[Rich Goodale]

I was reminded today that all IMs on this website are subject to being read by the Moderators.  I think this is an unacceptable intrusion on my privacy (and the privacy of others), and as a result, I will not use the IM feature on this site in the future.  Anybody wishing to communicate with me privately, please do so by e-mail in the future.

[RJ_Daley]

Sad to say Rich, but I've been following that ironic advise in modified form...assuming that IMs can be monitored.

"don't say anyone is full of it on IM that you wouldn't tell them they are full of it to their face"

[Craig Van Egmond]

I would hope the moderators have better things to do than read IM's. However, don't forget about the systems, database and application administrators who have access to everything.  And who ever has access to the backup tapes, etc....

I get paid to be paranoid.  

[RJ_Daley]

Another irony is that most serious and passionate golfers would first point to the integrity of the game, one of the few you call penalties on yourself and are left to make honesty decisions during competitions, as being one of the most valued aspects of golf.  Yet, anyone from this golf site that would claim to hold such principles in esteem but could and would read other's private IMs seems so.... contradictory.

Are the folks from homeland security somehow involved in GCA.com's monitoring?    

[John Kavanaugh]

The moderators have a moral responsibility to read I'M's.

[RJ_Daley]

Sure John, go with that...

[Craig Van Egmond]

John, put down the crack pipe and step away slowly.....

 

[John Kavanaugh]

Let us not forget that in the rules of golf a player will be penalized for not protecting the field.

[RJ_Daley]

Yeah, we really have to stand guard for someone plotting behind the scenes of the violent overthrow and sabotage of GCA.com.  Who was it that are the terrorists again?  If we don't stop them on the Internet, we'll be stopping them on the 9th hole of our home courses...

Oh GCA, we stand on guard for thee...  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I agree 100 %.

And, I would go a step further.

I would ask each moderator if they've engaged in the practice, for how long, WHY, and will they continue to do so.

It's improper at best.

The moderators had an obligation to announce that practice to ALL participants in BOLD READABLE PRINT

What I say in an IM to TEPaul, Wayne, Mike Sweeney, Gib or anyone else, is not the business of the moderators.

The IM was supposed to be a site convenience for communicating with those who didn't provide their email address, not an open forum for the moderators.

The practice should be banned.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

Why do you feel that Ran has an obligation to us to provide a secret method of communication?  Any reputable poster simply posts by his or her full name and provides an email address if they want to be contacted.  The business that you will be spammed is simply untrue and if you are worried use a free service like that provided by Yahoo.

I can tell you for a fact that there is an inner sanctum of people who set up access and I'M back and forth the slightest sniff of who on this site belongs to which club.  I have never hidden the fact that at one time I had figured out how to read the IM's of a few posters and without naming any names I can tell you that what I read would disgust you to the very core.  Perhaps this is why my distaste for some posters on the site is so obvious.  I personally do not believe a man has any more right to talk behind ones back than to his face.  

[Mike_Young]

Rich Goodale,

I agree 100 %.

And, I would go a step further.

I would ask each moderator if they've engaged in the practice, for how long, WHY, and will they continue to do so.

It's improper at best.

The moderators had an obligation to announce that practice to ALL participants in BOLD READABLE PRINT

What I say in an IM to TEPaul, Wayne, Mike Sweeney, Gib or anyone else, is not the business of the moderators.

The IM was supposed to be a site convenience for communicating with those who didn't provide their email address, not an open forum for the moderators.

The practice should be banned.

Too late.....I don't think you can go back...too much temptation now....

JK,
Ideally speaking you may be correct...realistically speaking...it aint so...

It just changed my outlook on the entire site......
Mike

[Brent Hutto]

I guess it's a sign of spending too many years on Internet forums (and on proprietary forums before the Internet was invented for that matter). But when I use the built-in messaging on a privately owned, moderated web site I assume that anything I type may be seen by whoever the site owner wants to let see it. Sure in an ideal world there would be some transparancy in the policies and procedures but I learned long ago that few site owners share my feelings in that regard.

[Bill_McBride]

The business that you will be spammed is simply untrue and if you are worried use a free service like that provided by Yahoo.

Huh?  If you want nonstop spam, the way to get it is to use a free service like that provided by Yahoo.  

Hotmail is pretty good too.

I really like the IM function and would never say anything in an IM I wouldn't want any moderator to spaz over.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I was reminded today that all IMs on this website are subject to being read by the Moderators.  I think this is an unacceptable intrusion on my privacy (and the privacy of others), and as a result, I will not use the IM feature on this site in the future.  Anybody wishing to communicate with me privately, please do so by e-mail in the future.

I guess I am computer niave, I didnt know that.  Not that I have anything to hide, but I actually find that kind of shocking, and disturbing.

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

If you think IMs being monitored by moderators is a problem or a potential problem I would say that's small potatoes and the potential for abuse is perhaps larger than that.

Once upon a time, I thought the IM was something of a sacrosanct tool to be used to resolve disputes and problems on this Discusion Group without the Discussion Group needing to be aware of that potential resolution.

At one point, while having a potential problem with Tom MacWood on the Discussion Group I IMed him to try to resolve it.

He took my IM mesage which I felt was confidential between the two of us and put it on the Discussion Group. This was potentially embarrassing to a lot of people not even on this Discussion Group since I felt my message to him was not something that logically would appear on here.

I called one of the functional moderators and asked if MacWood's mention of my IM message on the Discussion Group could be deleted.

That was done without MacWood's knowledge.

Apparently that prompted him to leave this website.

Had I called him on the phone rather than IMed him or had I emailed him rather than IMed him with the same information and he put it on the Discussion Group it would've amounted to the same thing.

My point is it isn't really the IM, or email or any other mode of communication that matters. If someone expects to try to resolve some problem on here off this website or Discussion Group and it's abused it's going to amount to the same thing, the same abuse of expected confidentiality.

Basically, it's a matter of common sense, something that in this particular case with Tom MacWood he didn't have or show much of.

[John Kavanaugh]

I don't know who clued Rich in on this but I have full confidence that the moderators have better things to do then scowel over thousands of IM's looking for gossip.  I'm surprized how quicky our friends have been thrown under the bus based on one anon accusation.

[Dan Herrmann]

Heck - we all know our employer can see each and every e-mail we send or read from work - even if they're tagged as private.  Right?

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

You seem to be paranoid or sense it. The moderators on this website obviously don't make bedtime reading out of the IMs on this website. However, if problems arise with contributors on here and they are made aware of it apparently they can access and become aware of IM messaging while we can't.

If someone has concern about that I suggest they call or email the person they would like to be confidential with rather than IMing them on this website.

It appears to me that if problems arise on this website and if Ran Morrissett or Ben Dewar (the Moderators) become aware of it and it is of concern to them then they deal with it as they see fit.

To date, I, for one, have had no problem at all with this modus operandi.

[Brad Swanson]

Wouldn't it be ironic if some of the people concerned with the lack of oversight of moderators viewing IMs on this website have no problem with the implementation of our government's "Patriot Act"?  Food for thought.

Cheers,
Brad

[Patrick Glynn]

John Kavanaugh - what gives you the right to do this?

I have never hidden the fact that at one time I had figured out how to read the IM's of a few posters

I have read countless posts from you that made me shudder, but rather than comment I X'ed out the thread and made a mental note never to read a post by you. (I particularly liked you definitive opinion on access at GB & I courses, having never been there)

Wow. I am speechless.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why do you feel that Ran has an obligation to us to provide a secret method of communication?  

Because some  people don't want their email address in the public domain, and IM's can only be executed between individuals approved for participation on this site.

Ran isn't monitoring IM's others have.

Should they listen in to our phone calls as well ?[/color]

Any reputable poster simply posts by his or her full name and provides an email address if they want to be contacted.  

That's not always the case.
Many on this site DON'T list their email, leaving IM"s as the ONLY way to communicate.[/color]

The business that you will be spammed is simply untrue and if you are worried use a free service like that provided by Yahoo.

It's not a question of being spammed, it's a question of not having your email address known to the entire world.  Some don't want that.  I'd prefer that participants list their email address, but, then, we'd know who HBH is [/color]

I can tell you for a fact that there is an inner sanctum of people who set up access and I'M back and forth the slightest sniff of who on this site belongs to which club.


That's pure BS.
I've IM'ed many individuals and have received an enormous amount of IM's on GCA or GOLF matters.  IM's are a valuable communication convenience and not the sole domain of what you refer to above.

If Wayne Morrisson invites me to Philly to play golf with him and we discuss other issues, that's NOONE's business[/color]


I have never hidden the fact that at one time I had figured out how to read the IM's of a few posters and without naming any names I can tell you that what I read would disgust you to the very core.  Perhaps this is why my distaste for some posters on the site is so obvious.  I personally do not believe a man has any more right to talk behind ones back than to his face.

That's not how the real world works, and I don't care about private conversations between two registered participants, be they on the phone, via email, IM's or in person.
It's NOT my business and it's nobody else's business as well.

Do you discuss the same topics with your golfing buddies that you do with your wife and her friends.  I don't, and none of my friends to either.   Render those things that are Caesar's unto Caesar .......   [/color]

[George Pazin]

Doesn't worry me at all, I trust the moderators completely. And trust is ultimately what this is all about.

Feel free to email or IM me as much - or as little - as desired!

[Paul_Turner]

Are there more moderators than just Ran and Ben?

[TEPaul]

"I can tell you that what I read would disgust you to the very core.  Perhaps this is why my distaste for some posters on the site is so obvious.  I personally do not believe a man has any more right to talk behind ones back than to his face."

I missed this little piece!

Is this the height of hypocrisy or what?

John Kavanaugh---you are disgusted by what you read from people who thought they were communicating privately with one another and not with you?

Are you also disgusted by what your neighbors say when you open their mailboxes and read their personal mail? Aren't you even a little bit disgusted with yourself for both figuring out how to get into other people's IMs on here and then actually reading what they said? And if you aren't disgusted with yourself for doing that the obvious question is why not?    

Was it true that you were once thrown off this website? Whether you were or weren't perhaps you should be for reading other peoples IMs and then hypocritically criticizing them on here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()