"The latest member????....." Topic

Auschwitzerland?…..

Hmmmm…..seems a bit suggestive to me.

Pretty pathetic really. It seems that TMP is attracting trolls from the shallow end of the gene pool now. Has the more intelligent troll (oxymoron I know) begun to die out? Are they that allergic to self imposed irrelevance? Inquiring minds and all that…

It might be Porkman, aka Bronze Goat, aka Wolf's Lair, aka etc. You may or not remember the mess a few years ago when some ass wanted hints on modeling crematoria. That was him.
Porkman was commenting recently on gaming "partisan sweeps", with some German units whose name I can't be bothered to remember.
Dear Editor in Chief locked his account over the weekend. Good job, even if the reason was only "formerly banned member returning".

Interestingly…
A little bird told me that someone on Frothers is taking credit for doing some 10 second heavy lifting Googling to track this down and alert DEiC. Although their motives may be suspect, I cannot but applaud the results. Good job for you too, if true.

Or maybe it isn't him after all! It could just be one of the Usual Suspects.
Or not.

Other "new members" from same source:

stormfront 4life
Holocaustic Soda

He's masking his IP address, no way to trace him.

Could be Andrew May, as he's been behind:

Agnxsjkbdgv
Voter of Polls*
All roads lead to here
Captain obvious
testing times
Andrew Maybe
Virtue 53
Riflematic

* the Frothers are excited because being banned doesn't prevent them from voting in TMP polls

Or maybe Michael Stockin – his latest account is "Michael Stockin" with an email address of truth@angelbarracks.co.uk

Bill, publishing Mike's email address there violates your privacy policy, so you might want to edit that post.

Well if TMP champion stopped going over there to stir things up then maybe things could settle down. This tit for tat sniping is very tiresome.

This tit for tat sniping is very tiresome.

Absolutely. I accept the editors have to zap the regular trolls but can't we just leave them to it?

I actually come here for wargaming.

Violating your own privacy policy is not clever, you would be complaining if he had done it to you.
If I wanted to see this sort of ridiculous behaviour I would go see my grandkids, they have the excuse of being under the age of five as a mitigating factor.

Yeah very poor show and no excuse for it.

Also Bill there are members over at 19th Century discussion you should respond to it might do TMP some good.

Bill, publishing Mike's email address there violates your privacy policy, so you might want to edit that post.

It was used in an attack on our website, so I have no obligation to protect privacy.

Well if TMP champion stopped going over there to stir things up then maybe things could settle down.

TMP Champion could be anyone, including another Frother just stirring the pot. Could even be multiple people. All I know is that it isn't me.

Never thought it was you Bill.

"It was used in an attack on our website, so I have no obligation to protect privacy."

Really? From what you posted there he used his real name and an email address that was clearly attributable to him. How on earth is that an"attack"????? Or do we give Mike the prize for the most inept pseudonym ever created?

If you are going to have a privacy policy that protects individual's data up to the point that you perceive they have attacked you and from that point on you reserve the right to disclose whatever you wish then surely that is something that needs to be writ large so that members are under no illusions as to how secure – or not – their information is.

Posting his email address like that is REALLY not cool.

I imagine it violates data protection if you do not have his permission? Plus you may have unwittingly allowed spambots to pick up on that address.

And is signing up to a website really an attack?

I understand your frustration with Frothers, but I don't understand this apparent vendetta against Mike and Angel Barracks. You should deal with it over on Frothers, not repeatedly harass Mike here, where he can't respond.

Plus, there are plenty of other disgruntled ex-members out there other than AB and Andrew May. Why single them out?

Porkman is a prime candidate. Unless you are in contact with him behind the scenes?

I have never had any feeling that AB would be that kind of guy, this vendetta against him is really very odd

Well that's not what I expected to see at this early hour, I'd assumed this would be all about the freedom of speech/holocaust denial debate going on here at the moment!

With the freedom of speech policy currently in place on TMP the Editor should at least be allowed to defend himself before being judged, just as he has given Michael Stockin the freedom to defend himself.

I can see no valid excuse for publishing someones email address on line especially in a post criticising them. Clear implicit encouragement for online attacks and abuse.
Bill says the IP address is masked for the accounts he first mentions which, if I understand him correctly, means that any link to Mr AB is mearly a theory with no proof.
MrAB on the other hand should just walk away from this train wreck and hopefully avoid prolonging this particular piece of stupidity any longer

I can see no valid excuse for publishing someones email address on line especially in a post criticising them. Clear implicit encouragement for online attacks and abuse.

Since Michael owns that domain, you can assume that anything @angelbarracks.co.uk will reach him – truth@angelbarracks.co.uk, lies@angelbarracks.co.uk, troll@angelbarracks.co.uk, etc. No privacy has been breached.

Bill says the IP address is masked for the accounts he first mentions which, if I understand him correctly, means that any link to Mr AB is mearly a theory with no proof.

Your conclusion is incorrect. This is the email account used to verify the account.

Perhaps a moderator could tell me why many of my posts have been deleted?

And would it not have been more prudent to leave Andrew May 1's comments in place so that, following your own advice, they could be refuted?

I feel strongly that it is better to let these views be expressed so they can be debated and refuted.

TMP link

One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.
- Salman Rushdie

Bill, you claimed the account had been used in an "attack" and hence you said "I have no obligation to protect privacy" so the question as to exactly how private a member's details are if you should decide that they have "attacked" you is still open.

And, to be honest, the fact that it went to his domain is pretty much irrelevant. Maybe in that case you are 100% sure that "privacy has not been breached". But what about the next time? Who makes that call? More importantly, who is going to be _responsible_ for making that call? Because if they get it wrong the (possibly) legal ramifications could be significant. Updating your policy and letting us know that our details are only as safe as you want them to be might actually be a smart move looking forward.

Perhaps a moderator could tell me why many of my posts have been deleted?

Forum policy is that when a post is removed, the posts which commented on that post are also removed. This is done so that the discussion remains readable.

And would it not have been more prudent to leave Andrew May 1's comments in place so that, following your own advice, they could be refuted?

First, he's a previously banned member, so he has no right to speak here.

Second, he brings up the same old things we've already discussed. Yes, I also run a blog where Philippine transgendered individuals can share their experiences with a transgendered audience. Yes, they are paid for their articles. No, I do not dictate the content. Yes, they sometimes talk about their past experiences. They do not do so in a graphic manner. All of us who work on the blog are proud of the website, and look forward to continuing our work in the future.

Thank you Bill for being so forthright.

Can I take the opportunity to ask, following the allegations in this thread, if it is prohibited to mention Angel Barracks' products, or show pictures of painted AB miniatures, on TMP's 6mm SF board? I'd rather know in advance what the policy is, so I'm not the one to make that faux pas.

"It was used in an attack on our website, so I have no obligation to protect privacy."

That's not how an expectation of privacy works…

It's not even TMPs own privacy policy, which is supposed to be;

"Your private information – including your name, email address, and reading habits – will not be provided to any third-party except in those cases where you specifically authorize us to do so"

That doesn't say anything about any other circumstances under which email addresses will be provided to third parties, so publishing it constitutes a violation of the site privacy policy by enabling unauthorised persons to have access to personal data given to TMP for safekeeping.

Since you're operating in New York State, the applicable regulations are in S899-aa of the General Business Law (amended) which requires that breaches of data security are notified to the "owner or licensee of the information" (preferably in writing) and also the offices of the New York Attorney General, the New York State Division of State Police, and the Department of State's Division of Consumer Protection. There's a downloadable form for them. Failure to do so carries a fine not exceeding $150,000. USD

…if it is prohibited to mention Angel Barracks' products, or show pictures of painted AB miniatures, on TMP's 6mm SF board?

Of course not. I'm painting up some of his 6mm myself.

That doesn't say anything about any other circumstances under which email addresses will be provided to third parties, so publishing it constitutes a violation of the site privacy policy by enabling unauthorised persons to have access to personal data given to TMP for safekeeping.

I strongly disagree. Once he steps over the line and begins interfering with the operation of this website, his privacy is no longer protected.

Of course not. I'm painting up some of his 6mm myself.

Good to know! Thanks!

Once he steps over the line and begins interfering with the operation of this website, his privacy is no longer protected.

You really just typed that for us all to see?

Well, you've certainly cleared up the doubt over the hypocrisy on this site.

You had the opportunity to show yourself the bigger man in this situation and lend credence to your case. Instead it appears to be a case of dummy spat out and toys out the pram.

Oh boy! You cannot make this stuff up! Genuine frontier gibberish.

Well, you've certainly cleared up the doubt over the hypocrisy on this site.

Why I am obliged to respect the privacy of someone who is attacking the business? He has no business here. His intentions are malicious. And everyone already knows he can be reached at angelbarracks.co.uk – it's public information.

Since a double facepalm won't do the trick, I am asking a neighbour to help me with a quadruple facepalm.

Seriously, this is very poor behaviour. It's unworthy.

Hello…

I just want to let you know that our blog (TPH) is not about sex stories, it is about our experiences and true stories regarding how we grew and how we coped with the challenges we encountered.

We are just showing that we are human. We have made mistakes, but we correct them.

Our blog really helps us a lot to improve ourselves in terms of writing and our language skills. It is just another way to study the English language. We improve ourselves so that we can speak well in English, as well as write.

I myself have learned many things about communicating and writing with the help of our boss, Bill. He also guided me to be a better person. I have learned more self-discipline and how to be more professional.

Our blog is about sharing – sharing thoughts, emotions and love. Thank you!

"Why I am obliged to respect the privacy of someone who is attacking the business? "

Because your privacy policy says that is exactly what you will do.

"will not be provided to any third-party except in those cases where you specifically authorize us to do so"

If you are reserving the right to publish personal information when you deem it acceptable to do so then your policy is null and void. And in fact it is misleading because you are building a level of trust that you, by your actions and by your admissions above, have no intention of sticking to. And even if the circumstances in which you would do so may be few the fact that you have done it once has damaged the trust between you and the membership. Not to mention potentially opened yourself and the site up to legal action.

So I would ask you again, will you update the policy to make it clear that you reserve the right to publish personal information when you feel the circumstances are OK to do so?

I see nothing wrong with posting the email address, as long as it's verfied as belonging to someone who has been causing trouble for the site. Indeed, "outing" a troll can be one of the most effective ways to get them to cease their activies.

On a site I used to moderate at some years ago, we would routinely "out" trolls who were the most troublesome. It's not something you would do lightly. It was reserved for the most outrageous behavior and those who did not get the hint and kept returning after repeated bans. It's almost amusing to see how quick most trolls will leave and never return after they see their real email address (and in some extreme cases home address, telephone number, Google Earth satelite photos of their house, etc) posted for all to see. "People" like this thrive on their anonymity and operate under the falty assumption that their childish behavior will never return to bite them. Getting "outed" is a great wake up call.

Martin

Trench Raider I have to say that supplying personal details maps, phone numbers is excessive and dangerous.

Yet we are missing the point here – if you have an issue leave don't come back and stir up trouble, simple.

>> I have to say that supplying personal details maps, phone numbers is excessive and dangerous.

No more "dangerous" than the phone book.

That being said, I get your point, but still disagree. The chances of anyone on a random web forum being criminal enough to act "dangerously" on such a thing is extremely remote. The worst that is likely to occur is the "outed" troll getting some nasty emails or perhaps a prank phone call.

But the blanket of anonymity being yanked away is enough of a shock to make most people who have never experienced it to at least think twice about their actions.

>>Yet we are missing the point here – if you have an issue leave don't come back and stir up trouble, simple.

I agree. So would most mature and sensible people. But most trolls are neither.

Martin

"But the blanket of anonymity being yanked away is enough of a shock to make most people who have never experienced it to at least think twice about their actions."

It may also make people think twice about becoming members in the first place, if there's a risk that your details will be exposed

While I totally support your idea of updating the policy statement, it can't be too scary, since you signed up in your own name. You don't seem to worry about your own exposure online, do you know a lot of timid gamers who might be troubled if their hobby was exposed? That just seems so sad.

Dunno Sergeant Paper, Do you?

Just you and me so far.

No, that's not true, I do know some other TMP posters IRL who don't use their full real name as their handle.

I don't post anything more than national origin here.

Member Name:
Sergeant Paper Personal icon
Real Name
nun'ya
Status:
Supporting Member Supporting Member of TMP
Expiration Date:
7 May 2015 (extend?)
Location
United States of America

And I set my real name as "nun'ya" because its nun'ya business… I used to post it, when I was somebody else, but there was enough hate and discontent on TMP for a while that I quit for a spell. The new me doesn't care about the TMP brouhaha like the old me did, I'm here to visit the MINIATURES page. Nobody needs my name for that.

But if I break a rule and Bill wants to out me, that's his business. I am not the boss of him.

I like the cut of your jib Sergeant.

Richard

Maybe there should be a poll on "Should TMP's privacy policy be updated to accurately express the expectations of privacy its members have."

Perhaps someone could explain why all the posts marked as DELETED have themselves now been deleted?

Anyone?

Perhaps someone could explain why all the posts marked as DELETED have themselves now been deleted?

Because they were marked for deletion?

Sorry. I thought they remained in place and didn't disappear! Doh!

It was a loooong day yesterday…

I'll just climb back into my box. Nothing to see here.

"You don't seem to worry about your own exposure online, do you know a lot of timid gamers who might be troubled if their hobby was exposed?"

I know a lot of gamers who expect the privacy policy that they signed up against to be adhered to. And very many who like to remain anonymous through the use of pseudonyms.Most of the membership of TMP for example

Obviously I agree with those who wish to remain pseudonymous. But I didn't sign up for a privacy policy, I signed up because I was interested in miniatures and gaming.

I just don't understand THIS:

"But the blanket of anonymity being yanked away is enough of a shock to make most people who have never experienced it to at least think twice about their actions."

It may also make people think twice about becoming members in the first place, if there's a risk that your details will be exposed.

Are they hiding from the authorities? Are they political dissidents? Are they dangerous radicals or in a witness protection program? It is a wargaming site, not a secret bazaar or hideaway, there's nothing going on that needs hiding enough to get fearful if posters are exposed here.

It just seems like you are over-egging the pudding to make your point.

Hear, Hear. Exactly SP.