1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The harassment rule

Discussion in 'General Questions' started by joseftu, Aug 31, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Come on man. The standard forum setup is PHP front end and SQL back end. Everything specific to members and threads is stored on the SQL back end--including member passwords and PMs. A person logs in to the forum via PHP, which in turn accesses the back end via SQL to obtain the necessary information on the member or thread.

    SQL is Structured Query Language, and many of the most popular databases are SQL. Every SQL database requires maintenance of some sort, and all of them provide a manual means, a query engine, with which the admin can view and modify the database. If the PHP can access it, the server administrators can too. With SQL the administrator can slice and dice the database like a sushi chef slices and dices tuna.

    Perhaps this discussion has gotten carried away. I don't give a rat's ass about PMs now or back then. Our admins accessed the PMs for the same reasons your admins access them. I will admit, however, that the admins did post some of the funnier PMs in our private area for us moderators to laugh at. In a tawdry sort of way of course. ;)
     
  2. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    LH, thanks for giving me Forums 101 tutorial. Not to be a dick, but how did you think I got forums working before there was Vbulletin? ;) If you care about the passwords and such of members, that's your right of course, we have way too much going on in the real life to even bother with all the snooping. Which is why most of us are not happy campers when we get dragged in to the pettiness of flame wars.

    Randy, thanks for elaborating even further, not sure how we got here from the original post.
     
  3. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    Pot, kettle.
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    If you think that was an attack you have my apologies. I just wanted you to know that just because I had (have) no interest in how to snoop doesn't mean I am a newb in PHP and MySql.
     
  5. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    My comments were for the benefit of our less technical members. I'll be happy to drop the subject now that we've dissected it to death. :)
     
  6. ravital

    ravital Banned

    I'm so sorry for the delayed reply, I was locked out of GA for the entire weekend until now. And I wouldn't bother replying, execpt for one thing:

    Are you aware, that sometimes, in fact, probably more often than not, these PM "Bans" are issued when the issuer is being bombarded with PMs filled with invectives? I honestly don't believe this is news to you, to any moderator, to any member.

    Once I issued such a ban, realized I was wrong and went too far, rescinded it and apologized to the other "banned" member.

    But a ban lasting this long - why is the assumption that I issued it capriciously? Without good reason? And that I would reverse-harrass wringing my hands in some sort of sick satisfaction presuming that the other person couldn't reply? Why all these assumptions? Because I happen to be the one who issued it?

    Months ago, I issued the "ban" that I have just revoked, as a result of being presented repeatedly with messages full of venom and invectives, and didn't feel I should be subjected to that. Should such PMs come my way in the future, I will endure and ignore.

    But to suggest that I owe the other person an apology? For what, for denying them the pleasure of using me as a therapeutic punching bag?

    When they play hockey on Lake GA, Steve,

    I respect you a lot, and I respect your advice always, but I believe this time you have me mistaken for someone of that noble species that turns the other cheek. I'm from the other, much more pedestrian species, the one with the elephantine memory.
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    It's all the same to me, since I really don't care ;) It's between you and whomever.
     
  8. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Since the whomever was revealed by Ravital in post 24 of this thread I doubt if I am surprising anybody by responding to Rav's last post.

    Rav, your elephantine memory has failed you on two important points. First of all net etiquette has always been that you do not reveal any part of PM's, which after all are considered private messages. Second of all rule 9 on this forum states the same thing. Now the mods have apparently decided that your post does not violate the rule since you did not quote specifically. But you know what, it does reveal a lot about your character. By posting what you did you made an attack on me and I am unable to defend myself without revealing specifics of the exchange and the reason the exchange began. So once again, dear Rav, you have revealed you can circumvent the rules at will and you have revealed the strength of your character. </B>

    Warning to all members, do not exchange PM's with Rav, he believes in neither net etiquette or the rules of this forum.
     
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    For the record, rule #9 was not circumvented. There was nothing in Rav's post that revealed anyone's PM content. Describing it is not revealing it.
     
  10. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Describing it in negative terms as was done may not break the letter of the law, obviously I disagree, but it does break the spirit of the law and does not allow for a reply without the other party breaking the rules. But hey, remember the Golden Rule.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I gave you an official reply after it was reviewed by most, if not all, of the staff. You can choose to accept it or do what you've done above.
     
  12. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    Speaking as an uninvolved observer, I assumed that the "you" in post 24 was a generic "you," and did not think it was referring to a particular person.

    For the record, I'm really surprised this thread has gone on for 70 posts now. As I understand the question, it was basically
    And the answer was apparently "No, you're not."

    I'm not used to seeing this kind of legalistic semantics from the folks here, and it's surprising, and almost disconcerting.
     
  13. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!


    I thank the staff for their kind consideration of my complaint, even though I disagree.
     
  14. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    I certainly don't want to get involved with this slugfest, but I'll voice my surprise as well.

    Especially because I've enjoyed, and usually learned something from, the thought provoking posts of all of those folks now seemingly at some kind of odds with each other.

    I think everyone here has quite a bit to offer in a debate.
    So, I'm saddened that some friction has come to such loggerheads.
    It's a pity.

    Regards,
     
  15. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    America is based upon the idea that we all have the freedom to speak, and that the dialogue will result in enlightenment, and produce a better society.
     
  16. ravital

    ravital Banned

    slanderous as this is, I am not even going to dignify it with a complaint or request for removal. I never have, and I never will. :)
     
  17. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Heh... give the man a medal! :p

    This thread reminds me of two poor inner city women loudly arguing with each other out their windows... not because they necessarily need to argue about anything but because they want the whole neighborhood to hear and are generally bored.

    I think Shiny and Rav should face off on the chessboard at chessclub.com. In fact, I think we should get a chessgame here on ICC... one that everyone can play on and can watch games in progress (no commenting) and when arguments just go on too long, TAKE IT OUT ON THE GENTLEMANS FIELD OF BATTLE!

    :thumbsup:
     
  18. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Tough to argue when the proof is in the thread, Rav. I noticed you did not defend either charge, interesting.
     
  19. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I've had it with this pissing match. Thread closed.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page