In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

Quite the contrary. Under the law, the accused has the presumption of innocence. It is up to the accuser/prosecution to prove its case. The mere 'word' of the accuser can not be accepted as valid proof. It must be backed up with other evidence.

In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

Quite the contrary. Under the law, the accused has the presumption of innocence. It is up to the accuser/prosecution to prove its case. The mere 'word' of the accuser can not be accepted as valid proof. It must be backed up with other evidence.

As Michael Roberts points out e-mail headers can be spoofed, making the assertion the poster receiving the defamatory e-mail is lying.

As Michael Roberts points out e-mail headers can be spoofed, making the assertion the poster receiving the defamatory e-mail is lying.

Absolutely not. "Spoofing" is something that happens at source or en route, designed to deceive the recipient and make mail tracing more difficult. I chose my words *very* carefully to avoid making any specific accusation whatsoever.

I'll assume you just didn't know what spoofing is, but please be careful not to twist my words in future.

I am sorry, however it seems that some"one" or many individuals have created a "Catch 22." You are fighting for attention on "wrongs or perceived wrongs." In some circumstances you continue to create wrongs to draw attention to the issue. It then makes correction of the issues very cloudy. It makes it harder to filter and find and correct forum threads that are truly incorrect.

What is wrong with this picture?

How do "you/we/I" make valid recommendations to correct the problems?

Most Seti Users never visit the Forums, they do not care as long as they get WorkUnits to turn into Results and they see that "Credit" has shown they have did their small part. Or they leave because it does not work. Yes this Forum makes no difference to them...

Regards

Pappa

In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

Quite the contrary. Under the law, the accused has the presumption of innocence. It is up to the accuser/prosecution to prove its case. The mere 'word' of the accuser can not be accepted as valid proof. It must be backed up with other evidence.

Your paragraph says exactly the same as I stated in your quote. So, we both agree on that point! Because, in the scenario we discuss both <snip> are accused. <snip>

In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

Quite the contrary. Under the law, the accused has the presumption of innocence. It is up to the accuser/prosecution to prove its case. The mere 'word' of the accuser can not be accepted as valid proof. It must be backed up with other evidence.

Your paragraph says exactly the same as I stated in your quote. So, we both agree on that point! Because, in the scenario we discuss both <snip> are accused. <snip>

I am sorry, but they are not both 'accused'. If Person A accuses Person B of some dastardly deed (and it does not matter who A and B are!), then the burden of proof is 100% on Person A (the accuser), and NEVER in any way shape form or fashion on Person B (the accused).

This is a fundamental concept of modern, Western Jurisprudence.

I would say more about this situation, but then I would have to get into details of the specific case of moderation that I know you are referring to. Discussion of specific cases of moderation is not allowed anywhere on these forums. Discussion of general Moderation Policy is currently allowed on the politics forum only, in namely (as of now) this thread. Please refrain from any mention of or any reference to any specific instance of moderation anywhere on these forums. Discussion of specific instances of moderation belong, per official policy, on the setimods list. Please don't bring up specific instances here. Thank you.

I am sorry, but they are not both 'accused'. If Person A accuses Person B of some dastardly deed (and it does not matter who A and B are!), then the burden of proof is 100% on Person A (the accuser), and NEVER in any way shape form or fashion on Person B (the accused).

This is a fundamental concept of modern, Western Jurisprudence.

I would say more about this situation, but then I would have to get into details of the specific case of moderation that I know you are referring to. Discussion of specific cases of moderation is not allowed anywhere on these forums. Discussion of general Moderation Policy is currently allowed on the politics forum only, in namely (as of now) this thread. Please refrain from any mention of or any reference to any specific instance of moderation anywhere on these forums. Discussion of specific instances of moderation belong, per official policy, on the setimods list. Please don't bring up specific instances here. Thank you.

In the law the victim, and indirectly the accused, should remain innocent unless there is proof the headers have been spoofed.

Quite the contrary. Under the law, the accused has the presumption of innocence. It is up to the accuser/prosecution to prove its case. The mere 'word' of the accuser can not be accepted as valid proof. It must be backed up with other evidence.

Your paragraph says exactly the same as I stated in your quote. So, we both agree on that point! Because, in the scenario we discuss both <snip> are accused. <snip>

I am sorry, but they are not both 'accused'. If Person A accuses Person B of some dastardly deed (and it does not matter who A and B are!), then the burden of proof is 100% on Person A (the accuser), and NEVER in any way shape form or fashion on Person B (the accused).

This is a fundamental concept of modern, Western Jurisprudence.

I would say more about this situation, but then I would have to get into details of the specific case of moderation that I know you are referring to. Discussion of specific cases of moderation is not allowed anywhere on these forums. Discussion of general Moderation Policy is currently allowed on the politics forum only, in namely (as of now) this thread. Please refrain from any mention of or any reference to any specific instance of moderation anywhere on these forums. Discussion of specific instances of moderation belong, per official policy, on the setimods list. Please don't bring up specific instances here. Thank you.

I find it strange that a deliberately general discussion has changed into one that is assumed to be a specific one.

Of course there are some single cases which seem to destroy trust into the setimod list, because some single mods don't seem to obey the moderation policy. But, I think it's not possible to generalize. Most mods I experienced are at least good.
But I think, MK, it's quite difficult for a user who got emails showing they came from someone of the mod list to trust the mods in general. Whether or not the header was spoofed before it arrived at this user is another question in this moment.

I think I am kind of a computer freak myself, but I'm no hacker - so I must admit I have no idea how a complete email header could be spoofed except by some huge effort photoshoping the screenshot which can be easily found out by comparing the screenshot to a forwarded copy of the mail itself.

In my opinion a mod should try to avoid even to seem unjust. Moderators are on a level where all users ought to trust them. So even when it only seems that a mod did something wrong, he or she should either resign (IMHO) or proof that he or she is not guilty. Not for judgment (which says that an accused person is innocent until it's proved otherwise) but as a matter of honor.
In principle, it's not the single mod who then is affected by such incident but the entire mod-list. Like if one police officer was watched taking money from a civil person, in the eyes of the watcher it's not officer X who took money but "the police" who is corrupt. You understand my point?
IMHO a mod should try as hard as they can to be a shining example. Most of you do try already, and I appreciate that very much.

I know many of you add a comment to a forum hide notice or forum move notice when a post was moderated to explain why it was done -- and I think this is a very good idea. It shows us users that there was a reason for this action, that this action was not done on a whim. Please keep this as a general rule. Unfortunately some don't give any reasons so that users have to search for reason by themselves why their post could have been affected. I'd like to ask you to keep writing reasons in these action notices.

I will try to remake the point that was deleted as referring to a specific example.

What exactly does constitute proof? Because I would have thought that email headers, screenshots and the victim offering admins access to his or hers email accounts plus evidence that, FOR EXAMPLE TALKING ONLY IN A GENERAL NON-SPECIFIC WAY, only a mod could have access to the emails that the the abuser was replying to.

1) It should be the case that only moderators have access to the discussions on the moderators email list. However, that seems not to be the actual case.
2) Bitmaps do not work as evidence. There are such things as bitmap editors, and it really isn't that hard to make a bitmap image have any text on it at all.

Why, thank you. I think all of us: mods and admins, the silent users, and even also the protesters among the users have in fact only one single wish: to have a peaceful board here, full of mutual respect.

Again, I don't want to discuss certain single mod actions here. Just bringing up ideas for a better understanding.

I will try to remake the point that was deleted as referring to a specific example.

What exactly does constitute proof? Because I would have thought that email headers, screenshots and the victim offering admins access to his or hers email accounts plus evidence that, FOR EXAMPLE TALKING ONLY IN A GENERAL NON-SPECIFIC WAY, only a mod could have access to the emails that the the abuser was replying to.

A few points about this.

1) It should be the case that only moderators have access to the discussions on the moderators email list. However, that seems not to be the actual case.
2) Bitmaps do not work as evidence. There are such things as bitmap editors, and it really isn't that hard to make a bitmap image have any text on it at all.

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me