Unwanted Guest with a yoga problem

General Discussion
1

Dear All

My apologies - that guy is actually banned, and I don’t know yet how he came to slip through the security. I’m emailing Mel to ask if she can track him next. I notice he’s not just a random post or a fixed message generator, because he carefully tailored his text to our craft.

Especially, my apologies to Derek and Oceanplats, who thought him worthy to respond to. I’ll try to be faster on the uptake next time, I was distracted by packing for a 2-day retreat, and guests coming to tea.

Regards
Glenys

2

Why is he banned?

He wasn’t rude (which members, even officers, occasionally are), he wasn’t trying to sell anything (which members occasionally do), and apart from seemingly having only a very loose grip on reality (which can apply to any number of us here) he posted a valid question – " What is the simplest knot he could tie?"

Your own words “he carefully tailored his text to our craft.” – I would hope that all contributors “carefully tailored their text to our craft.”

I do hope that this is not a hangover from the dark days of overzealous moderation and administration. This Forum has been so much better recently since the hand of censorship has been relaxed and the board has been allowed to be driven by its contributors rather than its administrators.

He may be cranky, he may be an artist or a writer, but what did he do to get himself banned? I think we would all benefit from knowing this to ensure that we likewise do not unwittingly transgress the conditions for being banned.

I rest assured that your response will be couched most diplomatically (wonderful, verbose, impertinent pest that you are)

Derek

3

I didn’t see the post in question, but, after I hearing about it, I did a little digging elsewhere.

The individual in question has posted a number of strange messages over the past 10 days or so in random forums or blog comments that have a number of common characteristics. Based on this evidence, I suspect he is either a spammer refining tools before a major attack or he is a troll:

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

The fact that he apparently managed to circumvent an earlier ban to post again recently, in itself, warrants serious suspicion. That his post was apparently tailored to suit the forum is also not surprising. Automated spam tools are becoming increasingly capable of extracting random text from a target site and using it to construct a seemingly human-created post. However, if you examine a number of these posts you will see the same text used again and again in a very unusual fashion.

As I understand it, bans are never issued lightly and normally follow a significant amount of additional research outside of the forum which has shown classic spam or troll posting patterns.

4

This response is worrying,

While Spamming is without question an abhorrence, I was unaware that Trolling was banned by the Forum Rules and Operations Policy.

The definition of Trolling is so woolly that the only equitable means of control is the well established advice “Don’t feed the Trolls”. While Spamming is business, Trolling is sport and they will only stay around where there is sport to be had. A valuable tool against obvious spammers and posters who annoy is the ‘Ignore Poster’ option sadly missing from this forum.

You can very easily search for my internet footprint because I always use the same username DerekSmith, and if you were to do so, you would see assorted postings in a crazily diverse set of blogs and forums, and it is quite possible a common ‘flavour’ of topic or comment would pervade my postings. How close does this take me to the imaginary ‘trigger point’ of being cast as a Troll? The definition of ‘Troll’ is so poorly defined that even the action of posting this response comes within some definitions of ‘Trolling’.

While I applaud the exceptional work done to keep Spammers and Hackers away from our Forum, I must question the banning of any individual for exhibiting ‘Troll’ like activities. He was ‘banned’ once before apparently and has found a way of posting yet again. Now I grant you, that is not the normal practice of a genuine knotter, few of us would know how to ‘get back in’ and even fewer of us would have any interest in doing so - but is this just cause for banning someone again when their first ban might not have been legitimate?

Although I do not wish to impede the excellent work of keeping our Forum usable, I have to ask again - why was he banned? What was his initial offence that led to the first banning?

Derek

5

From the Forum Agreement:

“The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary.”

In this case, an administrator deemed it necessary to remove both the post and the poster.

The definition of Trolling is so woolly that the only equitable means of control is the well established advice "Don't feed the Trolls". While Spamming is business, Trolling is sport and they will only stay around where there is sport to be had. A valuable tool against obvious spammers and posters who annoy is the 'Ignore Poster' option sadly missing from this forum.

This is not a common option on web-based forums and is more commonly seen in newsgroups. Even there, the “Ignore Poster” option is only available if you are both lucky enough to use a news clients that supports killfiling and are clueful enough to know how to use it properly.

You can very easily search for my internet footprint because I always use the same username DerekSmith, and if you were to do so, you would see assorted postings in a crazily diverse set of blogs and forums, and it is quite possible a common 'flavour' of topic or comment would pervade my postings. How close does this take me to the imaginary 'trigger point' of being cast as a Troll? The definition of 'Troll' is so poorly defined that even the action of posting this response comes within some definitions of 'Trolling'.

Twelve years Unset experience has equipped me with a reasonable ability to distinguish between a regular individual posting in a number of groups on a diverse range of topics and a troll/spammer bot with dubious intentions. The “poster” displayed all of the hallmarks of a bot using fairly sophisticated parsing techniques to construct semi-coherent text. A second or third generation Eliza. The method of posting confirmed that this was not a genuine poster.

While I applaud the exceptional work done to keep Spammers and Hackers away from our Forum, I must question the banning of any individual for exhibiting 'Troll' like activities. He was 'banned' once before apparently and has found a way of posting yet again.

Only by deliberately and directly subverting the normal registration and posting processes - which, in essence, means that it attacked this forum. This is not behaviour that should be tolerated.

Now I grant you, that is not the normal practice of a genuine knotter, few of us would know how to 'get back in' and even fewer of us would have any interest in doing so - but is this just cause for banning someone again when their first ban might not have been legitimate?

Yes. Whilst I have responsibility for the technical maintenance of this forum, I will not allow anyone to potentially compromise its security. Genuine individuals simply do not stoop to the electronic equivalent of breaking and entering.

Although I do not wish to impede the excellent work of keeping our Forum usable,

I’m not sure you fully understand that it is exactly this kind of monitoring & action that keeps this forum usable and relatively free from external problems in the first place.

I have to ask again - why was he banned? What was his initial offence that led to the first banning?

I am not in a position to clarify the initial ban. However the second ban was because of a clear attempt to subvert the forum’s security using an auto-posting bot. Since the poster/bot hasn’t yet returned, I do not know if the second ban will be effective.

6

Derek Smith said “I do hope that this is not a hangover from the dark days of overzealous moderation and administration.”

I’m sorry Derek, but I must take exception to this comment. There has never been “overzealous moderation and administration” of this Forum. I’d be interested to know what gives you the idea that this ever happened.

7

Thanks Mel for your comprehensive reply.

You are right that we, the forum users, remain unaware of the work that goes on behind the scenes in order to keep the forum available to us, especially when as you indicate, much of this attack is becoming automated (and you stress that this ‘member’ was probably a bot). This in itself is probably not a good thing on two fronts:-

First, by this process being invisible to the members, we can have no appreciation of the work put in on our behalf and so cannot reflect that appreciation.

Second, I believe that all Policing should be PUBLIC in order to prevent a possible abuse of power (not that I think this to be the case in hand) and to protect those who implement that power from accusations of abuse.

To this end, I am mindful of the fact that there seems to be no ‘official’ route to appeal against a ban. Such a facility again serves to protect our gatekeepers from the accusation of ‘Absolute Power corrupts absolutely’. Obviously, a ‘bot’ is unlikely to make an appeal, while ‘real’ posters should be given the opportunity of appealing to an independent arbitrator(s).

Do you have any thoughts on how this might work?

Derek

8

I am sorry that you take exception to that comment Mel. It is my opinion and as such it stands.

However, I have no intention of raking over those sad events again, there is nothing to be gained from it, while there is much to be gained from giving credit to the excellent standard of moderation and administration we enjoy today.

On a more light hearted note, it is useful to see how easy it is to step over the line into posting a comment which could be construed as overt Trolling. If there were such a thing as ‘A Handbook of Trolling’ then the first examples might include taunts such as :=

I'm sorry Derek, but I must take exception to this comment. There has never been "overzealous moderation and administration" of this Forum. I'd be interested to know what gives you the idea that this ever happened.

Even Admins can innocently transgress the fuzzy line between an earnest response and a Trolling goad. Such is the danger of adding Trolling to the list of ‘banishable’ activities.

Derek

9

Good evening, Mel.

Thank you for so ably answering Derek’s various posts on this subject. I am especially grateful that you chose to give up part of your weekend to do so, and I think it speaks of the high calibre of WebAdmin that you are that you have done so.

The technical aspects of your discussions are completely out of my experience. But I would like to answer the Administrative points that Derek raises.

Derek - Mel and I and the other moderators, as Lesley did formerly, represent the Committee of the International Guild of Knot Tyers in what is probably the most public face that they will ever have. More people will see and hear of the IGKT on this website and forum than anywhere else in the world outside of the very select areas which we draw membership from.

As such we have not merely an interest in maintaining high public standards simply because we think high standards should be kept, but because we have been charged with a responsibility to uphold the good name of the Guild.

It may be that on meeting an individual Guild member, a non-member finds their sea-saltiness to be a little overwhelming. Perhaps even too overwhelming. It didn’t take me long to realise that if I was going to enter “a world of port, and cigars, and after-dinner stories”, then I must accept the clink of glasses, the smoke, and decisions of others as to what was humour and what was not. But that is different for a member than for someone who is actually entrusted with maintaining the public face of a corporate body.

The trust that Mel, I and others strive to uphold is vested in us not merely by a handful of members who make decisions because they have been nominated to do so. It is implicit in every signature on every application form sent to our Secretary. It is the atmosphere around every display board bearing the IGKT logo, and the invisible text on every leaflet, letterhead, KM and communication sent in the name of the IGKT.

Of all people, how could you - so seasoned a man of the world - ask us to betray that trust by lowering the standards we keep? We allow a generous amount of free rein for people to express their personalities. You will find my own post on record as to how grateful I am of that, in the discussion on God’s Knot, albeit couched in a round-about manner, and before the fact. Are we not therefore, who are so well-versed in allowing personalities to be distinctive amongst our community, to be trusted when something tells us that there is trouble afoot?

There are a number of people on the Forum who - as I was myself formerly - are novices at the kinds of technical (dare I say, hacking) intrusion which you and Mel are evidently so familiar with. Part of maintaining the good name of the Guild, is to make every effort to ensure that it is those relative innocents who are protected, as well as the integrity of the Forum. What if some enterprising Cub or Guide had decided to post right after the unwanted guest, and had read ‘his’ post in innocence? We should ensure that although there are frequently adult debates on the site, at the very least none of those have any content that might be inappropriate for a junior member of the Guild, or a young enquirer.

I notice there are two seemingly interchangeable titles: WebMistress, and WebAdmin. Now, I may not be correct here, but it seems to me that the WebAdmin is that day-to-day technical work that Mel handles so ably, and which so few of us normally notice. Has anyone else noticed the changes made to the look of the main website recently? WebMistress, however, seems to me to be more the decision-making side of running the site. Whilst Mel is quite able to run it herself, she isn’t able to make decisions on a Guild-basis. That’s what I’ve been asked to do.

Removing the unwanted guest was solely my decision. I was, in fact, somewhat chagrined that I hadn’t been on earlier and spotted him. 24 hours felt like too much leeway. But - as I mentioned to Oceanplats in Handing Over The Reins, “I deleted the original post, because I recognised the poster’s name from the ban list, and also (as I will be saying in the main discussion) because his was not the sort of post I understand the Guild to want to encourage. Deleting the original deleted the replies as well. I didn’t think this would be too much of a problem as there was no actual knotting wisdom in the thread.”

The ban list does not specify why this poster was banned, nor who banned ‘him’. It’s an unusual oversight, because all the other bans do. It is - in itself - something that attracts attention to this poster, and causes you to wonder what’s going on.

In my inexperience, I didn’t think to keep a ‘saved page’ copy of the post for examination, or to check into it too much deeper before deleting. People don’t get put on a ban list without good reason. I trusted the judgement of whoever put ‘him’ there. And there is - without any doubt - Mel’s assessment and assertion that ‘he’ posted “Only by deliberately and directly subverting the normal registration and posting processes - which, in essence, means that it attacked this forum. This is not behaviour that should be tolerated.” Why would a legitimate member of the Forum have any need whatsoever to behave in such a manner? And if they did, have they shown themselves trustworthy? The only other option is that they are not a legitimate member of the Forum, and as such have no business to truck with us. In each case, the answer to each question automatically bars this unwanted guest - and all ‘his’ ilk - from the privileges that we accord to you who are here on lawful, instructive, recreative and companionable business.

I do hope, Derek, that both Mel’s reply and mine have entirely satisfied your concerns, and that the matter can now be laid to rest. Let us both return to the amicable discussions of Knot Tying.

Regards
Glenys Chew

10

The unwanted member was originally banned because I was immediately suspicious of the name “Mr Suckarupparar” I did a Google search and found his name in relation to various unsavoury websites. I therefore took it upon myself to not only remove him, but to ban him as well. I have removed (but not banned) many would-be members whose way of joining made it obvious to me that they were not genuine - instinct and a suspicious nature have enabled me to do this. As far as I am aware I have only made one mistake and removed a genuine member, for which I most sincerely apologised. One out of over a thousand ain’t bad going, methinks!!! Many times I have ‘googled’ either or both name and email address, and the results have shown membership of dozens - yes dozens - of forums, all joined around the same date. These are not going to be people interested in knots, they are more than likely going to be ‘spambots’.

If this is “overzealous moderation and administration” then so be it.

Lesley
WebAdmin
(backing up Glenys for a few weeks until we depart Downunder)

11

Welcome back Glenys.

Now I understand why Willeki had such a desire to curb mega posts. You have covered so many aspects in your reply that it is not practical to respond within one post. So, with respect to your windup line the answer must be NO, ‘it’, does not entirely satisfy my concerns.

And with respect to your question do I “ask us to betray that trust by lowering the standards we keep?”, again NO, I am asking where have those standards been stipulated - or have you been given no guidance at all and are simply relying on your own opinion ??

Furthermore, it seems that perhaps my concerns were justified, because you drew a conclusion from the fact that the first ban did not record why or by whom the ban had been made and that this in itself was a significant reason for enforcing a ban – Lesley however goes on to clarify that she made the initial ban because the username had a Google association with “Various unsavoury websites”. If you Google ‘DerekSmith’ you will find over 5,000 hits of which MANY are unsavoury, yet only a tiny fraction of a percent of them relate to me and perhaps the least savoury of which is my membership of ‘Grumpy Old Men’, or perhaps my use of the tag line ‘The Dunny Man’ on the IGKT Forum !!!

Two occasions when two Officers of the Guild have jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions and implemented decisions on the basis of those conclusions. Decisions which may by happenstance have been right or been wrong, but nevertheless were based on unsubstantiated conclusions.

I do not believe that jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions is professional, nor is it in the ‘Best Interests of The Guild’. Indeed, it poses the risk that someday it will land officers, and indeed The Guild, into an embarrassing situation or worse. It is for this reason that organisations lay out clear guidelines as to how its officers will be expected to act. Guidelines which serve to protect both the Guild and those officers who serve it.

The fault here lays not with you Glenys, nor with the other officers, but with the elected officers who’s job it is to create a clear framework and guidelines for the unelected officers to work within. And beyond them, it lays with the membership for not yet extolling its elected officers to ensure that such a safeguarding set of guidelines exists. OK, so ‘Rome wasn’t built in a day’, but the Guild is 25 years old and should by now be organised enough to get to grips with producing some clear and openly publicised guidance on such things as how its Forum should be run.

So, what should constitute the basis for being banned from membership of this Forum? (and please don’t say - because the name had bad associations on Google) and what should be the procedure for appealing against a ban?

How do you feel about members of this Forum having a say on these two topics ?? After all, the Forum is not just about “the amicable discussions of Knot Tying.” , it is also about the form, function and operation of our Guild.

Derek

12

Good morning, Derek,

I am sorry - I fell into the honeyed forum-trap of being able to get one’s words in edge-ways. I trust my other posts this morning have been much more concise.

The guidelines given to me for Administrating this forum are contained in the Forum agreement. In order to read the wording again, you will need to delete the cookie which your browser uses to log you in, and approach as if you are a completely new applicant. Click register, and look down the screen below the fields for personal detail.

I found the following agreements which the Unwanted Guest had breached: not to post material of a sexual nature, not to choose an inappropriate username, not to present personal information which is vulgar. Mel has already dealt with the matter of ‘his’ circumventing normal registration and posting procedures.

I also found my freedom as an individual member to find the post offensive, and to request that it be removed. The process did, I will agree, take rather less time than it would for anyone else to have that action, but it is still a process entirely open to every other member of the forum. There are places on the ‘Net where that kind of posting is welcome, encouraged, and appropriate to the forum members’ interests. This is not one of them, as the Forum Agreement makes clear.

This poster’s ban has been noted with the fact that ‘he’ has four breaches of the Forum Agreement to ‘his’ name. Breaching the Forum Agreement is the most fundamental reason for being banned. I’m not aware of a circumstance it hasn’t covered, and which would cause any other reason for ban, but I leave open the option that there may one day be such a thing. Appeals may be lodged in the same way as any other communication with the Forum Administration. Register yourself legally, and contact us either publically or privately. If you care enough about being in the system to appeal against it, then you also care enough to register legally.

“How do you feel about members of this Forum having a say on these two topics ?? After all, the Forum is not just about “the amicable discussions of Knot Tying.” , it is also about the form, function and operation of our Guild.”

My mistake - I hadn’t realised this was a private conversation. Herewith my open invitation to all and sundry to join in… either here, or on the Feedback Board.

Regards
Glenys

13

I would like to add my opinion if I may. I feel that the actions taken by administrators of this website have been open, honest and above board. I feel that the discusion that the individual in question was taking was innappropriate for this website, I agree with the actions taken by website administration.

I am a member of other website forums, and it is a common problem where indiviuals try to disrupt conversation, and the normal course of discussion. Because blatant innapropriate behavior is immediatly deleted, the abusers have taken to more subtle annoyances. Yes, it is a judgement call by the moderator and administrator, but without their control, the forum would soon disolve into a sea of filth that would have little resemblence of an intellegent discussion about our craft.

While this is a public forum, this website is the property of the IGKT. The membership of the Guild has elected officers who run the operations of the Guild. The officers and board should have oversite of the rules which govern this website, and direct the actions of the website management. If there are members who dissagree with the actions of the webmasters, I feel that the appropriate response would be to contact the board.

Patrick Ducey
plducey@comcast.net

14

Many thanks for your support, Pat - much appreciated

Regards

Lesley

15

Whilst I haven’t been round much over the last year or so, I also agree with this, for what my tuppence ha’penny’s worth.

This discussion is mostly about a recent banning but has also brought up mention of past problems, either real or perceived. Allegations of board mismanagement should be made and substantiated in the appropriate place or let lie, not hinted at in public and then left unsubstantiated on the basis of not raking over the past. I can well understand people feeling they or others have been hard done by, but I don’t think this way of dealing with it is entirely fair. The mention of it has already raked it over and has alerted new members to the existence of some past controversy that seems no longer relevant (and therefore should not be the basis for ongoing bad feeling or potentially besmirched reputations), whilst at the same time preventing the “accused” from defending themselves.

My personal view (which is an enforced policy on some other boards) is that appeals and complaints regarding moderator actions (or the actions of fellow members) should be raised with the appropriate board mod or admin person by private message. If that doesn’t fix it, the next step should be, as Pat says, to take it to the board owners.

I personally have never seen heavy-handedness in action here, nor any evidence of it produced in response to queries. I don’t know anything about alleged incidents in the past and I don’t want to. We can have all the rules, policies and procedures under the sun but sooner or later a mod or admin person has to make a judgement and IMO it’s generally up to the rest of us who haven’t volunteered to do the job to give them the benefit of the doubt. The explanation of the recent ban seems more than reasonable to me and I wouldn’t have assumed anyone would be banned lightly or without checking. To use the term “unsubstantiated conclusions” in the context of this Internet circumstance is, again IMO, inappropriate. Further substantiation, even if possible, involves an unwarranted level of effort and puts the burden of proof where it doesn’t belong. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a skunk, don’t go round on all fours wearing black fur and a fluffy tail with two white stripes down the back and smelling bad. If you do, and someone concludes you are a skunk and escorts you from the premises, well, you asked for it. It is not entirely fair for anyone to object on the basis that the ejector(s) didn’t organise, pay for and wait on DNA test results to substantiate the skunkness or otherwise of the ejectee. And if one person got removed by mistake, but was reinstated with apology, so what? Had that happened to me, I’d be more than happy, knowing that the mods regularly patrolled the fences. If I want to spend my leisure time on a free-for-all board, I’ll go find one. If this board becomes one, I’ll go elsewhere. (Or spend more time tying knots instead!)

I initially held off posting on this topic as sometimes extra people chiming in doesn’t contribute towards a solution, but on the other hand it seems fair enough to add a vote of satisfaction with the status quo.

All IMO, of course. As my sig line says, I’m happy. :wink:

16

I have deleted many spam posts and posts I preceved as spam even when not obvious when I was a moderator, and have had no poster come back to ask the post to be reposted.
If we had not deleted those posts, innocent as they might have been, our forum would have been flooded by posts that had nothing to do with knots and knot tyers.
I have not seen the post that started this discussion, but I guess it was a nasty example of spam, seeing the reactions here.

I have also blocked a post or a few posts by members that I felt did harm the community (that is, I think, the heavy handedness talked about here,) and unblocked those posts as soon as committee members within the guild took over and were ready to answer.
There was discussion about that, and that was OK, but that was over and done with, I thought.

By the way, this discussion should be over in the feedback part of the site, I think, as it has nothing to do with knots and everything with what is going on with this site.

Willeke

17

Dear All

Thank you for your posts. The only thing I will add is that I posted the initial comments here because this was where the intruder had posted. Therefore, it seemed the best place to leave the apology. I can always move it over when the discussion is closed, just so it isn’t clogging up the Chit-chat board.

Regards

Glenys