GreenAndy1981 has been a bad boy

I think what you say Peggy, with the benefit of hindsight, is pretty spot on. However, and although it's counter intuitive to my own personal beliefs I do feel that mods can have a role in reflecting how the members are feeling and on occasions it will be necessary to make decisions without the holding of a referendum. The counter balance to that is the holding of elections annually to either endorse or refute any moderators conduct.

I'm also uncertain about introducing new rules after each event. My fear is that spirals out of control until you end up with a rule book to rival the risible "Pasoti agreement". You then end up arguing about the interpretation of rules. As has been said on many occasions...it's only a football forum for a bottom league team.

As Charlie has confirmed his version of events can I offer a full apology to Postey for my incorrect summary yesterday.

However I stand by my comment that only a halfwit would look to blame ATD when it is Pasoti with the appalling history of multiple accounts.

knecht wrote:

Tring, this is what you very recently posted in another discussion:

"Probably best we ignore eachother, as I originally intended."

I wonder if you could take your own advice?

You clearly have lots of your views in common and you clearly have fallen out with each other. Get a room and sort it like old friends not like bitter enemies. It's a football chat site not whatsitsname.

Maybe we could start a discrete section titled "The GOB & Tring squabble" and move all related postings there?

I'm trying dear boy.

Trouble is, GOB's scattergun method of throwing spurious accusations about, does tend to stick in minds........................................ including yours.

If I don't respond, the endless crap becomes FACT !

Anyway, it's the mods turn for the treatment just now, so I can have a break.

GOB wrote:

We really should get together with pasoti and become one big unhappy family

I think GOB is suggesting that Cerbs' Tumbleweed Spam forum would be an appropriate vehicle.

You couldn't make it up !

Charlie Wood wrote:

I think what you say Peggy, with the benefit of hindsight, is pretty spot on. However, and although it's counter intuitive to my own personal beliefs I do feel that mods can have a role in reflecting how the members are feeling and on occasions it will be necessary to make decisions without the holding of a referendum. The counter balance to that is the holding of elections annually to either endorse or refute any moderators conduct.

I'm also uncertain about introducing new rules after each event. My fear is that spirals out of control until you end up with a rule book to rival the risible "Pasoti agreement". You then end up arguing about the interpretation of rules. As has been said on many occasions...it's only a football forum for a bottom league team.

100% agree. Move on. Nothing more to see here.

charlie, you did the right thing. i would have done the same if i were in yer boots.

Charlie Wood wrote:

OK chaps I've steered clear for a few hours to see how this unwinds and now I can clear up the chain of events and add my comments.

What postey says accurately outlines the chain of events.
1). It was mentioned in the mod room that we had a previously banned poster whose email contained a name followed by 1981.
2). Given his behaviour on here it seemed feasible he could have been involved in the Pasoti hoax and as people on here were equally as agitated as those across the road it seemed a good opportunity to clear this sites name and ease the tension between the sites.
3). I posted what I intended to do in the modroom and got the agreement of my two colleagues in that course of action. The mistake we made was not to discuss the consequences more fully.
4). I PMed postey offering our assistance and what he says is correct but he couldn't give me a full IP because it was from a O2 (I think) hub and was constantly changing with only the first two portions remaining consistent.
5). I checked our records and found only one of dozens of IP's from that party that started with the same two numbers so sent that IP to Postey to check if it matched any of GreenAndys IP's, adding that I didn't expect it to as it was from a Virgin hub. There the matter ended.

I think it needs explaining, and I probably need expert help in this, that IP's need not be unique.

Early specifications intended IP addresses to be uniquely assigned to a particular computer or device.[citation needed] However, it was found that this was not always necessary as private networks developed and address space needed to be conserved (IPv4 address exhaustion). RFC 1918 specifies private address spaces that may be reused by anyone; today, such private networks typically access the Internet through Network Address Translation (NAT). In addition, technologies such as anycast addressing have been developed to allow multiple hosts at the same IP address but in different portions of the Internet to service requests by network clients.

I don't fully understand that but what I do know is we do not have, in a lot of cases, unique IP's. As an example I'll show you my situation :-

I'll be discussing my resignation offer further with my colleagues and I anticipate standing down after an orderly handover to an agreed co-opted replacement.

To put it in simple terms. You blamed me with no actual firm evidence apart fro
2 numbers matching in an ip address


Cock

Some out and out named you on Pasoti. You might need tp put them right.

Course they did. I fully expected an accusation. But for a site moderator to send my ip address at the slightest opportunity he can pinn something on me is pathetic.

Before you get on your high horse Dane, there are several good reasons why people on here and Pasoti thought you might have been behind it.

It's called the boy who cried wolf syndrome!

There is no denying that. And I fully expected accusations to come my way. But thought the best course of action would be to stay out of it , which I've done until now. I find it completly un-acceptable that my ip address has been handed out by people in a position of reasponsibilty on this site without my permission first.

And I think just about everyone else on here agrees with you Dane. Now as an ATD poster, it's your call I would say as to what happens next.

Charlie has apologised and explained what happened and it did include giving out your IP address, so the question is now what would you like to happen now?

Has it been confirmed to Saltah Green that is was his details that were checked?

Maybe Dane, all the internet games you have played over the years have just caught up with you.

I have to say I didn't think of you when people were asking who greenandy was, I thought of someone else and it was not your style.

I also thought that when you were named on pasoti on this subject, that it was because of your admissions over the GJ/ PI/ IJN postings and the 'naming' was in retaliation.

It's not often I agree with the old goat, but I also thought Dane's name was mentioned by several people on the orders of the porky one.

I still think Dane should decide what he wants to happen next, considering that by rights he probably should be banned for several things, not least the ADT spoof which your porky friend claims was mainly your doing, at least the disgusting stuff was.

Whether this is true or not, and you claim to have SMS that show porky invited you to join in, you were dropped in it like a hot potato by him when I starting asking too many awkward questions for his intellect to handle, and I would rather have a thread from Dane outlining anything he has on Newell, just to brighten up a Tuesday night

There used to be a couple of posters on Pasoti who used a bit of computer trickery in their signature that published your ISP address....

They did indeed Jon. Oh the games people get up to with their new toys.

However, the discussed and institutionalised, and hence 'officially sanctioned' sharing of information by moderators is a completely different ball game, and while I have no time whatsoever for the Saltash years of bored game playing, he has a point here.
We know the decision to share info with Pasoti was a group one and the apology has been quite clear.
What we don't know is whether the public IP listing ( including some proxys, but not all )in Charlie's post was an individual act or another group decision. I might be wrong, but I suspect it was a personal post. That post just compounded the whole problem.
Are there any moderators that would like to comment ?

Wowsers trousers. Are people defending the indefensible now?

It's swings and round-a-bouts, sleeping with snakes and karma all rolled into one.

No it's not Hairy.... and I'm certainly not sleeping with anyone on this site or downtown on the other site.
I want to know who sanctioned a list of IPs to be published long after it was quite clear the whole passing of information was a no no.

Penz, go back and look at Charlie's listing of those IP addresses and then a comment made a few posts after yours which you seem to have missed. Criticism is OK but it needs to be accurately based.

Those IP addresses listed by Charlie were all the IP addresses listed against HIS OWN name in the records. They weren't anyone else's. So it didn't "compound the whole problem".

I don't understand the technicalities of it but I think he was trying to demonstrate that IP address can vary wildly and don't pin-point to a physical computer or internet access. He posts from the same computer each time and yet a whole range of IP addresses comes up against his name. In fact early on when I was a mod, when I was exploring to try to get a feel for the site, I did the same and was at that time embarrassed to find a similarly large range against my name. I thought that people would have thought that I had been playing silly bugger games. I kept quiet, hoping nobody had noticed. It is now clear that I am too uninformed about internet technicalities to manipulate is such a way.

Penz the list in Charlie's post is the ip addresses he has posted from. He has published this himself (apologies if the list you mention is something else).

I can understand saltash green being annoyed but the only information the ips we see provides an Internet provider (eg mobile network or sky/virgin/bt) and central hub- it does not provide addresses etc. The forum motion ip search does highlight if users have posted from the same ip address - and indicated that braidie cole and parr_street_green had posted from the same ip and recently that braidie cole and saltash green had posts from the same ip address.

Hang on a minute. YOUR IP wasn't the one involved, it was one of the ones used by a poster who had been banned by the previous moderators who had identified another poster where the same IP cropped up, which aroused their suspicions. Both posters were emailed asking which identity they wanted to keep. No response was received from either party so after a period of time it was decided to ban both posters.

Are you now saying you've had multiple identities on this side, and if so I'd like to ask you if you have any other ones on here right now?

Well, maybe there's the problem Knecht. If someone doesn't understand just a little technical significance of the information you might be posting publicly as a moderator, and none of us are foolproof, best not publish it eh ? ... what was to be gained ? I can't remember anyone doing such a thing on ATD before.
And that was my question, was Charlie's post a personal decision, or, given the heightened problem at the time, was it a joint decision to post a bunch of IPs regardles of proxys.

We've all had a learning curve when starting moderating a site, but the last thing someone should do is post willy nilly information thay have no idea what it might contain..... or am I talking out of turn here ?

Penz the ip addresses all relate to Charlie's posts on ATD and no one else's. Charlie took the decision to post them and I would guess its acceptable as it's his information?