Do You Think Madge Answered my Question?

[4ARedOctober Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close 4ARedOctober]

Jim,

I am not rehashing what you just spoke of....that is all new to me...and interesting too. Did you have moderator powers over yonder before? I cannot imagine anyone without them would have been able to do much without the admin powers to look into it.....I was not referring to anyone specific....there were several who I may be suspicous of or that I heard of that was busting members in conjuction with RCI....but you were never one of them....they know who they are.

John

[Fern Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Fern]

4ARedOctober,
:::Sigh::: If you are going to speak about history repeating itself, make sure you understand the history first. It can't repeat itself if it never happened in the first place...

I posted this on TS4MS just before the boards went down, and I think it got lost...

If you don't know (and I guess some don't), for many years I was an Administrator on the TUG boards. I'm not anymore, by choice. Be that as it may, what I have to say is my personal knowledge.

Somebody high up from RCI contacted Bill Rogers via email within six months of the time Bootleg began posting, asking Bill to identify Bootleg to them, since he was not authorized to be posting representing RCI. Bill sent me the email, and it was decided that it was not TUG's business to help RCI find and discipline its employees. RCI was told this, that TUG would not be helping them, if they wanted/needed to find out who Bootleg truly was they would have to find out in some other manner.

Herb was a totally different story. The reason he was exposed was because he was using several logins to shill for himself. That's a business tactic which I find totally abhorrent, and I can't say I'm upset with what happened. He abused the good graces of TUG and its members, IMHO. I wasn't the one who exposed him, but I'm not sorry it happened. If he had a good product (and I thought he did), he didn't need to be deceitful.

Fern

Having the ip address...as I understand it....can narrow down many things and with cross referencing other data can identify where someone is posting from...and it is not that hard to do it.

Remember when Herb got busted for posting from the same ip on TUG but using different names?

There have always been self appointed RCI police over on tug....and when someone may have done something someone deemed outside the lines by the another it has been reported to RCI and some person(s) suffered consequences....deserved or not can be debated and I am not trying to start that debate....just looking at the history of what has happened and would not be surprised if it has continued to repeat itself.

[Fern Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Fern]

Names or just accusations? I had Administrator powers "over there" for years. The only people I ever suspected of "ratting out" a TUG Member were those who posted about EBay rentals of exchanges or tried to rent exchanges on TUG...and none of them were admins/moderators.

I personally only know of four people who had their exchange privileges modified (no online access) or terminated. No, make that five, in all the time I've been active. There are probably more than that, but those are the ones I know, and in each case, they probably outted themselves with their actions.

Fern

Jim,

I am not rehashing what you just spoke of....that is all new to me...and interesting too. Did you have moderator powers over yonder before? I cannot imagine anyone without them would have been able to do much without the admin powers to look into it.....I was not referring to anyone specific....there were several who I may be suspicous of or that I heard of that was busting members in conjuction with RCI....but you were never one of them....they know who they are.

John

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

I recall Bootleg responding to inquiries by saying he didn't know or have access to the info, and also times he clearly indicated that his answer was based on inferences. He was always straight with things like that. If he knew the answer, he gave it.

There was a similar poster on Timesharetalk, anon, who posted many of the same things. The owner of that site confirmed anon's bonafides by asking anon detailed questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could have answered correctly. Anon gave the right answers. Another RCI employee actually posted screen shots from RCI's computer on that site showing exchange deposits shifted to rentals. There was quite a difference is the perspective of Bootleg and Anon. While anon was obviously angry with RCI, Bootleg deep down seemed to have the best interests of his company at heart. When they were right, he defended them. When they were wrong, it seemed to pain him but he never seemed to be just out to get them in revealing what he knew.

Is ''Inside Guy'' also known as Cancun Dish? If so, he has high enough rank at RCI that I would suspect his info is more likely to be shaped by corporate spin than someone in Bootleg's or Anon's position.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Before what?

Jim,

Did you have moderator powers over yonder before?
John

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

About the time Fern was referring to, when Bootleg was on TUG and Anon on the British Board, I looked into the legalities of employees ratting out their company anonymously on the Internet. Appropriately I did my search for information on the Internet.

If I recall, the case study was that an employer could not force a website to identify employees making statements anonymously. I can't recall the basis of that decision, but I'm pretty sure that's what it was. I believe it had something to do with protecting the rights of whistleblowers.

[CraigU Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close CraigU]

Your question highlights why I don't even bother ever reading that forum. When we had the Interval Board with Craig on TUG, we got real answers...

Bev

In Madge's defense, while I was at Interval, I can't think of any other person in the organization who would have stuck their neck out as I did to participate on TUG. It should be noted that I was with I.I. for almost 18 years and helped develop the exchange system which included setting policy to support our goals. Additionally, it was within my "power" to consult with my peers and change policy, on most issues, if I felt it was justified.

[CraigU Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close CraigU]

I can tell you from first hand experience that an IP address can be used to identify an individual even if they choose to be anonymous.

Any corporation or individual can petition the courts to require an ISP/service provider to furnish information if they feel the actions are detrimental to their interests. Usually the court will allow the ISP company to send notice, to their customer, asking for permission to provide the data requested. The customer can decline which would be used as a counter argument of privacy for the individual as the ISP/service provider fought the petition to provide information. In either case, the individual would be "warned" that an action was pending as a result of their actions.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

That's what I was referring to before, that there is a body of legal precedence involving employers trying to identify whistleblowing employees. As I recall it it is that they could only be identified with their permission. Of course they would want to do that in order to prove violations of employment agreement.

Internet law is still evolving and those abusing it will help determine how it evolves.

Craig:

You caught me by surprise. Soon after my first-ever post mentioning you, you show up here as a new member! Good thing I didn't say any really bad stuff about you!!!!

I can tell you from first hand experience that an IP address can be used to identify an individual even if they choose to be anonymous.

Any corporation or individual can petition the courts to require an ISP/service provider to furnish information if they feel the actions are detrimental to their interests. Usually the court will allow the ISP company to send notice, to their customer, asking for permission to provide the data requested. The customer can decline which would be used as a counter argument of privacy for the individual as the ISP/service provider fought the petition to provide information. In either case, the individual would be "warned" that an action was pending as a result of their actions.

[CraigU Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close CraigU]

Craig:

You caught me by surprise. Soon after my first-ever post mentioning you, you show up here as a new member! Good thing I didn't say any really bad stuff about you!!!!

I did it to avoid you raking me over the coals.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Coals in a BBQ grill?

I did it to avoid you raking me over the coals.

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

Madge Answered My Question

I added another post, which might have prompted her reply, or RCI may be viewing TS4Ms!