Is this behavior appropriate for a star?

[jillybean]

Unfortunately, the person informing me of this problem says she isn't interested in reporting it, which irritates me to no end.

I've just read this, perhaps it was closer to 2 consenting adults than a case for abuse afterall.

Otherwise I can't fathom why you wouldn't report it!

[TimG]

1. This is one of the best double entendres of all time

2. Kathyrn made a freudian slip

3. I'm a degenerate

4. All of the above.

[bid_em_up]

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine),  the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12.

 

These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found.

 

BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

Well, I'll be damned. Never tried it without the ALT, since it was on the top of the key, I just inferred that either ALT or SHIFT was necessary for it to work.

 

Thanks.

[TimG]

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action. A search of the recent chat logs for a couple of the key words would quickly turn up the relevant information (unless there's a heck of a lot more sex talk on BBO than I'm aware).

I wonder if BBO users can have an expectation of privacy when it comes to private chat?

 

What if the player in question had sent an e-mail after the session instead of asking the questions in BBO chat? Would people still think it appropriate for BBO to take action?

 

As an aside, I think gold stars were a mistake and BBO would be just as well off by removing the feature entirely.

[finally17]

Without a complaint to abuse@ or uday@ , there is nothing we can do, since we don't know who is being accused of this thing. We don't log private chat by default.

Huh. Very much not what I would have guessed as you can tell.

[finally17]

While that link provides one way to do a screen capture, on some keyboards (such as mine),  the PRT SCR key and SYS REQ are on the same key next to F12.

 

These require an ALT then Pressing PRT SCR to actually work.

My keyboard has the Print Screen/SysRq key, but I just tested it and it did not require ALT in order to screen capture. I was going to post something similar to you, but figured before I said "it's not always that easy" I'd actually try it out and was surprised at what I found.

 

BTW: it worked with or without ALT.

As I recall, ALT-PrtScr and Prt-Scr are supposed to generate different results. One (I believe just Prt-Scr) captures the entire screen as it currently exists, and the other captures just the currently highlighted window.

[helene_t]

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

 

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

 

OTOH if the policy is to screen the log randomly, there would be too many false positives.

[finally17]

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.  A search of the recent chat logs for a couple of the key words would quickly turn up the relevant information (unless there's a heck of a lot more sex talk on BBO than I'm aware).

I wonder if BBO users can have an expectation of privacy when it comes to private chat?

 

What if the player in question had sent an e-mail after the session instead of asking the questions in BBO chat? Would people still think it appropriate for BBO to take action?

 

As an aside, I think gold stars were a mistake and BBO would be just as well off by removing the feature entirely.

As to the first, I don't know, but I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy. And I'm rather certain that at least in the US, where BBO is probably legally "located," being a private organization they can deny service to anyone for any reason. I'm also sure that, if a legal expectation exists, they could take it away rather easily with an appropriate clause in the user agreement, the likes of which tends to be rather standard in online activities.

 

As to the second, if you mean BBOmail, sure they should still take action. If you mean other email, of course not. I still think they could (see above, denial of service), but since their resources are not being used I don't think they should.

 

Apparently all this is moot, but I am very curious as to the validity of my conjectures.

[TimG]

As to the first, I don't know, but I don't think there should be an expectation of privacy.  And I'm rather certain that at least in the US, where BBO is probably legally "located," being a private organization they can deny service to anyone for any reason.  I'm also sure that, if a legal expectation exists, they could take it away rather easily with an appropriate clause in the user agreement, the likes of which tends to be rather standard in online activities.

I'm sure you are right that BBO could include an appropriate clause in their user agreement and monitor private chat as they see fit.

 

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want. Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

[slothy]

i, naturally, voted no....

 

But, i must say, i always found those sort of questions a pain in the ass

[finally17]

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want. Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

[finally17]

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

 

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

I'm not sure what you mean by "violating confidentiality." If you're worried about legal issues, there's no such thing as "confidentiality" between friends, and BBO isn't burdened by issues of hearsay like an agent of the law would be.

 

If you just mean you consider it "ethically questionable" I can buy that. I realize my suggestion was extreme, and I'm not even sure I would implement it if it were my system and completely up to me.

[mike777]

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want.  Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

I would be suprised if BBO is a non profit org. :(

[finally17]

For better or for worse, I don't think BBO can deny service for whatever reasons they want.  Especially since they are likely deemed to be conducting interstate commerce.

I don't know what BBO's IRS status is, but I assume it's non-profit. I don't know why they'd be any different from any other private non-profit. Schools, social clubs, etc...they can all deny service for any reason.

I would be suprised if BBO is a non profit org. :)

Really? Personally I can't begin to guess whether the money they take in would even cover the costs, let alone produce a profit worth the endeavor. Honestly though, I doubt it.

 

Wiki's definition:

 

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", also "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is a legally constituted organization whose primary objective is to support or to actively engage in activities of public or private interest without any commercial or monetary profit purposes. NPOs are active in a wide range of areas, including the environment, humanitarian aid, animal protection, education, the arts, social issues, charities, early childhood education, health care, politics, religion, research, sports or other endeavors.

 

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

 

Anyway, the tangents are interesting to me, but perhaps inappropriate here...I will cease my digressions before they become transgressions.

[mike777]

I will let Uday tell us the tax code they operate under. :)

This can be pretty tricky as even nonprofit org. is not the same as not for profit org.. I work for one but not the other. :) Yes it matters alot. It affects how you operate and what you can offer and how they are possibly taxed and how your competition(for profit) sues you..yes they sue. :) This is a huge deal in the Pension business.

 

In any case I thought Fred and Uday are in this to make a profit and I hope they do. :)

[TimG]

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

I'd guess no, especially considering the recent investment in (purchase of a portion of) the company by a couple of individuals.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the mere fact that an entity is incorporated as a 501©(3) would make it immune to discrimination laws. And, even more likely, they would still be subject to ADA regulations.

[TimG]

From BBO's website:

 

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

 

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

[mike777]

From BBO's website:

 

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

 

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

This sounds like it was option three, private chat, not lobby or table chat.

If it was lobby or table chat then many others would have seen it.

[TimG]

From BBO's website:

 

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

 

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

This sounds like it was option three, private chat, not lobby or table chat.

If it was lobby or table chat then many others would have seen it.

I mentioned it because it tends to support the notion that part of the BBO user agreement includes a provision for BBO to monitor private chat (as had been speculated earlier in the thread).

[bid_em_up]

Really? Personally I can't begin to guess whether the money they take in would even cover the costs, let alone produce a profit worth the endeavor. Honestly though, I doubt it.

 

Wiki's definition:

 

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", also "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is a legally constituted organization whose primary objective is to support or to actively engage in activities of public or private interest without any commercial or monetary profit purposes. NPOs are active in a wide range of areas, including the environment, humanitarian aid, animal protection, education, the arts, social issues, charities, early childhood education, health care, politics, religion, research, sports or other endeavors.

 

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

 

Anyway, the tangents are interesting to me, but perhaps inappropriate here...I will cease my digressions before they become transgressions.

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

 

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

 

Now, returing to the definition, just because a company participates in the activities listed, again does not mean that any particular company is a "non-profit" organization.

 

The ACBL is a non-profit organization (or at least it used to be, I think it still is). Charities are usually non-profit organizations. They have no intention of making a profit (and in fact, they are not allowed to do so by law/IRS regulations). They can take in an amount of money equal to their expenses (and maybe slightly more for budgeting purposes, not sure) but there is some limit on how much it can be.

 

I would have to believe that Fred would be thrilled if BBO was actually making a profit, even if there was no expectation of being able to do so. That would make BBO a "for-profit" company. (Of course, this is strictly my opinion, only the powers that be could actually answer the question).

[finally17]

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

 

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

UGHHH!!!! Long explanatory rant thought better of and shortened :) (none of these smilies look frustrated).

 

<sarcasm> No kidding?!?!?! You must be joking? </sarcasm>

 

If you read more carefully what I write, I think you'll find that I am one of the more articulate and clearly spoken posters around. I go much farther out of my way than most people to be detailed and explicit, as a general rule, and not just on this forum. That's the primary reason my posts tend to be so long. And your poor assumptions about what I'm saying here are denied by things I've already said. I explicitly said that this definition doesn't match IRS tax codes. I'm well aware that there's a specific application process for the status, that it has certain exacting standards, and that it can be pulled (notably the IRS has recently asked for the financial records of a handful of so-called "mega-churches" because of questions regarding the mishandling of funds).

 

Here's the important point: CONCEPTUALLY, that definition matches my understanding of BBOs raison d'être. In combination with my guess that BBO hasn't turned a profit, this implies (to me) that their aim is to be non-profit (or not-for, I've never been clear on the distinction).

 

But I was already perfectly well aware of everything you wasted your time saying.

[finally17]

and how your competition(for profit) sues you..yes they sue. :)

Johnson & Johnson went after the Red Cross last year for use of the red cross symbol:

 

J & J sues Red Cross - NYT

 

Before you think "what bad bad people J&J must be to sue the Red Cross over a stupid symbol," it's actually an interesting story and I'm not at all sure they weren't justified.

[finally17]

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the mere fact that an entity is incorporated as a 501©(3) would make it immune to discrimination laws.  And, even more likely, they would still be subject to ADA regulations.

The ADA is directed at employment opportunity and public access. I am without doubt that most private (I hesitate to say all because there may be exceptions) entities can deny service strictly on the basis of disability. A private school can deny enrollment to a kid in a wheelchair even if she passes all tests with flying colors. A social club can deny membership to a man with turret's syndrome just because they don't like uncontrollable outbursts of swearing. These groups might fold to social pressure, but the US government won't stop them. Consult a lawyer friend or read the ADA (text found here). You'll find that it has nothing to do with this.

 

Here are the key portions:

 

Section 202

Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

 

Section 302

General Rule.--No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

 

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

 

The ADA, like many legal standards in the USA, is not nearly as all-encompassing as people think it is. Take for instance free speech, which is at issue in this very thread. Generally, the only entity that can't curb what you say is the government. Your employer can fire you, even if you're off the clock, and BBO can deny you access to its servers. They can't stop you from saying it, but private entities can generally modify or end their relationships with you (which is what firing and denial of service amounts to) on the basis of what you choose to say. There's just no such thing as "free speech" as it's often believed.

[TimG]

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

Are you suggesting that all 501©(3) entities are private?

[helene_t]

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

 

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

I'm not sure what you mean by "violating confidentiality." If you're worried about legal issues, there's no such thing as "confidentiality" between friends, and BBO isn't burdened by issues of hearsay like an agent of the law would be.

 

If you just mean you consider it "ethically questionable" I can buy that. I realize my suggestion was extreme, and I'm not even sure I would implement it if it were my system and completely up to me.

Yes, I was not arguing that it might be illegal (as a non-USian the thought of ever taking anything to court is alian to me, lol) I was just arguing that it would be a bad idea.

 

As for this non-profit thing, BBO is obviously a for-profit organization. It is possible that it was originally set up as a hobby project so maybe it used to be non-profit, but not these days.