Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Disgusting behaviour


#1

After asking politely who was deleting my alert for DM/RP-455 on this forum and not even getting the courtesy of a reply (I had one member on MT tell me it wasn`t him - not the same thing!), I now see that what I assume to be a member of the MT has changed my alert in what I can only describe as disgusting behaviour. I hope the person responsble eventually grows up!


#2

In reply to G1INK:

All I can say is that it wasn’t me, Steve, and I don’t know who it was. Its hard to believe that a member of the MT would do this - not only because at this time most of them are at work - which leaves me wondering if the system has been hacked.

73

Brian G8ADD


#3

In reply to G8ADD:

Hi Brian - I just sent you a message via the website, you can disregard that now as you`re already aware of the problem.


#4

In reply to G1INK:

my comment on my alert is deleted, too!


#5

In reply to DC7CCC:

Okay - now you deleted my alert. That means, you are not interested in alerts from DC7CCC? Good to know, that saves time.


#6

Can someone from the MT or an admin please analyse the sotawatch logfile and telling me who changed my alert (for 23/06/2012 1100z).

mail at dl1dlf dot de


#7

In reply to DL1DLF:

It is MT policy that anybody excluded from Sotawatch is also excluded from using the Alerts. This includes third party alerts, so the callsign of any excluded person will be removed from any alert where it appears. This policy was announced a couple of years ago and has been applied ever since. The attention of the MT was drawn to the fact that the callsign of an excluded person was mentioned on a number of alerts, so in accordance with this established policy the callsign was deleted from the alerts. In one case the callsign was replaced by the participant and had to be deleted again. If the member of the MT who dealt with the alert deleted it, this was by accident and is apologised for.

On behalf of the MT,

Brian G8ADD


#8

I’d like to ask for the responsible person changed the alerts. Maybe I’ll meet him someday, so that I can tell him a few words.


#9

In reply to DL1DLF:

I don’t know if you mean the change to Steve’s alert, which was unauthorised, or the later changes to the other alerts, which were in accordance with MT policy.

The MT works on the basis of collective responsibility, so it doesn’t matter who took the action, if it is MT policy then the action was taken by the MT.

73

Brian G8ADD


#10

In reply to G8ADD:

Hello, I apologise beforehand for my ignorance ( I am sure it is written down somewhere) but what sort of sin or sins would you need to commit to be “excluded” and how long does such an exclusion last. Is it like a footballer excluded for the next x games and then once the exclusion ends comes back and scores ala Rooney :sunglasses:

Mike


#11

Wondering someone exerts only a hobby wants the anonymity of a collective responsibility. Even the police wear name badges.

Brian, thanks for info, no harm meant, have a nice evening.

73 Joerg


#12

In reply to G6TUH:

To date exclusions have only been applied to people posting on the Reflector material that wasn’t in accordance with the guidelines that are given under the reply box. The procedure is that a persistant offender gets an informal and friendly warning from the Moderator, if he continues then he gets a formal warning that continuing in that way will earn an exclusion. If the warning is not heeded then an exclusion is imposed, but the offender is told that his posting rights will be restored if he gives an assurance that he will post in accordance with the guidelines in future. If that assurance is then broken, a final and permanent exclusion from the Reflector is imposed.

A permanent total exclusion from the program could also be imposed on any person proven to have cheated, as in say operating from a car or not being on the summit that was claimed. SOTA operates on trust, once that trust is broken it cannot be restored.

73

Brian G8ADD


#13

In reply to DL1DLF:

Hi, Joerg. In this case, collective responsibility indicates that an action or decision was taken in full accordance with MT policy. All members of the MT have the Edit facility, if somebody in the MT uses that Edit facility the rest of us will know from context that the Edit was in accordance with policy but we will not know automatically which one of us took the action. As Moderator, if I take an action I will state that it was me and why I took it as it is my function to communicate, but whoever takes an action it is as if all of us took it.

Collective responsibility also means that actions are taken in accordance with policy even if the individual member of the MT does not agree with that policy.

73

Brian G8ADD


#14

Hello Brian, in case the individual member of the MT does not agree with that policy, I haven’t asked who. In this case, I’m also unhappy with that policy.

73 Joerg

Unauthorised change of Steve’s alert is flagrant. Also that it is still there. Someone was banned for less disgusting.


#15

In reply to DL1DLF:

Before we can take action over the change to Steve’s alert, we need to find out who was responsible. At the moment we don’t know. Its late now, if Steve hasn’t restored the original I shall do it myself tomorrow.

73

Brian G8ADD


#16

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to DL1DLF:

Before we can take action over the change to Steve’s alert, we need to
find out who was responsible. At the moment we don’t know. Its late
now, if Steve hasn’t restored the original I shall do it myself
tomorrow.

Hello Brian, thanks for your explanation about exclusion and stating what is I suppose obvious “SOTA operates on trust”. Not knowing who in the MT made the amendment = no one has owned up to the action. Surely this must undermine trust within the MT? I suppose this also places you in a very difficult position as moderator.

Best wishes
Mike


#17

In reply to G6TUH:

It is my belief that it was not a member of the MT, but some other person who hacked into our system.

73

Brian G8ADD


#18

In reply to G6TUH:

Considering Steve has had accounts of his compromised in the past it’s not unreasonable to believe it has happened again. As such you may like to reconsider your statement that is was someone in the MT who made the change.

Andy
MM0FMF


#19

In reply to MM0FMF:

In reply to G6TUH:

Considering Steve has had accounts of his compromised in the past it’s
not unreasonable to believe it has happened again. As such you may
like to reconsider your statement that is was someone in the MT who
made the change.

It was implied by “All members of the MT have the Edit facility, if somebody in the MT uses that Edit facility the rest of us will know from context that the Edit was in accordance with policy but we will not know automatically which one of us took the action” [G8ADD]

Mike


#20

In reply to G6TUH:

Just back from a morning in town, but I have to answer this one before I get my lunch!

No such implication was intended, nor is it reasonable to impute such a suggestion to my post. The operative here was “automatically”, this does not and was not intended to imply that use of the edit function cannot be traced. We were discussing collective responsibility, a concept that should be familiar to all UK hams as it is the way that the cabinet in government operates. You were too quick in jumping to a conclusion, Mike!

73

Brian G8ADD