What about an email account off-site?
We did that with the Safety Page. People could email confidentially, so that they would have an advocate if there was a 'net safety issue.
Some folks aren't afraid of cyber-people, and don't so much mind saying, "I'm aware of what you're doing, pal, and I'm here to push back."
Sadly, a lot of stuff that is happening is common, and the price of the new open-ness.
Just waiting for the poor mother with the dying child to show up for sympathy and money.
I think the advocate email account is a good way of dealing with stuff off board, but then, you all have to decide who has passwords.
We had a lawyer, a nurse, a generally nice person, and a total asshole (me!) for the safety box. Mails were few, but the fact that it was there did help in terms of cyber-molesters, I think. It's existence was a huge sign that read, "Adults are watching, and we'll crush you like a bug if you try to hurt these kids, you fucker."
Sounds like you need a sign like that, but it should read something completely different.
Yup. Okay, I give.
I still have a bad feeling about sealing an existing thread to non-registered users. It wouldn't be effective, simply because our troublemakers, so far, have been registered. And I can't help feeling it adds to the pervasive at-large atmosphere of paranoia if said troublemakers can't be asked to come and discuss their behavior.
In cases like the anonymous bitch lurkers and Cindy's new email pal, I do think backchannel is the best way. I was trying to think of a broader backchannel, is all.
And if someone does want to register for purposes of evil, we have a way to deal with that.
I think that's part of my point. We would then be aware of them to some extent.
I don't see how someone could do that without registering or posting.
They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.
They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.
You'd have to lock all the threads, then, really. Because the show threads go off-topic. And it's mostly Natter, but Natter can lead to more personal stuff.
Besides, you can never tell *what* someone posts that might make an insane lurker decide legal action is necessary.
They were threatening legal action against the admins and posters on the board because they didn't like what they were reading.
On what grounds? Some people threaten legal action if you look at them cross-eyed; doesn't mean you have to take them seriously.
And again, I'm not sure requiring registration would have done Thing One to discourage someone like that.
You'd have to lock all the threads, then, really. Because the show threads go off-topic. And it's mostly Natter, but Natter can lead to more personal stuff.
No, I'm more concerned that we had to handle the response backchannel because we didn't want them seeing the debate on what to do about it.
you can never tell *what* someone posts that might make an insane lurker decide legal action is necessary.
This, too. I mean, someone could post a link to a fan site and say something mildly critical about it, and we could be off to the races if the person who ran the site was a)reading and b)overly sensitive. Threatening legal action is kind of the grown-up equivalent of calling in mommy for certain people.
If it's a question of protecting the board itself, would a statement to the effect of "Buffistas.org is not responsible for what individual posters say" do as much good?
I'm more concerned that we had to handle the response backchannel because we didn't want them seeing the debate on what to do about it.
Understood.
But if something like that did happen again, would we want it to be up for a week's worth of discussion while we figured out what to do? ISTM that, if it's not posted here, it SHOULD be handled backchannel or in the forum where it comes up.
