin to me saying: "I did something in a public place but tried to hide that it was me by wearing a mask." OK, fair enough, but if someone discovered it was me that isn't an invasion of privacy… it just means that something I did in a public place, well, is public despite that I didn't want it to be.

On that other website, some say that your blog articles were pornography. What do you say?
I did talk about sex, but that does not make it pornography! I was sharing and educating the readers. What I wrote was for my Filipino community, not for Western men.

This is also obviously a misunderstanding of the realities of the internet. "I wrote X for audience A but audience B could still access it because, it is on the internet, I don't think audience B should be able to talk about it."

Well, that is nice, but it isn't reality, reality is that it was posted in a public place. This is akin to saying when I shout something in a mall (i.e. the internet) but only certain people were supposed to hear it and everyone else was supposed to ignore it and never repeat it. That makes no sense.

Cheers,

The Bandit

There is a difference between "me not wanting it known" and the information being private. Essentially I'm asking if it was private information, how the heck was it obtained? If it was obtained from resources in the public space – how could it be private? The post I read here prior to its deletion claimed it was found on a public Facebook page and from on these forums… That is the opposite of private.

The post did not source its claims, so I can't answer that.

Just because you can find something on the internet, doesn't mean it should be publicized in someone's workplace against that person's wishes.

That isn't a violation of my privacy. It might be in poor taste for them to tell people but it isn't a privacy issue.

It is a violation of your privacy in the workplace.

There privacy was ended the day they posted on the internet there is no privacy in
www land it is public domain.
If different then show me were it says its law on the internet.

Even if you can establish that it is posted on the internet – which you haven't done – it is my policy that the editors' privacy will not be violated here in their workplace. That is what I have been advised is correct procedure, and I also believe it is the right thing to do.

…tell me that isn't a breach of privacy…
down right disturbing, asking an employee questions like that…

She was told that she could refuse to answer any question she was uncomfortable with.

Well, that is nice…

Yes. It's the right thing to do.

Bill,

Look, apparently you define privacy as, "anything I want people to quit talking about, even if I brought it up". That isn't what privacy is but sure, whatever. I began posting on these threads related to the Frothers because of how incessant they've become and I was frustrated that you were perpetuating them and – not that it was your intent – encouraging them by your actions.

What I understood was that the Frothers and you got into some sort of dispute, it apparently included some woman who works for you who lives in the South Pacific. It resulted in you taking the stance that you were going to bring it up on TMP. I still don't get what that accomplished. If someone on the Frothers website posts nasty things about me… I am not going to give it a broader audience by bringing it up here or more air time by addressing it in long form. That's my perspective.

You said you locked the accounts of "many" TMP members who turned out not to be 'bad guys' but then when I cited "many" as an indicator of how badly your response was working and you replied it "wasn't that many". OK, sure, I was just going off what you'd said and you'd said "many".

I can tell that our conversation isn't going anywhere. Some number of people who were happy being TMP members before are less happy now and some who were paying for memberships quit and some commercial sponsors got pushed away by your actions as well. But you're sure that what you did was the right thing and the right way. Sure. As I've said, it is your sandbox, I'm not trying to win a fight with you, I was trying to help you see that there were contradictions and detriments in how you did what you did, that isn't the act of an enemy, it is the act of a friend and a sympathizer.

Just please realize that I, and likely many others, are not being critical of you because we want you and TMP to fail but because we want you and TMP to succeed.

Cheers,

The Bandit

The very last sentence… Bingo…

His query about how to contact you after his original account (as Ensign I think) was locked seemed valid.

My email address is freely available: editor@theminiaturespage.com

OK, I've received his email, but I really don't see the point in answering his questions when he says that he won't believe me anyway!

Look, apparently you define privacy as, "anything I want people to quit talking about, even if I brought it up". That isn't what privacy is but sure, whatever.

Then I think you've missed the whole point. It's never been about my privacy. It's about protecting the privacy of people who merely work here, who should not be the target of cyberstalkers and armchair detectives and internet psychologists just because of where they work.

You said you locked the accounts of "many" TMP members who turned out not to be 'bad guys' but then when I cited "many" as an indicator of how badly your response was working and you replied it "wasn't that many". OK, sure, I was just going off what you'd said and you'd said "many".

No, I said that many of those who had locked accounts had already been unlocked. You have confused this into a statement that there have been many locked accounts, which is not what I said.

Some number of people who were happy being TMP members before are less happy now and some who were paying for memberships quit and some commercial sponsors got pushed away by your actions as well.

And some people became Supporting Members. While every member or advertiser which leaves is regrettable, there has not been a significant loss in terms of total numbers. We're actually up in terms of Supporting Members, but maybe we'll see some impact later if people choose not to renew.

I know I should worry about that sort of thing more, but my philosophy has always been to make a great website, and everything else will fall into place. I'm an optimist. TMP still has a bright future ahead of it. We have a good community, and I'm proud of my staff. Together, we plenty plenty of room to grow.

There privacy was ended the day they posted on the internet there is no privacy in
www land it is public domain.
If different then show me were it says its law on the internet.

Thousands of copyright lawyers and many federal judges disagree with you on that one. In fact reposting copyrighted work (or links to pirated materials) without permission is a DH offense here. My master's thesis is online, but that doesn't make it public domain.

That is what confuses me. I post something on the internet, someone finds it and reposts it. That may be inconvenient to me, it may be upsetting to me, I don't see how it is a privacy issue.

It is a privacy issue when you ask an employer to disclose information about an employee. The Editor is their boss, not a friend, not a random stranger, but an employer. If this was a discussion in meatspace with a physical office, the Editor would be telling you to pound sand, talk to his lawyer, or come back with a warrant. Why should this be any different?

Bill,

Then I think you've missed the whole point. It's never been about my privacy.

That wasn't what I was indicating.

The point as I see it has been:

Just please realize that I, and likely many others, are not being critical of you because we want you and TMP to fail but because we want you and TMP to succeed.

You've responded to a lot of criticism on this topic as though the critic was an enemy or adversary, I'm trying to tell you, a lot of your critics are your friends and that is why they have been offering criticism, because they are offering it as help.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Rebelyell2006,

Thousands of copyright lawyers and many federal judges disagree with you on that one. In fact reposting copyrighted work (or links to pirated materials) without permission is a DH offense here. My master's thesis is online, but that doesn't make it public domain.

If I copied sections of your master's thesis without citation, that would be plagiarism, that is not illegal (at least in the US).

If I copied sections of your master's thesis with citation, that would also not be illegal.

If your master's thesis is copyrighted, unlikely that such applies but sure… then I would potentially be committing an illegal act depending on what I did with the information.

Referencing your master's thesis would not be illegal in any of these cases.

We were talking about privacy. That is not the same as public domain or copyright or plagiarism. Also there isn't a right to privacy from private citizens (in the US).

That said, do I think private parties (i.e. you for instance) should post private information about me? No, but it isn't illegal (in the US).

I *think* General Brock's point was that the internet is international and forum postings by private individuals are not copyrighted and even if it were illegal somewhere to quote or reference something I said on a forum it is likely not legally enforceable criminal violation across national boundaries so all this is really bluster.

What Bill has said is that someone did something he didn't like and he responded in various ways. What I've said is I believe his responses could have better addressed the issue both to accomplish his aims and to reduce the negative collateral impacts.

It is a privacy issue when you ask an employer to disclose information about an employee. The Editor is their boss, not a friend, not a random stranger, but an employer. If this was a discussion in meatspace with a physical office, the Editor would be telling you to pound sand, talk to his lawyer, or come back with a warrant. Why should this be any different?

I'm not arguing with Bill declining to provide information about an employee. Actually I've been advocating that he shouldn't have addressed the issue in as much detail as he did by giving out so much information about his employee as he did.

What I said and you quoted as that:

I post something on the internet, someone finds it and reposts it. That may be inconvenient to me, it may be upsetting to me, I don't see how it is a privacy issue.

That doesn't involve the employer [Bill] disclosing *anything*.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit, the fact that someone posted rumors online isn't the privacy issue being discussed. The privacy issue is that people are asking the Editor for confirmation and/or comment.

If your master's thesis is copyrighted, unlikely that such applies but sure… then I would potentially be committing an illegal act depending on what I did with the information.

It is indeed copyrighted. And "public domain" is a reference to copyright law.

Bandit, the fact that someone posted rumors online isn't the privacy issue being discussed. The privacy issue is that people are asking the Editor for confirmation and/or comment.

That isn't what Bill [The Editor] posted in response to me, he said that there were "privacy attacks" being waged here [TMP].

He also called those "privacy attacks" rumors at various points.

For my part I have discouraged Bill from addressing these "rumors" even to the extent he has.

Cheers,

The Bandit

It is indeed copyrighted. And "public domain" is a reference to copyright law.

Referencing things I read in it isn't a copyright infraction. Yes public domain is a copyright term, I don't know why General Brock said that but your master's thesis isn't what is in question and our postings on an internet forum are not protected from reference in the by law (in the US).

There is no reason I can't say, "Joe-Smoe said he loves tomatoes on thus-and-such-website." There is nothing illegal about that.

Cheers,

The Bandit

And for your listening pleasure

YouTube link

I think I said www – world wide web is public domain for everyone to use and things that are post or written are not subject to protection. Hackers will make damn sure of that.

I don't see a problem here. Maybe the privacy Bill's protecting doesn't fit the strict legal definition of 'privacy,' but so what? They're still information his employees do not want to be made public any further. Just because they're already 'public knowledge' by the legal definition doesn't mean they have to be repeated over and over. TMP isn't bound by such legal intricacies. My house, my rules. If Bill wants to clamp down on any further dissemination of such information to protect his employees, he is certainly within his rights.

Arguing the finer points of the law makes for good entertainment but doesn't change anything.

28mm Fanatik,

Maybe the privacy Bill's protecting doesn't fit the strict legal definition of 'privacy,' but so what?

Or any practical or logical definition… that was really a sideline though (in my mind) as the real issue was:

If Bill wants to clamp down on any further dissemination of such information on his employees, he is certainly within his rights.

At least I have not said otherwise. What I've said is that I think the manner in which he has done so was contrary to the community's interests and in-so-much as he cares about the community, his own.

Cheers,

The Bandit

At least I have not said otherwise.

No you did not. And I believe you have Bill's best interests in mind.

What I've said is that I think the manner in which he has done so was contrary to the community's interests and in-so-much as he cares about the community, his own.

Fair enough. I think Bill's doing his best in balancing the interests of his employees and the TMP community. It is a difficult task the outcome of which will not please everyone, but that's the way it is.

Peace,

28mm Fanatik

Well I can't keep quiet any longer. What has been said here is….well…..quite frankly horrendous.

Who said that Bourbon biscuits are good for a dunking?

Jammie dodgers, now they are good for dunking. I do admit they go soggy very rapidly so you have to be quick. But by far a superior biscuit for dunking.

My only compliant is when you open a packet with a good cup of tea. You find that the numbers soon start dwindling very quickly.

I dunk Oreos in milk.

When I was younger I would dunk peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in chocolate milk.

link

If I copied sections of your master's thesis without citation, that would be plagiarism, that is not illegal (at least in the US).

But it is regarded as completely unacceptable behaviour. I remember having this hammered into me as an elementary school kid through junior high, high school and on into university. Surely this is still taught?

Plagiarism is seen as extremely unethical. People who are caught doing so are ridiculed and depending on their profession, disgraced.

Guf

Green Feather,

It is still seen as extremely unethical. People who are caught doing so are ridiculed and depending on their profession, disgraced.

No argument there, but he was saying that it was illegal (in the US) which it is not.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Gotcha, understood.

Guf

It's not criminal, but it's certainly illegal.

BTW here's a Merriam-Webster definition of 'privacy':

1 b : freedom from unauthorized intrusion <one's right to privacy>

Note that it's quite simple, elegant and broad, not subject to being legally nit-picked apart or allows for any 'clarification.'

Link: link

Wow. He just joined recently,felt like he knows enough about the subject to comment in 1 post and now has 1 Stifle and 1 Ignore.

When I was younger I would dunk peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in chocolate milk.

My god, that sounds amazing.

No argument there, but he was saying that it was illegal (in the US) which it is not.

Depending on how it was plagiarized, it would be. Reproduction (in part or whole) of copyrighted material without permission from copyright holder, in a way that does not pass a fair usage test, would be illegal.

Wow. He just joined recently,felt like he knows enough about the subject to comment in 1 post and now has 1 Stifle and 1 Ignore.

Who's that?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Dan Gao: It's not criminal, but it's certainly illegal.

I think Dan was trying to say that plagiarism isn't criminal because it won't put you in jail, but it's certainly illegal if the material is copyrighted.

Right, Dan?

Can't believe someone stifled and ignored him for this in his virgin post. Don't sweat it, Dan, I take my stifles and ignores as badges of honor.

I think that is happening to alot of those who have just joined and then voice their opinions in the recent threads on this subject.Nice to see someone else out of the 17 members from Liechtenstein who hasn't had his account locked.

Wow. That is wack.

Cheers,

The Bandit

In the words of Will Durant;

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.

The Frothers may be playing their part, but the TMP management can only blame itself for what is going on. Too much burying of heads in the sand, too many instances of avoiding legitimate questions, too many bizarre management decisions, too many inconsistant Doghousings, too many knee-jerk locked accounts…..

The latest drama is just wierd. It could be time to follow Sparker out the door.