Forums are empty

[Cyclone]

So someone who is (for whatever reason) particularly concerned with online privacy, should simply take your word for it, that you haven't and won't look, and that no other mod will ever look, and that hackers will never gain access to the forum...

 

Or, alternatively, they should take steps they deem reasonable to protect their privacy whilst still taking part in the online community.

 

Which seems more reasonable, given a real fear for some reason about maintaining their privacy.

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2014 at 14:04 ----------

 

As an example of someone who might be concerned.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

 

and

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/living/gamergate-explainer/

[PeteMorris]

You can't have complete anonymity, but, yes, if you're a perfectly reasonable well-behaved user it's fine to have the right to select some degree of online privacy.

 

If someone is trolling or being abusive on a forum then it should be stomped on immediately by the mods. It's the activity that prompts the ban, whether or not that user can be identified to any degree by the IP address. In most cases of everyday dickish forum behaviour, the identity of the forum user behind the username isn't important anyway.

 

If the abusive behaviour is sufficient to involve the police, then the protection of a dynamic IP address or proxy server might not be sufficient to hide the abuser's identity.

 

You don't have to think of them; I've mentioned at least one additional reason above.

 

Ha! Given that anyone anywhere can set up a forum, and not all mods and admins are paragons of virtue, that genuinely made me chuckle.

 

Given that having a look at IP addresses and, consequently, ISPs is often a standard mod activity, many of those posting from work, for example, broadcast their location to a forum's mods with every post.

 

The thread subject is about SF...Not other forums, and why it's successful.

 

I'm just saying it would be a lot easier without returnees creating false accounts.

[medusa]

You seem to think it OK for admins/mods to be able to ID someone on here if they want to...why should anyone trust you more than any other poster?

 

It is never OK to take forum issues off-forum and into real life, and that applies to mods and admins as much as to forum users.

 

Most people who identify others on a forum, however, don't use IPs and email addresses to do it. They use the information which a user posts about their own life, given away in little comments here and there, sometimes over years. You get to find out what car someone drives, what area they live in, what school their children attend, what job they do. Anybody with the right amount of ill-will can do it, and the fact that the moderating team can't see users' email addresses wouldn't stop a mod who was determined to do it, but I would remove their forum privileges on the spot if I found out that anybody actually had done it.

 

Of course, you have no reason to trust me when I say that either, but the same applies to the vast majority of people who may see any posts on the internet, doesn't it?

[PeteMorris]

This isn't an argument to not protect your identity online if you feel particularly at risk.

 

You're basically belittling or dismissing the possible reasons to behave like this, which doesn't alter those reasons, but just shows a lack of empathy and understanding on your part.

 

That really is nonsense and you know it....

[Cyclone]

No, you're really missing the point.

 

Did you read these links?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

 

and

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/li...ate-explainer/

[Guest]

The thread subject is about SF...Not other forums, and why it's successful.

Well, it was, until you stated that you couldn't understand the use of proxy servers, then the discussion evolved to take into account the reasons why someone might choose to use one and where.

I'm just saying it would be a lot easier without returnees creating false accounts.

Yes, it would. But unless things have changed then the majority of duplicate accounts aren't created after logging on to a proxy, they're created after rebooting the router.

[PeteMorris]

So someone who is (for whatever reason) particularly concerned with online privacy, should simply take your word for it, that you haven't and won't look, and that no other mod will ever look, and that hackers will never gain access to the forum...

 

Or, alternatively, they should take steps they deem reasonable to protect their privacy whilst still taking part in the online community.

 

Which seems more reasonable, given a real fear for some reason about maintaining their privacy.

 

---------- Post added 20-10-2014 at 14:04 ----------

 

As an example of someone who might be concerned.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

 

and

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/living/gamergate-explainer/

 

I would say that anyone who is soooooo concerned shouldn't actually be posting on a public forum....A clue is in the phrase 'public'...it's far more open to the world to see than any Facebook or Twitter account. You don't even have to be a member to see posts.

[Mr Bloke]

All this is beginning to scare me off from posting any more...

 

... perhaps that's why forums are empty?

[PeteMorris]

No, you're really missing the point.

 

Did you read these links?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

 

and

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/li...ate-explainer/

 

No...really...I'm not missing the point and yes I read one of the links, the other doesn't work...

 

Perhaps Ms Sarkeesian should have made herself anonymous?....How much support would she have got then?

[Cyclone]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/15/living/gamergate-explainer/

 

Try again.

 

And yes, you are still totally missing the point, as you are persisting in belittling the desire for some people to have additional anonymity above what forum software can offer.