- This topic has 13 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Alright, yesterday, there was a thread deleted by Oreo about adding someone without permission. And then she reported another post in which he shows his link which i then edited (here). Basically of course this person found a way to make a program that adds someone without permission and i know that’s against BBB rules. I PM’ed the guy telling him why his link was removed and so on, but here’s the PM’s:
Puddys-World wrote:hatedjealousy wrote:I apologize but i had to edit your post and delete your link to your website because of the following content on your site:Quote:You have the power to add anyone you like(without them knowing it)BigBlueBall does not condone this and would rather not have a link which takes people to it. Sorry! Just following the rules.
Welcome to BBB. Hope you stick around. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
ok im curious .. you allow a buddy spy program but you wont allow mine?
exactly where did my program step over the privacy line … where buddy spy didnt??
i’m curious, not being rude at all just curious cause i was really wondering why the post was deleted, and if BigBlueBall would have a change of mind on this subject could you let me know plz [email protected]
P34C3hatedjealousy wrote:Quote:You have the power to add anyone you like(without them knowing it)That what i quoted above is where your program crosses the line because it allows you adding people without them knowing and that to me seriously violates privacy which is against BBB rules. BuddySpy is debateable and up to the user, you can find reasons HERE.
And for future information, i was not the one who deleted your thread, just the one who edited your post to remove your link. I will mention to the person who deleted your thread that they should have contacted you of it, so my apologies because of that. But they just felt strongy about adding without permission.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me, or i’ll even have the site administrator follow up on this if you wish.
Thanks for sticking around and actually bothering to reply! Shows lots.
Puddys-World wrote:hatedjealousy wrote:BuddySpy is debateable and up to the user, you can find reasons HERE.sry i didnt ask for permission first .. i musta missed that post.
now i looked at that link, didnt see anything that meant anything, it was that line you put before the link that got my attension.
really when it comes down to it my program is no different from buddy spy program .. the uses you scan with buddy spy do not have a say in it, buddy spy was made to sniff invis cam room etc blah now if the user being scanned wants to hide they can Yahoo gives you the options to hide, Buddy Spy exploited these options and that makes Buddy Spy and Buddy Master Pro one an the same …
i really wish you would reconsider this decision i meerly providing a program that ppl are looking for as you saw for yourself.Puddys-World wrote:hatedjealousy wrote:And for future information, i was not the one who deleted your thread,sry bout this you must be busy but,
btw that wasnt my thread i replied to another members thread.
hatedjealousy wrote:All your information is fair enough. Here is a better thread for you to look at in which the Owner of this site’s (Jeff) opinion’s are on this.I will go ahead and pass this information foward to the other staff for review and see what response we can come up with and I will keep you informed.
I don’t have any problem with Oreo deleting the thread since i myself would not want this program being around. Which is why i decided to post this here for any better reasons i should give him since he used that whole “but we allow BuddySpy” line.
I just don’t want an angry member saying we are hypocrites on what we do and do not allow, so i came to the Yahoo! Team Room for more advice and any suggestions welcome!
*On a side note* Sorry for my lack of posting, been busy for the past 2 weeks enrolling at new school and stuff, orientation, then today was my first day of class! So it’s been hectic, but i’m still around! 😛
There have been MANY arguements for and against Buddy Spy…personally I do not like it…but it was decided by the majority of staff that it was OK…so whatever. Adding without permission has been against the rules even before “I” was on staff. Discussing it with this guy is just leading down a slippery slope.
And for the record…Jeff has asked us just to take action and not PM, so I was following policy. Please do not air staff issues when discussing things with people outside of staff, and yes saying “I will mention to the person who deleted your thread that they should have contacted you of it, so my apologies because of that. But they just felt strongy about adding without permission.” is doing so. You could have simply said you would look into it. He was a new member and Jeff has asked us not make new members feel singled out or stupid…just correct and or move. Also, he was posting, as a first post something that was completely against policy. Sorry if this sounds combative…it is not meant to…but there is a way to deal with members when they question an action and not play the blame game. I just want to mention I was doing what I was supposed to according to the new rules (though they are not so new anymore).
I am not a member of the Yahoo! Team and have not been for some time…but I felt the issues that came up in the past when I was might be helpful. Buddy Spy is going to be a topic of contention and has been since it was allowed to be promoted on BBB…adding without permission is a no brainer…actually asked about it once before I was even a mod. I accidently deleted some one when I was mad and wanted to add them later…Snuggleupagainst was the one who set me straight…you KNOW that’s Old School 🙂I’m sorry, but if that is a “policy” (not contacting members about posting things that go against ethics and laws and policies and lot) I 100% DO NOT agree with it. That it self will open a whole new can of worms if we let that happen.
If you decide to delete a thread and not give the member a reason for it, they are going to come back and ask why it was deleted. Or, they can attempt to try and give a bad name to the site, or try and attempt to do other nasty things.. if you catch my drift.
All I’m saying here is, if you’re going to remove a thread from public display (and in this case, I also agree it was removed with good reason) there should be some “automatic” message that is PMed or emailed to the member stating why it was deleted. Just like the “reason for deleting” or “reason for editing” we should have a “reason to member for deleting”.
I attempt to state this because, Oreo, you deleted another thread in the MSN Messenger section (which I also agree with, removing it from public display), but when a member is waiting for public discussion, and obviously is going to come back to read it, they are going to wonder where it went.
Sure, we COULD just ignore contacting them and do it the “old” way like a “moderator” would, but because of this “new” style, an “advisor” SHOULD BE contacting members about why it was deleted or edited. PMing people is not embarrassing or humiliating, it’s showing we care about our members and the ethics that we stand by.
As for this comparison to Buddy Spy, I mean, the program probably does the same thing as this member is posting, no? It’s using an exploit on Yahoo Messenger to gain permissions for another user without the other knowing. If that is the decision, than we definitely ARE being hypocrites. And, where was this “poll” about the majority of staff deciding on allowing Buddy Spy to be promoted on BigBlueBall? It’s wrong, and it goes against ethics that we are trying to protect. Allowing it, is assuming others can promote their programs and get feedback on it. And you’re going to burn a blind eye to Buddy Spy because of why? It’s programmer? It’s traffic that it brings to the site? I don’t know, but it’s now booming a name BBB doesn’t need, and that’s “come promote your **** on the forums, because ethics doesn’t matter”.
If you’re going to allow Buddy Spy, why can’t Vanessa put back the thread for adding without permission, and why can I not put back the tread for MSN Messenger “cracking” for password theft?
Oreo: I thought the new policy WAS to PM the person to avoid embarrasment. This way they read it themselves in private and not in public. A person should be able to know where their thread/post went so a PM was sent before it gets reposted. (Even YOU noticed that thread got reposted today by the same person who started the thread, because you responded to it.)
Second of all the whole conversation is me trying to make a new member feel welcome and not make BBB seem like a hypocrital site so sorry if you do not agree with that.
We all go about things differently and whatever works for us, works, but i came here not so anyone could correct me on how i went about it, but advice on what i can say to not make BBB seem so hypocrital on what it allows or not. So spare me anything else if it be a personal vendetta or anything, i’m not the person to go at it with.
Detn8r definately see’s where i’m coming from with this and i repeat all i wanted was ADVICE, not critiscm.
Personally, if I PM a user about a post, I’ll kindly let them know what I did and why, and encourage them to continue to post on the site. If a rule was broken, I will let them know of the rule they broke, then suggest alternative ways to post instead of the way that broke the rule.
And, det…
detn8r wrote:All I’m saying here is, if you’re going to remove a thread from public display (and in this case, I also agree it was removed with good reason) there should be some “automatic” message that is PMed or emailed to the member stating why it was deleted. Just like the “reason for deleting” or “reason for editing” we should have a “reason to member for deleting”.I agree 100%, flat-out.
I don’t know what to think anymore. Does Buddy Spy allow you to add without permission? Or just see their real online status?
And (playing the devil’s advocate) is adding someone without permission so bad? Isn’t this the way AIM has worked forever?
I’m open to discussing the whole thing. Personally, I don’t care who adds me, and I allow everyone who asks to add me to their buddy lists on whatever IM network they use. As long as I retain the ability to block someone I find annoying, I don’t care who adds me. But then, that’s just my opinion.
A few comments on contacting members. First, we do have a policy about unsolicted contact. This is different from this case. I also created a policy for minor rule violations which said in effect, “don’t contact them, just fix it.” This also does not apply in this case.
For spammers who register and post spam and ONLY spam with no attempt to post “normal” topics, I don’t bother contacting them at all. I just delete their posts and ban them. But that’s not the case here. This person was trying to share something that he reasoned was much like Buddy Spy. Maybe it is, or maybe it isn’t, but I think it’s entirely appropriate to send him a PM explaining the how and why, and I think you did a great job of answering him, Vanessa. Thanks!
Oh yeah, we had an open discussion about the pros and cons of covering BuddySpy in the forums, and if it’s not really clear, maybe we should allow the same for this guy too? See what the members think about the whole thing? Speaking personally, I really don’t care if he or anyone else adds me, as long as I can still block them if I want to. I’ll leave it to the Yahoo team to decide.
When I deleted this particular thread…it was his ONE and only thread…and I watched and he only posted his URL again… he appeared to be a spammer…it was my mistake, I admit that. But sometimes people appear to be spammers and are not…I admit this was my fault.
Oreo wrote:When I deleted this particular thread…it was his ONE and only thread…and I watched and he only posted his URL again… he appeared to be a spammer…it was my mistake, I admit that. But sometimes people appear to be spammers and are not…I admit this was my fault.No. It wasn’t even his thread, but his posts were in that thread. He was actually replying to someone else’s thread. But i understand that he did appear to be a spammer and why you deleted this thread, i have nothing against that. Anyone who spots spam is free to delete it in the Yahoo! Section, I’m not hogging that section, so it’s okay.
Like i mentioned to Jeff earlier, the main problem people might have with being able to add is that in the past it posed security risks due to exploits when people had you on their list, but i don’t know if all this has been patched up with the changes Yahoo! has made. I’m pretty sure it has though.
And like i’ve also said before, i’m not trying to make us allow the program, nor trying to say let’s ban him or anything, i just think we should have plausible explainations as why we allow some things over another. Because to this user we appear as hypocrites for allowing BuddySpy but not his.
So this isn’t about blame at all, just about question that was brought up.
I know I am not on the yahoo section so I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts.
Personally buddyspy is not a big deal to me, if someone want’s to sit and see if I am on line, what a sorry soul they must be! However, I have had instances whereby I was invisible and even so I got IM’s from someone, quite simply they did not stay on my list for long. If I am invisible it’s my choice.
As for people adding me, as a staff member I don’t mind at all, some people generally add me ask a question and then they then don’t contact me again and then every so often I just clean out my list.
However, just for your information someone added me the other day (without permission) and here is the conversation:
good_pak1 (27/08/2006 12:01:17): i want some information plz tell me
minime3867 (27/08/2006 12:01:48): what do you want to know?
good_pak1 (27/08/2006 12:02:09): i want to find a web cam viewer of yahoo plz tell any web site but free
minime3867 (27/08/2006 12:02:37): sorry I dont understand your question
good_pak1 (27/08/2006 12:03:36): i want to find a software ( yahoo webcam view without permission ) is it available free at any web site ?
good_pak1 (27/08/2006 12:03:59): if are u know then reply me thanks a lot
minime3867 (27/08/2006 12:04:12): sorry I don’t know
minime3867 (27/08/2006 12:06:40): have to go now, bye
good_pak1 (27/08/2006 12:07:02): tyStill polite as always! haha but now blocked! But again it does not really bother me, but it’s not really the way to go about things. But you see, because I am a staff member on a forum then I am a bit more relaxed about who adds me as usually they are people who just want help and a majority of the time are very pleasant about it.
However, if I was just a private member and a standard IM user I am not so sure I would have the same view. Especially if I was a lot younger. But I am also a parent I am not be too happy if we are going to allow this programme on bbb, because of the security issues for younger members.
As for deleting posts, if mine are obviously spam I just get rid and do not contact them. If the post was a bit iffy then I would put it in the staff room for others to add their comments. Or just email my team leader.
Now if someone were to write a programme so you cannot block someone on IM then that would be a massive problem! Let’s hope that never happens 🙁
I think that both Vanessa and Elisa want to do the right thing. In this case, the fault lies with me, as Elisa IMed me about the post first, and I told her to go ahead and delete it (I was in the office, where they now block BBB).
Vanessa did a very good job of handling the user with tact. The one phrase that could be a problem was “And for future information, i was not the one who deleted your thread, just the one who edited your post to remove your link. I will mention to the person who deleted your thread that they should have contacted you of it, so my apologies because of that. But they just felt strongy about adding without permission.”
Now, the user does not know WHO deleted the message, or that I was the one who “gave the order.” So nobody on the staff has lost face. But… a better way of wording this may have been “…I didn’t delete your post. We usually, but not always, will PM a member when we delete their post. If you’d like, I can find out why no PM was sent in this situation.”
I don’t think he really cared that he got a PM or not. What he REALLY wants to know is why we allow discussion of BuddySpy but not his program.
I really appreciate that everyone on the staff takes their role as seriously as you all do. It shows a sense of pride in BBB and your role. I’m glad for that, even though sometimes we don’t always do what we do completely in-step. But we’re learning and getting better all the time.
Well to be honest buddyspy has been made redundant now.
Yahoo! have Removed the /goto and /follow functions.
Yahoo! have changed the way p2p packets are sent and recieved.
Yahoo! have Serverely limited posted character count in YMSG chat Chat2
YCHT was 512 charcters, it was removed
YMSG and Chat2 were 1800, they are now a drastic 300
YMSG13/14 implemented a new way buddy add’s were done.
Its the old methods of YMSG10/11/12 that cause issues
So whether each program does attack privacy, they buddy add one is the worse of two evils as it can not be controlled, when buddyspy could always be and was limited to what the other user done and their preference.
Having no choice on who add’s you is nothing short of unwanted Exploitation.
Dermot wrote:Having no choice on who add’s you is nothing short of unwanted Exploitation.Totally agree Dermot! 😉
I’m split on this issue, so I’ve put it up for public vote. Lets let our members tell us what they think.
I’ve moved the posts about the new forum software into it’s own topic, as it was kind of hijacking this thread. You can check em out here.
Unfortunately, while splitting the topic, I somehow lost one of Det’s posts from the top of this page. So my apologies Graham, I guess I should have soft deleted!
Now back on topic, it seems that it’s currently 16 in favor of allowing the program and only 8 against it. Interesting. I hope that the staff has all added their votes as well! I’m still split on this, I can see both sides of the argument, but I’m not quite convinced it’s really that harmful. I must further meditate on this matter. 😉
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.