Print

[69xyz]

So R U saying that Gibson is blocking paid members of the WBCCI?

as this hack describes;
When classed as miserable, a member suffers ;

1. Slow response (time delay) on every page (20 to 60 seconds default).
2. A chance they will get the "server busy" message (50% by default).
3. A chance that no search facilities will be available (75% by default).
4. A chance they will get redirected to another preset page (25% & homepage by default).
5. A chance they will simply get a blank page (25% by default).
6. Post flood limit increased by a defined factor (10 times by default).
7. If they get past all this okay, then they will be served up their proper page.

[Simon]

I am saying exactly that. This hack is installed and Gibson, in an effort to have the evidence removed off this site, reported to my host provider that I had copyright material on the site. I had to take it off but I will be able to put it back later

BUT he also told my host provider that I was doing a bunch of other stuff including using my web space to - and I quote: "disseminate or display images classified under U.S. law as child pornography, child erotica
(regardless of literary or artistic merit) and/or bestiality".

If you want to see what I am talking about PM me and I will privately send you a link to an online video that you can see of this hack actually in service on WBCCI's forums.

[RickDavis]

Just to keep you all up to date on how things are running on the forums - the newest tact that will be taken by the SUPER ADMINISTRATOR  - "supersix" is to have some members posts be moderated BEFORE it even gets posted - that means that the posts of SOME MEMBERS will have to be approved first by a moderator/administrator before it goes on the forums.
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223912

Steve - this might be you.....

Does this mean that if I make a post and it does not pop up immediately that I am on the "list"??

[65GT]

That's exactly what it means.  They don't want even so much as a whisper from you being posted, until they review it, and approve it...

Welcome to a whole new version of Pleasantville -- Outwardly Paranoid Pleasantville!!  New, and improved!   

[RickDavis]

AS of yesterday i guess I am still one of the good guys.  If it changes I will update my Status

[Simon]

If you look at the link - http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=223912 - you will see that is is not all users that Gibson wants to implement this on, just a few.

[Simon]

BTW - if you are interested, read this thread
http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=313780

Supersix is the same supersix on WBCCI's forums. The interest is clear here - he wants to be able to peek into PM messages of the users there to be sure all is on the up and up. If you are a member there on those forums BEWARE! Your PM are likely not private at all. And this will not be a feature that all the moderators will be able to do, just a certain individual.....

[65GT]

SLIMEBALL!!  Somebody at the top better get a real good grip on this -- FAST...

Time for the NEW WBCCI forums to fold.  Honesty and Integrity are at stake here, and that's beyond the issues of the IBT being duped into believing that WE would actually own and operate these forums.

This topic is about to ramp UP...

[ByamCaravanner]

If you are a member there on those forums BEWARE! Your PM are likely not private at all.

Greg has referred to information contained in my PMs to others in my conversations with him. I assume they are looking at them. So much for "private"

[WKerfoot]

If you are a member there on those forums BEWARE! Your PM are likely not private at all.

Greg has referred to information contained in my PMs to others in my conversations with him. I assume they are looking at them. So much for "private"

I have always had that concern and therefore have been careful of what I say in a PM.

Bill

[Simon]

Or just use email instead of PM.

[WKerfoot]

Or just use email instead of PM.

Tim,

Can a moderator of a forum obtain information about outgoing emails from that forum?  What about incoming emails?

In the case of Airforums email, the address is the member's name at Airforums.

Bill

[Simon]

Likely not but I would have to look into it. PMs are contained in the database running the software. I can show you an example of what that looks like if you want to see. But sending a message from a forums probably only looks to see what the email address is for the specific user and sends it out to that address with the "sendmail" function.
 

[Lynn]

Ok, so it's pretty clear what's going on from other threads, and folks have made suggestions on what to do about it, namely, to have forums that are owned and operated directly by the WBCCI.

Still, to me it's always seemed needlessly repetitive to have too many forums involving the WBCCI and Airstreams out there.

So allow me to make an alternative suggestion: A private forum within Airforums. This private forum would be only for bona fide members of the WBCCI. I'd bet money that the folks at Airforums would be happy to join with the WBCCI in selecting moderators for these private forums.

Note, importantly, that a model for this already exists within Airforums: Members of the Four Corners unit have a private forum within Airforums. The only folks who can view or post within this forum are bona fide members or associate members of the Four Corners unit. (The same concept was used by the current WBCCI forums. I also used the concept to set up a forum for folks in our local community. It isn't rocket science.)

Lynn

[Simon]

Lynn,

This was suggested already but there were still 2 problems. First, the old forums could not be archived as was one of the primary goals.
Secondly, and most importantly, there was a great concern that people were going to forge identities to gain access to the section and view/post as somebody else. What it comes down to is that there is a control, issue. WBCCI wanted to be able to completely control the terms of service and be able to fully moderate the forums so that an air of respect was maintained at all times.
Using AirForums would not allow that to happen completely. So that option was scrapped very early on in the process.
But you are right - it could have been done that way.