Forum membership - a privilege not a right
Archive - Originally posted on "The Horse's Mouth" - 2009-06-22 17:30:42 - Graham EllisHow fortunate it is that the vast majority of online contributors respect the guidelines laid down, especially when they agree to terms applied to contributions that they make to forums. But there is a tiny minority who will feel the the guidelines don't apply to them, or try to hide activities outside the Acceptable User Policy. I have just been looking at such a case and it lead to some interesting thoughts and discussions, which I will share in general terms.
I can recall, from before the days that I was administering any online forums (but only moderating one) some of the problems that were caused by a tiny proportion of members who signed up with multiple accounts. There rarely seemed to be a legitimate reason for multiple accounts - there were the people who set up two accounts so they could post their real views (under one persona) and authoritative information under another, those who set up two accounts as "honey traps" in which they argued with themselves and entangled other members as friends of one of their accounts in order to con them, and those who had acted in such flagrant breach of the acceptable user policy (AUP) that they had been banned, but who tried to sneak back in under a new name. In fact, I consider multiple accounts without good reason (and without the facts being fully published and open) to themselves be a flagrant breach of the AUP on boards that I help look after - the people who set them up are tricksters and unwelcome - but what can the admin / board owner do?
There are three possible different levels of proof to consider before taking action against an account. There is the legal (criminal) "beyond reasonable doubt", there is the legal (civil) "balance of probability" and there is the access I allow to my own space which is a privilege and I will describe as a "significant possibility" level of proof.
Which of these apply to a privately run forum, where any signed up member can post their own contribution? It's the 'significant possibility' level that's all that's required. It sounds a bit harsh, as decisions taken on this basis are likely to net some completely valid accounts. But when you think about it, it has to be. Having been alerted to a significant possibility of abuse, and become convinced that the significant possibility exists, I'm not only able but required to act. To protect my members, to protect myself, to protect others (for example, the privacy of other people and their copyright in the case of posting abuse. Failure to protect members and others in this way would be, morally, a breach of my care to the majority.
There is a huge gap between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "significant possiblity". They are at opposite ends of the spectrum, and I would much prefer the luxury of "beyond reasonable doubt" before I take action on an account. For if I think I have a conner - it might actually not be. Could you (hypothetical example) tell two of the Nolan sisters apart from their posting habits, assuming the posts had such close harmony as their singing? One of the last things I want to do is close a valid account on suspicion alone. Closing accounts always looks bad. Doing so when to someone who (it turns out) was a valid user looks doubly bad. Setting up an innocent party with a potential grudge against you is trembly bad.
But at the end of the day, you have to protect yourself as the forum operator. You need to protect your members. You don't have to accept just anyone into your home, nor business orders from just anyone who wants to buy from you. And there are plenty of other places online where people you choose not to accept into your group can post ... heck, they could set up their own website ... and then post whatever they like, subject only to the laws that regulate it.