My thread about VPNs

[kayaker]

@Charlie_Wayne

I send a rough draft of the thread to Loach on Feb. 29 and then sent an updated version on March 1.

Ahh, a look behind the curtain at the process that leads to a post. Cool!

BTW, VPN is one of only 11 TLAs that are entirely unambiguous.

[kaylasdad99]

@Charlie_Wayne

When you say, “You don’t have a clue, do you”? Are you calling me stupid? Or are you admitting that since I don’t know what proxy networks are, you falsely accused me of wanting to discuss them. After all, I can’t very well want to discuss them if I don’t know what they are. Can I?

I sent you a list of some of the VPN providers by PM because I didn’t think you would want me to post links to them in a public thread.

I really can’t understand why you call these companies “random asshats”. I don’t think that is at all fair.

The fact that when discussing the use of VPN gear to link to proxy networks, you admit that you don’t know what proxy netwoks are does not inspire confidence in your ability to evaluate whether the hosting companies can legitimately be characterized as “random asshats.”

[simster]

@Idle_Thoughts

It’s not, necessarily. What the case is here is that Charlie asked permission, the mods talked about it, and we were going to tell him he didn’t have permission to do it the way he was putting it in the PM…only the mods didn’t get back to him in time.

In any case, though, the answer isn’t “Okay, well, if I don’t hear back from you so I’m going to go ahead and do it anyway”…it’s “Hey…remember me? Any word on whether or not this is okay?”

So, lesson learned here is to not ask permission.

@engineer_comp_geek

A discussion of VPNs in general isn’t off limits. The problem here was that Charlie wasn’t discussing VPNs in general. He wanted to discuss the use of proxy networks, which you connect to via VPN. The primary purpose of these proxy network servers is to hide where your network traffic is originating from. Its main users are spammers, people engaging in illegal music and video downloads, and trolls. These services do see occasional use by folks who are just worried about network security for legitimate purposes, but the types of sites that Charlie wanted to discuss tend not to be used much for legitimate reasons.

It was Charlie’s focus on these types of services that gave us some concern. He tried to formulate his post so that it did not include any references to things that can’t be discussed here, but we were still trying to hash out if this could be discussed in a way that wouldn’t immediately lead into an internet “how to create socks and trolls that are harder to detect” type post.

So basically, the problem wasn’t that Charlie wanted to discuss network security and VPNs. The problem was that Charlie wanted to discuss “hide my IP” type services that you connect to via VPN and nothing else. It wasn’t clear to me from what we received from Charlie that he actually understood that there were other uses for VPNs, or the security issues involved. He made it very clear from the start though that he was well aware of the illegal uses for these (music and video downloading, etc). He seemed to be trying to skirt the line between what can and can’t be discussed here, and to us he mostly seemed to be on the wrong side of the line.

Admittedly, we were a bit slow to respond to this, partly because there are some fairly complex technical issues involved, and we were trying to hash out what can and can’t be discussed and where we should draw the line, and partly because a lot of us didn’t have much time over the past few days. Unfortunately, Charlie didn’t give us a chance to sort out the moderation issues.

THe use of proxy networks and ‘hide my IP’ is not generally illegal- the creation of socks and trolls, while against the rules to use here - is not generally illegal.

Charlies own comments

a) said he intended to stay away from ‘the types of benefits’
b) that he already put a disclaimer in that he did not want to discuss the illegal side of this.

Secondly - Charlie clealy need a bit of ignorance fought on the subject - and what better board to do that then here?

Perhaps instead of a lenghthy OP about why he liked them - he should (or could) have started an OP with a ‘teach me about VPNs and private networks - can they be used to help prevent Identity Theft’ - but as it stands, just because nefarious people will do nefarious things with VPNs and private networks, should not preclude the ability to discuss them here.

(see guns/weapons , politics and ‘religion’ as other topics that are easily discussed and nefarious people do bad things with that all the time)

[Morgenstern]

@engineer_comp_geek

You don’t have a clue, do you?

…

Oh, oohhh, (raises hand)
I know the answer!

[simster]

@engineer_comp_geek

You don’t have a clue, do you?
Your lack of understanding was one of the things that lengthened our discussions around the mod loop.

@Morgenstern

Oh, oohhh, (raises hand)
I know the answer!

Both of these seem out of line for ATMB specifically and 4 out of 5 forums generally.

Can we keep to the facts of why his thread was locked?

Did he, in fact, need permission to start said thread? (last I knew, you only needed mod approval for threads asking for money or homework help)

Had he not seeked permission (the reason given for the thread locking was that he didn’t wait since he asked) - would the thread have been locked? If so, why?

[BigT]

@engineer_comp_geek

You don’t have a clue, do you?

This is a rather jerkish thing to say. Of course he doesn’t know about them. That’s why he’s asking.

You still haven’t explained how anything he said violates any of the rules of this board. While it’s possible to use a VPN illegally, you indicated that he did not actually advocate for illegal activity.

This moderating decision is completely out of step with other moderating decisions of this nature. We’ve discussed torrenting or the dark web or drug usage and a lot of other things. As long as one doesn’t directly advocate for illegal activity, it’s always been allowed.

To be honest, this comment makes me suspect that this is more about having a personal problem with the poster in question. Because, otherwise, this decision makes no sense.

[madsircool]

@BigT

This is a rather jerkish thing to say. Of course he doesn’t know about them. That’s why he’s asking.

You still haven’t explained how anything he said violates any of the rules of this board. While it’s possible to use a VPN illegally, you indicated that he did not actually advocate for illegal activity.

This moderating decision is completely out of step with other moderating decisions of this nature. We’ve discussed torrenting or the dark web or drug usage and a lot of other things. As long as one doesn’t directly advocate for illegal activity, it’s always been allowed.

To be honest, this comment makes me suspect that this is more about having a personal problem with the poster in question. Because, otherwise, this decision makes no sense.

How do you know he doesn’t know about them? He could be playing dumb to spread the knowledge to the general community. To make it easier to sock without actually being overt about it.

That said I love reading his work. He is truly unique.

[billfish678]

The mods had the energy to discuss the issue with each other…but not enough to send a “hey, we are working on it…will get back to you” message to the OP?

IF you FORGOT to do it, that’s one thing (these things happen). But if you can’t be arsed to do it…that’s just lame IMO.

Yes, this is about the third time I’ve complained about stuff like this.

[Charlie_Wayne]

NM.

[Morgenstern]

@simster

Both of these seem out of line for ATMB specifically and 4 out of 5 forums generally.

Can we keep to the facts of why his thread was locked?

…

Actually you couldn’t be more wrong. Besides that, the fact that you don’t like the answer that has been give, is no reason to demand a different answer.

[Omar_Little]

That’s gold Jerry, gold, I tell you.

[simster]

@Morgenstern

Actually you couldn’t be more wrong. Besides that, the fact that you don’t like the answer that has been give, is no reason to demand a different answer.

No - in fact I’ve accepted the reason that specific thread was closed (he asked permission, didn’t wait for the final answer).

My questions are much broader than that - perhaps you need to re-read them.

[Morgenstern]

@simster

No - in fact I’ve accepted the reason that specific thread was closed (he asked permission, didn’t wait for the final answer).

My questions are much broader than that - perhaps you need to re-read them.

I think if you reread post 11 and 14, you’ll find the answer you’re looking for.

[DrDeth]

@simster

So, lesson learned here is to not ask permission.

)

Right, especially since it appears if you do ask for permission, it seems OK to simply not respond, and thus that equals "No you can’t’ without the mods having to actually say “No, sorry”.

[simster]

@Morgenstern

I think if you reread post 11 and 14, you’ll find the answer you’re looking for.

And I disagree that those are valid reasons to close the thread in question - the mods could have stated that discussion of specific ‘off board’ networks or specific usage types were verboten - and used thier ‘mad mod powers’ to keep the thread in check toward legit usage and discussion of VPNs, etc.

Instead - we have a ham fisted “you didn’t wait for permission” answer - which is bullshit for the thread in question.

So - my 2 questions remain -

a) had the OP not sought permission - would the thread in question have been closed? (i’ll take 11 and 14 as potential reasons for the ‘why’, even though that’s ‘potential’ reasons and didn’t actually seem to occur in the thread in question)
b) is it now required to ‘seek permission’ for these types of discussions?

[Morgenstern]

@simster

…
b) is it now required to ‘seek permission’ for these types of discussions?

I’m not going to pretend to answer for a mod, but from my POV the following applies.

We both know the board policy on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety/illegality with respect to what they host. This thread could have gone there. The ironic thing is that** CW **recognized that the matter might be one the board would prefer not to host and asked that his post be reviewed before posting it. He obviously saw the potential problem.

This could have easily led to a discussion on masking, or how masking works, and/or how to mask your IP and that’s obviously not something TPTB want to host here. I’m betting the farm that the mods would have locked that thread quick, fast and in a hurry if that had happened, and possibly heard about it from the HMFIC. (head mighty fellow in charge)
Frankly, I think CW did the right thing seeking permission to post a thread he felt might have been questionable. He should have followed through with his request instead of becoming impatient.

[simster]

@Morgenstern

I’m not going to pretend to answer for a mod, but from my POV the following applies.

We both know the board policy on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety/illegality with respect to what they host. This thread could have gone there. The ironic thing is that CW recognized that the matter might be one the board would prefer not to host and asked that his post be reviewed before posting it. He obviously saw the potential problem.

This could have easily led to a discussion on masking, or how masking works, and/or how to mask your IP and that’s obviously not something TPTB want to host here. I’m betting the farm that the mods would have locked that thread quick, fast and in a hurry if that had happened, and possibly heard about it from the HMFIC. (head mighty fellow in charge)
Frankly, I think CW did the right thing seeking permission to post a thread he felt might have been questionable. He should have followed through with his request instead of becoming impatient.

Bolding mine - re-read post 12 and 17 - tell me that you really think that’s why Charlie requested permission -

It’s possible that Charlie simply asked permission because he’s been dinged before for posting/starting threads and is a bit gun-shy - (and that it had nothing to do with the questionably of the content itself).

Or it could be that Charlie saw the potential for ‘getting over the line’ - since we don’t have prvvy to the PMs - both assumptions are equally valid.

[billfish678]

Cough…8 days…cough…if only there was some way the mods could have made their concerns known to the OP.

[Omar_Little]

Meh…as much as they pay these guys, we’re probably getting the proper amount of moderation.

[billfish678]

Meh, its probably way MORE work to deal with this thread and the fallout than it would have been to send a “we are working on it”.

Heck it was probably more work to close the thread than it would have been to send a “we are working on it”.

We are living in the greatest time in the history of man when it comes to communications…except people can’t be arsed to use it when it actually matters.