Sander wrote:To create an SQL version (I think I used the name MySQL wrongly first) of the forum, I have to go to a database administration interface and press several buttons. I do this occasionally for personal backups.
When it comes to creating public backups that everyone can download, the tricky part is removing IP addresses and other private information.
What other private information? The IP-addresses are the only extra information I can see. Postings from before my time as moderator are put to zero. Can't they just all be put to zero? Or do you need them to be part of PunBB for technical stuff, like avoiding spambots? As co-maintainer I don't need them.
Sander wrote:To do that, I'd have to copy the whole database to another server, remove the things that should be removed and create an SQL version from that. That is too much work to do it often, and if I make one error that could cause a huge privacy problem.
Why to another server? If you can move a database to another server, why not to your local server/computer?
Does the database provide a clear distinction between the IP-adresses and the rest of the data? Is the data divided in columns, for example? I imagine it to be a matter of automatically removing a column (field?) out of an Excel-sheet or an Acces-database.
Sander wrote:So I will only do that if it's really neccassary. There is no program that does this automatically, as it isn't something many webmasters do. (Have you ever seen a web forum that provides full downloadable backups? Maybe we will be the first one!)
That's the scoop, indeed. McDuck as the pioneer in being a real steady discussion forum. reason for me to desire a back-up option is that I'm disturbed by the easy possibilites PunBB provides to destroy this forum. No matter how you make your policy, a moderator can just throw all doors open by giving his profile away, or by getting hacked. An automatic back-up possibility is not just a matter of melancholy, but also a way to make the data of McDuck fool-proof.
If the McDuck-data could do without the IP-addresses, wiping them to 0.0.0.0 by default, then that would be a privacy scoop on itself.
(Can I put them to zero as maintainer, too?)
Sander wrote:There is a program that makes creating SQL backups easier in PunBB, but that doesn't seem to work for the main Dutch forum. I'll try it at this forum again. Anyway, that program doesn't delete the private information, so the SQL version that creates would only be suitable for private backups by you and me.
I imagine some sort of macro that can be used either off-line or on-line. Could you program such a thing?
Sander wrote:So, to make a long story short:
- I cannot and will not provide an automatically generated downloadable SQL version of the forums.
Only because of the privacy reasons, or also because of database-rights?
I'm thinking of open source as a goal, as with Linux and Inducks. Under license, to avoid frauded copies.
If the source is open by default, then everyone is free to make a copy themselves. What makes you and me and the members/guest different from each other, viewing the data? Only the IP-stuff?
Does your master-file contain private information I can't see? What private information do you have of me, for example? I'm not aware of any such information.
Maybe the email-addresses? Looking at your profile "Sander" now, I can only change your password. (For whatever it's worth.) I would need a test-forum to try what happens, but I don't see the password itself on the page', which looks a bit like my own profile page when being online as normal member on McDuck.
Are you technically able to reveal a password of someone else? Mine, for example?
In the profiles I can see the email-addresses of other users. (Again, why would a maintainer need to know that?) As a maintainer I feel discriminated from the rest of the forum, getting information I don't need or want.
How does your privacy idealogy work when I can get (a lot of) extra data anyway? Some spider-software would already do the trick. IP-addresses and email-addresses, all for free.
(Ah! Download complete!) Let's imagine I'm the Trojan Horse now. Doesn't that sound like an advertesiment to not use a profile at all, and to be very afraid of your own IP-address?
I think this is very interesting as a topic on it's own. Lack of privacy because of the software itself, even without SQL version policies.
Sander wrote:- If people find it really really important, I could provide them with a manually generated downloadable SQL version of the forums.
You already know I find it really really important.
Sander wrote:- I regularly make personal backups containing private information that cannot be made public.
How do you make those backups? How much is the data-size? You you give an example of a backup? Using the data of our McDuck Test Forum? Those IP-addresses are yours and mine.
Is there any danger if you would publicly show a personal backup of that forum?
Sander wrote:- I will continue working on a downloadable text version of the forums when I have the time for it.
As I understand, those downloadable text-versions depend on your view of archive-structure. The example I've seen with the text-files and the directories looked nice as presentation, but I'd rather also have the basic raw(?) file that you use to generate the texts. Having that file, other programmers could invent their own presentation. I'm not sure if your presentation is handy for advanced use. Maybe another programmer would do it different. Tastes differ.
Sander wrote:- Probably this week I will try a program that allows you as the forum administrator to make your own personal backup of the forum anytime you wish, so that there are three backups (provider, you, me).
I'm already getting lost in your information, but now you've completely lost me. So, there is some backup program possibilty? Is that a SQL-file?
I think a lot of noise would clear up if at least those damned IP-addresses would be erased by default (or by pushing a button). Then only the email-address could be a problem. At DCML the email-addresses are publicly known. Maybe we could have that as well, if everything fails. But then with a warning that the maintainer doesn't want to anything that others shouldn't know. In short: Don't use an email-address that you wish to keep private.
Sander wrote:Daniel73 wrote:I'd rather see the email address disappear, in favour of open moderation. [...]
The creation of that email address was caused by a misunderstanding. Maybe I got a little too enthousiastic about the
new Google service I'm using at McDuck.
Spam spam... Maybe I should ban you. That would be a nice test. I can't even walk out of the door without being watched by some Google satelite. Even the smell of McDuck being some Google-outlet would be a shame! Where's your pride? (Says the Microsoft-addict.)
But, toning down, I mostly didn't like having yet-another McDuck-related password and profile on internet. I'd like to use as few software as possible, to keep McDuck solid. Then I think the email form is a better option, in case people provide valid reasons for an email address.
Sander wrote:You could be right that not encouraging people to send private emails about the forum makes moderation easier and clearer for the forum visitors. We'll see how it turns out. For now, I've removed the address. Also the mentions in several posts in this thread, to prevent confusion. The only way for visitors to discuss the forum is now
About this forum.
My ideal is that maintainers (like me) get the same information as the rest of the people. And I would like to know how much you go into that, as it's just possible to email you anyway. What would happen then? I need a rule for this. How do you compare to the rest of us?
Sander wrote:About your new and translated version of the forum rules: they look good. As that is a quite short answer to such a long and well-thought-out post, I will write a longer one tomorrow. I'll reply to the other posts too, then. (Got to go sleep now. Maybe I should take a typing course so that I can write more replies in the same time.)
I'm glad to see you writing. Thinking of the rules I would like to go extreme by having as little hard rules as possible. I want to have a distinction between "not done" and "please don't". Ending a list of rules with warnings about banning doesn't look very welcome to me.
I suggest clear rules that show the border.
Rules like:
- No discrimination
- No illegal matters
- No hacking
- No spam
What more rules there be? Hacking could be defined as an attempt to destroy McDuck's existance. I want logic rules. Rules of common sense that are worthy the time of potential visiors. Rules that are actually read.
I bet that a lot of people skip a long-winded list of rules. And my experience is that other rules don't lead to banning anyway. Most of the Dutch McDuck-rules are mainly recommendations to keep the forum "tidy", which could fall under "no hacking".
What I want to keep in mind is that McDuck has got ideas of trolls rebelling against the McDuck policy. People should be invited to prove McDuck wrong. Maybe hacking could be seen as destroying, and trolling as rebelling. Destroying is strictly forbidden, and rebelling gets a benefit of the doubt.
Sander wrote:Daniel73 wrote:I hope the maintenance of moving topics doesn't technically disturb. I don't know how to turn the forum to maintenance mode.
Administration > Options > Maintenance
Maintenance mode
yes
no
When enabled, the board will only be available to administrators. This should be used if the board needs to taken down temporarily for maintenance. WARNING! Do not log out when the board is in maintenance mode. You will not be able to login again.
Do not log out when the board is in maintenance mode? Not able to login again? Why would I need to be online for being in maintenance mode? Do you have some backdoor as maintainer?
I didn't know you could step in as co-maintainer/moderator. What is your function/level on McDuck, technically speaking? How come you can make a backup of files I can't overview?
Sander wrote:[Maintenance mode] Only use when neccassary. Posts could get lost, when somebody writes one and you put the forum into maintenance mode before he or she presses the "Submit" button. (Then the person who has written but not submitted the post would probably get an error message, be angry and forget to post it again when the forum is back up.)
Can I add and move forums, categories, etc. in disable mode ("off"), without those problems? Would draft-messages get lost when the forum/topic is moved at the same time? Or do I need to wait for maintenance mode when there are 0 visitors?
The message is now:
The forums are temporarily down for maintenance. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sander
What does "maintenance" mean here?
What happens if you and I are maintaining at the same time, in either option? Do I need to check if you're online, as far as I can see your presence at all?
Sander wrote:Daniel73 wrote:Is it just me or doesn't the subscription work? I rarely get email notices when there are new posts.
Only one email is sent per thread, until you've visited it again. Email is in PunBB just a way to get notified when there's new action in a thread you're interested in, and not a way to actually read the posts in that thread.
I know. But it doesn't work. Lately, I don't get any notifications at all. Do you get them?
Hopefully you've come this far. I'm too tired to edit this down.
The only maintenance limitations for me are software and you being the person above me. For McDuck we need to be clear about what people can expect from us as maintainer-team, what our function is, and what the software limitations are.
*EDIT* boardlinking updated to McDrake