- Report: #499612
Complaint Review: whenshtf.com - Internet
Reported By:
GunsNLipstick -
Bradenton, Florida, USA
Submitted:
Updated:
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
whenshtf.com
www.whenshtf.com Internet, United States of America
Phone:
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
whenshtf.com Admin & Owner monitor Private Messages and take disciplinary action based on the content of those messages. Internet
As a former moderator on the site, I can, unfortunately, confirm the reports that have been filed regarding the violation of members' privacy that is taking place.
The admin and owner can and do read Private Messages. My own experience is one example. There are others. I was suspended from my moderator duties based solely on the contents of what I presumed were Private Messages.
In a "PM", I was critical of another staff member to a friend, who was not a staff member. This violated a moderator rule, though I was unaware of it.
Apparently my Private Messages were being monitored (unbeknown to me) and this criticism of another staff member via Private Messaging led to my suspension.
Prior to this incident I was a "super moderator" and member in good standing with both membership and staff. My removal was based SOLELY on the contents of my Private Message.
What you say in Private Messaging is not private. Admin and Owner will not hesitate to read them and take disciplinary action based on what you say in a Private Message. There were several occasions of members being banned with no explanation given other than statements by the owner such as "He's a d****ebag." We moderators were left wondering, "what???". There were no public posts to support the supposition. In retrospect, it would seem PM's were being used to make judgments to ban members.
The board has lost at least three moderators and an unknown number of members over this issue in recent weeks. I would suggest starting a topic on the board to discuss the issue without excessive moderation, so the air could be cleared and intent of the owner regarding the presumption of privacy in Private Messaging could be ascertained. But several attempts by long-time members to do just that have resulted in immediate bans.
The legality of monitoring the service labeled "Private Messaging" is in question due to the "Presumption of Privacy". The Terms of Service agreement do not contain a clause which would alert members that Private Messaging is not Private.
I made an attempt to discuss this issue with the owner prior to filing this report but my e-mails went unanswered.
The thread which the board owner referenced as a defense in another complaint was heavily edited and moderated, shutting down dissent. Complaints were deleted, posts edited, posters banned, and the thread was locked. He who controls the flow of information controls the outcome of the argument in his favor. Caveat Emptor. Or in this case, Member Beware.
The admin and owner can and do read Private Messages. My own experience is one example. There are others. I was suspended from my moderator duties based solely on the contents of what I presumed were Private Messages.
In a "PM", I was critical of another staff member to a friend, who was not a staff member. This violated a moderator rule, though I was unaware of it.
Apparently my Private Messages were being monitored (unbeknown to me) and this criticism of another staff member via Private Messaging led to my suspension.
Prior to this incident I was a "super moderator" and member in good standing with both membership and staff. My removal was based SOLELY on the contents of my Private Message.
What you say in Private Messaging is not private. Admin and Owner will not hesitate to read them and take disciplinary action based on what you say in a Private Message. There were several occasions of members being banned with no explanation given other than statements by the owner such as "He's a d****ebag." We moderators were left wondering, "what???". There were no public posts to support the supposition. In retrospect, it would seem PM's were being used to make judgments to ban members.
The board has lost at least three moderators and an unknown number of members over this issue in recent weeks. I would suggest starting a topic on the board to discuss the issue without excessive moderation, so the air could be cleared and intent of the owner regarding the presumption of privacy in Private Messaging could be ascertained. But several attempts by long-time members to do just that have resulted in immediate bans.
The legality of monitoring the service labeled "Private Messaging" is in question due to the "Presumption of Privacy". The Terms of Service agreement do not contain a clause which would alert members that Private Messaging is not Private.
I made an attempt to discuss this issue with the owner prior to filing this report but my e-mails went unanswered.
The thread which the board owner referenced as a defense in another complaint was heavily edited and moderated, shutting down dissent. Complaints were deleted, posts edited, posters banned, and the thread was locked. He who controls the flow of information controls the outcome of the argument in his favor. Caveat Emptor. Or in this case, Member Beware.
4 Updates & Rebuttals
Ramjet
Somewhere,Michigan,
U.S.A.
Get a life indeed
#2Consumer Comment
Wed, October 14, 2009
OMG, it's just an internet forum. If you don't like the way it's run, drop out and move on. It's really not that important, Honest!
James Webb
Rockville Centre,New York,
USA
shady
#3General Comment
Tue, October 13, 2009
Explain the specific clause about being allowed to listen in on private investigations, explain who decides when a member is "under investigation", who oversees the investigation, at what point it can be decided that you can listen in on private conversations and where on your website you explain all of this so members know that private messages aren't always private. Also explain the legality of your actions. As for your stupid metaphor about someone witnessing a murder...apples and bowling balls. If someone was illegally tapping someone phones and heard a crime was to be committed that evidence would not be admissable in court. Otherwise warrents wouldnt need to be obtained to tap phones, and the police could operate like your website and listen in on anyone they deem to be "under investigation". Witnessing a murder is not the same as hearing or in this case seeing some communication that is assumed to be private.
GunsNLipstick
Bradenton,Florida,
USA
Investigation? You mean nosy invasion of privacy?
#4Author of original report
Tue, October 13, 2009
The site owner made it all sound very sinister. Investigation. Conspiracy. Wow!
There was no conspiracy and there was no investigation. There are no rules that say a PM can be read to "ascertain the truth". The rebuttal was one large falsehood from start to finish.
The facts are simple:
1. He was reading my PRIVATE messages.
2. He didn't like what I said about the site administrator.
There you have it. Had my private messages not been read he would never have known that I was not complimentary toward his site admin.
Whenshtf.com
Port St Lucie,Florida,
U.S.A.
Re:Get a life Bev
#5REBUTTAL Owner of company
Thu, September 24, 2009
The "Super Moderator" who is bitching and moaning here is, as usual, giving one side of the story. She left out the parts how she was under investigation for releasing PRIVATE information from a secure area of the site to another non-staff member she was conspiring with. There IS a clause in the Moderators Code Of Conduct, which states this is a gross violation of the rules. There is also a clause in it stating that during the course of an internal investigation PM's may be read as to ascertain the truth. This girl is clearly floundering, pissed off that she got caught read handed breaking the rules and being punished for it. Her defense when I brought what she had done to her was "You weren't supposed to see it!"...Uh...HELLO...Like I have said in the past, thats like shooting someone to death and telling the judge that the witness wasn't supposed to see you.
