Future of the Forum

[banquetbear]

Asking questions, yes -- I've done plenty of that myself. I'm not saying don't ask questions.

Bitching endlessly, no. There's wisdom to the saying about having the strength to change the things I can, the patience to accept the things I cannot change, and the wisdom to tell the difference.

...he asked a question . He isn't bitching endlessly. There is more bitching about people bitching than anything else at the moment. Stop chilling the conversation and let people say there piece.

 

[smartcooky]

Again -- It's already been established that all personal information except your forum name and password can be deleted prior to transferring the forum. This is a complete, 100%, absolute non-issue.

Wolfman, I think the email address is an integral part of the forum software and it will have to be transferred with the username and password. There is no way for a member to reset a lost password without it.

 

[Blue Mountain]

The difficulty is that they probably do, and it would be an awful lot easier for them to just turn this off than to let someone new access the user information.

People have been talking about real names and such as important information, but honestly that crap is in the phone book. The bigger issue is that a lot of people (not me) use the same username and password everywhere. I'm willing to bet that you'd be transferring more than a few bank account username/password combos to a new entity with this.

(remainder snipped)

If you're concerned about your password leaking, you probably shouldn't be. I'd be stunned if your password was stored in plain text in the database.

Usually they're hashed using a one-way encryption; that is, the password "HockeyPuck" might be stored as "8bd63ad2fec505a4e470d6ab1a72456c7679de20". When you log in, the authentication code does the same transformation on the password you enter on the login page, then reads your username and the hashed password from the database. If the two hashes match, the system knows you've entered the correct password and lets you in.

 

[banquetbear]

Sorry, but no legal entity around would consider information posted publicly in a 'members-only' forum to be privileged or private information. You've put it out there with the implicit knowledge that you have no control whatoever over who will see it (since you have no control over who is or is not a member).

Privacy issues concern information that was given to the JREF only; not things that you posted in the forums, whether it be the general forums, or members-only.

...we aren't talking about "legal entities." There are thousands of members of this forum who literally don't understand this sort of thing. People signed up for the Randi Forums, and most people never imagined a scenario where the Randi Forums weren't associated with Randi. People shouldn't be belittled for airing their concerns. This thing has played out so rapidly that things are going to be missed and overlooked. Raising them here is the right thing to do.

 

[RemieV]

Again -- It's already been established that all personal information except your forum name and password can be deleted prior to transferring the forum. This is a complete, 100%, absolute non-issue.

You realize it was said it's possible - and it has not been said that it will be that way. Have you seen an official announcement saying that people's names will not be associated with their usernames at the point at which icerat has access to the data?

Because, frankly, it's entirely possible he already has access to the data.

Now, even that I could potentially live with, because if the forum goes to Jeff and the College of Curiosity, they are a skeptical company that understands the concerns involved, and I'd trust Jeff with my life.

If not, though, I don't see how you can say it's a non-issue and that it's already been solved, unless I am missing a post somewhere. Am I?

 

[Klimax]

I'm observing some serious WTF. Insanely curious what happened, not that I expect those who know to state it.

Does CT section still exist? ()

 

[Planigale]

Is there a link to somewhere where the "Foundation" explains why they want to drop the 'Forum'? I accept that the Foundation are entitled to drop the Forum with no notice and no explanation; but it would seem good PR to communicate; and bad for the intent of the Foundation to antagonise many 'Skeptics' that support the intent of the Foundation.

 

[RemieV]

Is there a link to somewhere where the "Foundation" explains why they want to drop the 'Forum'? I accept that the Foundation are entitled to drop the Forum with no notice and no explanation; but it would seem good PR to communicate; and bad for the intent of the Foundation to antagonise many 'Skeptics' that support the intent of the Foundation.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/2384-regarding-the-jref-forum-status.html

But I mean, it's been mentioned on the forum and elsewhere that forum members make up a tiny percentage of TAM attendees. And most forum members are not JREF members. And by that token I would also assume that we don't donate very much.

And if you look at the content of the forum threads, very few of them are ACTUALLY educational. Pedantic bickering isn't educational. This, of course, isn't true for all threads. But it is for a lot of them.

So, what tool for the JREF would you say the forum actually IS?

 

[Darat]

If you're concerned about your password leaking, you probably shouldn't be. I'd be stunned if your password was stored in plain text in the database.

Usually they're hashed using a one-way encryption; that is, the password "HockeyPuck" might be stored as "8bd63ad2fec505a4e470d6ab1a72456c7679de20". When you log in, the authentication code does the same transformation on the password you enter on the login page, then reads your username and the hashed password from the database. If the two hashes match, the system knows you've entered the correct password and lets you in.

That's correct, no one has access to passwords, even if they have all the Admin privileges and direct access to the database that stores the passwords.

 

[Planigale]

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jref-news/2384-regarding-the-jref-forum-status.html

But I mean, it's been mentioned on the forum and elsewhere that forum members make up a tiny percentage of TAM attendees. And most forum members are not JREF members. And by that token I would also assume that we don't donate very much.

And if you look at the content of the forum threads, very few of them are ACTUALLY educational. Pedantic bickering isn't educational. This, of course, isn't true for all threads. But it is for a lot of them.

So, what tool for the JREF would you say the forum actually IS?

Thanks for replying. The link says it is happening not why. Some people obviously know more, there are various references to legal issues.

Prior to joining JREF I would browse the threads looking for info. If you google skeptical issues jref comes quite high, and is one of the few sites where you can see arguments made out. TAM seems to be a US thing, most of the world population is too far to realistically go to it. The internet is much closer to home.

I am sure there are good reasons for the change; but what are they? I have no right to know, but I am nosey.

I think the forum is a potential resource for the foundation as it includes many fellow travellers. An alternative might have been for the foundation to engage more with the forum, but the decision has been made and I am sure there is no going back on it.

 

[RemieV]

Thanks for replying. The link says it is happening not why. Some people obviously know more, there are various references to legal issues.

Prior to joining JREF I would browse the threads looking for info. If you google skeptical issues jref comes quite high, and is one of the few sites where you can see arguments made out. TAM seems to be a US thing, most of the world population is too far to realistically go to it. The internet is much closer to home.

I am sure there are good reasons for the change; but what are they? I have no right to know, but I am nosey.

I think the forum is a potential resource for the foundation as it includes many fellow travellers. An alternative might have been for the foundation to engage more with the forum, but the decision has been made and I am sure there is no going back on it.

Well again, the JREF is a non-profit, which means that funding is of utmost importance, and the forum doesn't yield much in that respect. While it might be a great place to see an argument fully hashed out, there are a lot of skeptical forums doing the same thing. I think figuring out a plan to MAKE it yield more would take time that would be better spent (for the JREF) elsewhere - in places that have already proven their value. Actual value, not potential value, or abstract value.

This doesn't mean that I agree, by the way. The forum has essentially been left sitting for years, and if those years ago someone had tried their hand at massaging the forum into a different kind of place, then it would be where they needed it to be now.

However, I don't feel confused by this decision or anything. The JREF is looking to implement actual educational programs in schools and such. While this might be a great place for a ghost hunter to stumble in and have their beliefs challenged, I can see why the priority would be on reaching larger swaths of people.

To me, the forum and the JREF have long been separate entities. The idea of disconnecting them doesn't even strike me as a negative route to take. I actually think of this as an opportunity for us to pull together and make it the kind of place we would've hoped the JREF had created.

Consider that now we can formulate our own educational programs; send out invites to the forum to key people and invite them to participate in, say, a moderated thread wherein we discuss a topic of their choosing. We nominate one person from our end to have the discussion, but other users can submit questions or comments via PM.

Or we could hold AMAs with skeptical celebrities. Or whatever. We have a lot of room to do good, here, and one way to look at this is that we will no longer have the JREF calling the shots on what we can and cannot accomplish. The people who run the forum will actually be present, and we can bring them ideas.

This is not really a bad thing.

 

[arthwollipot]

To me, the forum and the JREF have long been separate entities. The idea of disconnecting them doesn't even strike me as a negative route to take. I actually think of this as an opportunity for us to pull together and make it the kind of place we would've hoped the JREF had created.

Consider that now we can formulate our own educational programs; send out invites to the forum to key people and invite them to participate in, say, a moderated thread wherein we discuss a topic of their choosing. We nominate one person from our end to have the discussion, but other users can submit questions or comments via PM.

Or we could hold AMAs with skeptical celebrities. Or whatever. We have a lot of room to do good, here, and one way to look at this is that we will no longer have the JREF calling the shots on what we can and cannot accomplish. The people who run the forum will actually be present, and we can bring them ideas.

This is not really a bad thing.

This ^

 

[iiwo]

The issue with privacy afaik is not passwords, those should be rather hard to 'see' or reveal, as Darat pointed out. The issue is if someone with a bone to pick or wanting sh*ts and giggles got ahold of the forum keys, they could reveal actual real life identities. As in, post a list saying "hey all you ***, look! Here is a list of usernames and real names!".

As someone with a very unique real name, that is troubling. At one point discussing issues here could well have cost me a job. I've since moved on, but others may be in a similar position, or in a church, relationship, or other sensitive thing that shouldn't tip over quite yet. THAT is a major problem, not someone changing or hacking my password and making it look like I said something I didn't.

 

[Planigale]

Well again, the JREF is a non-profit, which means that funding is of utmost importance, and the forum doesn't yield much in that respect. While it might be a great place to see an argument fully hashed out, there are a lot of skeptical forums doing the same thing. I think figuring out a plan to MAKE it yield more would take time that would be better spent (for the JREF) elsewhere - in places that have already proven their value. Actual value, not potential value, or abstract value.

This doesn't mean that I agree, by the way. The forum has essentially been left sitting for years, and if those years ago someone had tried their hand at massaging the forum into a different kind of place, then it would be where they needed it to be now.

However, I don't feel confused by this decision or anything. The JREF is looking to implement actual educational programs in schools and such. While this might be a great place for a ghost hunter to stumble in and have their beliefs challenged, I can see why the priority would be on reaching larger swaths of people.

To me, the forum and the JREF have long been separate entities. The idea of disconnecting them doesn't even strike me as a negative route to take. I actually think of this as an opportunity for us to pull together and make it the kind of place we would've hoped the JREF had created.

Consider that now we can formulate our own educational programs; send out invites to the forum to key people and invite them to participate in, say, a moderated thread wherein we discuss a topic of their choosing. We nominate one person from our end to have the discussion, but other users can submit questions or comments via PM.

Or we could hold AMAs with skeptical celebrities. Or whatever. We have a lot of room to do good, here, and one way to look at this is that we will no longer have the JREF calling the shots on what we can and cannot accomplish. The people who run the forum will actually be present, and we can bring them ideas.

This is not really a bad thing.

You sound quite inspiring. Better to go with ambitions for growth than wither on the vine.

Being sceptical the highlighted is an issue for many not for profits; they become self serving as they become older. They have real people with real lives who have to earn real money to staff them. Their prime objective re JREF should be education with the funding secondary to allow this. I was involved with a small charity, the charity had ambitions to grow, the professional fund raisers brought in cost more than they raised, the charity folded.

Many charities would have leveraged the equivalent of the forum. E.g. ask you to sign up to get emails from them, fund raise etc. I guess from what you say the Foundation board decided either the cost of hosting the Forum was more than the potential benefits to the Foundation, or as seems to be hinted at the risks of litigation and consequent costs are a risk that the Foundation could not bare. The latter seems a better explanation than the former, one aggressive litigant could easily screw the finances of a small organisation; if they have legal insurance then I can easily see the insurers saying that dumping the forum will reduce your potential liabilities and make the insurance cheaper.

FWIW I would sign up to transfer to the new forum. I am not convinced that the US is the best place to host the server but understand the bulk of membership resides there.

 

[Aepervius]

RemieV -- I don't understand the objection...if they've posted that information publicly in the forums, then it is not private information. You are responsible for information you've posted publicly, not the JREF, or the new owner.

It is a problem as soon as you tie a real name to forum posts.

Why do you think the google+ real name policy made so much chatter ? And other real name policy of forums and game ?

Because people when free give more of their opinion and atiitude, which they may not do out of fear of repercussion if that was made public.

Yes it can be about trollling.... But it could be about admitting youa re lesbian and then it turns out later you live in Arabia Saoudite. Or a country where homosexuality is a death penalty.

It is a real concern. That is why there is not only liability but privacy issues about transfering real name and post associated.

 

[Aepervius]

Sorry, but no legal entity around would consider information posted publicly in a 'members-only' forum to be privileged or private information. You've put it out there with the implicit knowledge that you have no control whatoever over who will see it (since you have no control over who is or is not a member).

Privacy issues concern information that was given to the JREF only; not things that you posted in the forums, whether it be the general forums, or members-only.

It is not only about legal entity but about security, transfert of information and liability.
Seeing a forum post from say, xxxVenomxxx is nothing.

Having the information spread that xxxVenomxxx is paul johnson from paul-johnson@ibm.com (fake email) living in alberta is another can of worm when it is linked to all those posts.

 

[Joey McGee]

I just assumed the forum would always be here.

This forum rates highly in google and is highly influential in society for that reason. I had my mind changed about things because I would always come across this forum back when I was very wrong about matters of science and googling strange keywords. I thank my lucky stars every day I have a different view of life now as the rewards of rationality are rich. Again, this forum rates very high in google. Also, this forum rates very high in google. As well, this forum rates very high in google.

 

[arthwollipot]

If there is one fact about the internet that I wish more people would understand, it's that different people don't see the same results in google. Google customises its search results according to each user's search history, location, shopping habits and shoe size (probably).

 

[zooterkin]

Is there a link to somewhere where the "Foundation" explains why they want to drop the 'Forum'? I accept that the Foundation are entitled to drop the Forum with no notice and no explanation; but it would seem good PR to communicate; and bad for the intent of the Foundation to antagonise many 'Skeptics' that support the intent of the Foundation.

My impression, because it's one thing that keeps being mentioned, is they see the forum as a litigation magnet. Of course, it's more than that, but it's probably the only thing that brings the forum to their attention.

 

[jj]

My impression, because it's one thing that keeps being mentioned, is they see the forum as a litigation magnet.

Um, how? I have to ask HOW. Maybe some posters could be litigation magnets, but the forum?