Etiquette Hell

Forum Administration => Forum Announcements => Topic started by: Ehelldame on December 29, 2011, 10:25:09 AM

Title: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 29, 2011, 10:25:09 AM
First,  I want to apologize to the readers of this forum for my recent unprofessional behavior in regards to this matter.   I was profoundly frustrated and offended at the emails and public comments from a few individuals who crossed the line into accusations that were not reflective of what was actually happening behind the administrative scene or who exploited this issue to push personal agendas that had no relevance to this issue.   I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

2.  There will soon be forthcoming a Malware FAQ to address issues of how to safeguard your computer, how to remove rogue antivirus viruses and other virus, how to report possible problems coming from this site.   If there are several tech savvy members who would be willing to volunteer to help people, please PM me. 

3.  I will continue to post updates on this issue to the forum.  It is within this forum that the AV alerts have been seen.  No one has reported seeing an AV alert while on the two blogs.   Also, Facebook is probably more likely to have malware than Ehell.   http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2011/11/17/keep-your-facebook-friends-close-and-your-antivirus-closer.aspx
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/2011/07/18/facebook-malware-application-posing-at-google-invite/
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/03/29/app-watch-the-deadly-sins-of-facebook-malware/
Or this study indicating that as many as 1/5th of Facebook users are exposed to malware:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20023626-36.html

I repeatedly get the "Update your Adobe Flash Player" while on Facebook.  It may be a legitimate link to Adobe but since this is a known scam for infecting computers with rogue antivirus malware, I'm not clicking on it.   Other avenues that Facebook has delivered malware is via "who is poking me", "who is looking at my profile", Google Plus link, links to videos are all ways FB users have been tricked into downloading malware. 

4. In the past I have shared quite openly any information concerning malware issues that affect members or readers of Ehell.   The most recent event was late last year when a few individuals reported their AV was alerting while on Ehell which turned out to be a false positive by one particular AV software company both readers had.   Another was in April 2010 when a Curves ad delivered through Google Adsense was found to be have malware in it.  http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=77113.15 


5. About 20 people have reported AV activity while on Ehell.  Most of those have had a virus/trojan intrusion blocked by their AV software and therefore nothing more needs to be done.  You are protected.   Three, maybe four have reported being infected with Win 7 Security 2012 or Vista 2012.  What Norton tech support has told me is that this virus is delivered either by a "drive-by download" from an infected or malicious domain  but that 90% of infections come about by the user clicking on a link or pop up.  There is no evidence that Ehell is infected or is a "drive by download" site according to Google Diagnostics and numerous scans.  Given the nature of the virus, it can lie quietly in your computer until some event triggers it.  For all we know, a discussion on Ehell about technology and viruses is enough to wake up the virus on an infected computer and tell the user it is infected and they need to buy software to remove it. 

Three Norton users reported having "Malicious Toolkit 4" blocked while on Ehell.  I filed a request with Norton that they check to see if this was a false report since no one else's AV was finding the same virus and in particular, to scan the forum.  Here is the content of the email from Norton:

We are writing in relation to your submission through Symantec's on-line Security Risk / False Positive Dispute Submission form for your site being detected by Symantec Software. We have been unable to reproduce this detection. Can we please ask you to ensure that you are using Symantec's latest virus definitions for detection? They can be found using live update or alternatively from the URL below.

http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/defs.download.html
Due to not being able to reproduce this issue we require the additional information below to progress the dispute.

* The message or a screen shot of the message received

* Exact instructions on how to recreate issue

* Symantec product and version being used for detection

Sincerely,
Symantec Security Response



As you can see, Norton cannot find the problem either and needs the same kind of information I have been requesting, i.e. screen shots, browser and AV version information to further investigate.  And users advised to update to the latest definitions.

6.   It is possible the server has been hacked although thorough scans have not revealed that and if it were, a clean reinstall of the forum software on December 24th should have eliminated it.  Over the years I have been threatened on rare occasions that someone's hacker boyfriend was hack into the server but those are pretty obsessed, disturbed people.   

In the early hours of December 23rd, SMF (the forum's software) released a security patch update which we installed within hours.   Hackers often exploit vulnerabilities in software that is not updated.   There is a reason why there are virtually no modification packages added to the forum since each one, if not updated, exposes a vulnerability.  The software running on the site has and is current and up to date.

Sigs will be reenabled within a day or two but some of you may find that your sig content isn't displaying correctly or not at all.  We have disabled all php and script coding that can come through a sig file.   If you suspect someone's sig contains something hinky, report it via the "Report to Moderator" link on the post. 

7.  Google ads have been known to deliver malware via AdSense ads before.  Google is currently being very slow in responding to my reports, perhaps in part because we don't know exactly which ad it could be that is infected or if the malware is coming from AdSense.   Nonetheless, I have blocked ads displaying on Ehell from these domains which several people have reported as having been identified as "attacking URLs":

zarerd.com/news
knalds.com/news
static-host.net

8.  While we have an obligation on our end to keep the server and the software updated to eliminate vulnerable openings for malware to exploit, each person has a responsibility to guard their own computers by updating to more modern, less buggy browsers; buying more reliable, well rated AV software rather than relying on free AV; keeping browsers/AV software/AV definitions/Apps like Adobe Flash updated and current; becoming knowledgeable about the latest ways malware can attack your computer; and be very cautious about clicking on links and pop ups, even if they are disguised to look like your browser or AV software.   Being safe online means you need to be diligent.     It's a sad state of affairs that we all have to gird ourselves and be suspicious when surfing lest cyber criminals "wolves" dressed as sheep deceive into infecting with viruses.   
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ceallach on December 29, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
Thank you.  It's not surprising that amongst such a large user base there will be viruses, and that this site may seem to be the common link among them.  It sounds as though you're well across the risks and protecting eHellions as much as within your power to do so. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: artk2002 on December 29, 2011, 07:03:16 PM
Something for people who make the automatic assumption that "I had EHell open last, therefore EHell gave me the virus": Post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc). It's a logical fallacy -- one that's very easy to fall into, but a fallacy nonetheless.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Wonderflonium on December 29, 2011, 07:30:45 PM
Art, that doesn't apply here. From your link:

Quote
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: TheBardess on December 29, 2011, 07:45:29 PM
Art, that doesn't apply here. From your link:

Quote
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

There's also the fact that several people got the virus more than once- and each time they got it, it was while browsing EHell (sometimes only EHell).

I do, however, appreciate the efforts that have been made to ensure that the site is clean and its users safe.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 09:53:20 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.

In addition to hot_shaker being banned for, at best, a throw away joke on a Facebook group which has members exceeding 200, or at worst for questioning on the Facebook page which was removed, I know of a number of very long term posters who have decided to not return to the forum after this, including some who were essentially called liars for reporting they had been attacked by a virus at all. I'm not speaking for them but I can't say I blame them. I myself did not appreciate being called a bald faced liar in the now deleted malware thread.

I do sincerely hope the stressors in your personal life will resolve themselves promptly and happily.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Shoo on December 29, 2011, 10:31:35 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 10:35:29 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Shoo on December 29, 2011, 10:37:15 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.

It certainly wasn't a non-apology.  I found it to be very sincere.  Just because she included background information doesn't invalidate her apology.

You're just looking for offense now.  It's obvious.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: O'Dell on December 29, 2011, 10:38:37 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.

I read an apology, not a non-apology. Maybe you should take this up with the Dame personally.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 10:40:55 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.

It certainly wasn't a non-apology.  I found it to be very sincere.  Just because she included background information doesn't invalidate her apology.

You're just looking for offense now.  It's obvious.

I can assure you I'm not looking for offence. I apologise if that is how you've perceived it but it's not the case.

I did also sincerely offer my hopes that the Dame's issues are quickly resolved to her satisfaction. I don't wish her ill, but the fact remains that damage has been done and the statements just feel like too little too late.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ceallach on December 29, 2011, 10:51:17 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.

It certainly wasn't a non-apology.  I found it to be very sincere.  Just because she included background information doesn't invalidate her apology.

You're just looking for offense now.  It's obvious.

I can assure you I'm not looking for offence. I apologise if that is how you've perceived it but it's not the case.

I did also sincerely offer my hopes that the Dame's issues are quickly resolved to her satisfaction. I don't wish her ill, but the fact remains that damage has been done and the statements just feel like too little too late.

You are very publically critical of the dame, both on this and other threads.  I assume you have also taken up your concerns with her in private and had a mature, private dialogue about your issues, rather than just constant public criticism?  Because I personally think that would be the polite approach given the highly insulting nature of the accusations and concerns you have expressed.  Otherwise it appears as though you are simply trying to cause trouble, which is how it comes across to many of us.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Dindrane on December 29, 2011, 10:54:34 PM

I can assure you I'm not looking for offence. I apologise if that is how you've perceived it but it's not the case.

I did also sincerely offer my hopes that the Dame's issues are quickly resolved to her satisfaction. I don't wish her ill, but the fact remains that damage has been done and the statements just feel like too little too late.

The bolded is a classic non-apology.  I don't think the Dame's sounded like that.  The fact that her post covered multiple topics does not negate the sincerity of the apology offered in the first section.  Whether or not you agree that it was sincere, you don't really help your case when you call her out for it publicly.  There is always a private way to express that you think serious damage has been done without being adequately addressed.  If you still feel that way, you might be better off using a PM.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 11:01:54 PM
I don't know, but this seems like the very soul of a qualified apology. I can certainly understand being under a lot of personal pressure but it is how we conduct ourselves in times of stress that defines us, not how pleasant we can be when the world is all rainbows and fruit cups. I am truly sorry that you have been going through difficult times, but that does not excuse the invective and poor behaviour exhibited towards a number of people who did *not* deserve it.


So now you're criticizing her apology?

I'm taking issue with a non-apology. How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.

It certainly wasn't a non-apology.  I found it to be very sincere.  Just because she included background information doesn't invalidate her apology.

You're just looking for offense now.  It's obvious.

I can assure you I'm not looking for offence. I apologise if that is how you've perceived it but it's not the case.

I did also sincerely offer my hopes that the Dame's issues are quickly resolved to her satisfaction. I don't wish her ill, but the fact remains that damage has been done and the statements just feel like too little too late.

You are very publically critical of the dame, both on this and other threads.  I assume you have also taken up your concerns with her in private and had a mature, private dialogue about your issues, rather than just constant public criticism?  Because I personally think that would be the polite approach given the highly insulting nature of the accusations and concerns you have expressed.  Otherwise it appears as though you are simply trying to cause trouble, which is how it comes across to many of us.

I am responding to the Dame's public actions. If we perceive rude or even egregious behaviour, is it not sometimes better to politely call on it in the same forum? I don't believe this is retaliatory rudeness, nor is it inflammatory. The Dame has made statements in public that I strongly disagree with, including statements of negative repute against my friends. Yet I should only address that in PM? If my friend - or myself - is publicly called a liar, I shall address that publicly.

I can assure you I am not trying to cause trouble. My criticism makes up a very tiny proportion of my thoughts and actions regarding the forum. But, again, I felt my concerns warranted speaking up. You don't have to agree with them, but that doesn't make them invalid.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 11:04:24 PM

I can assure you I'm not looking for offence. I apologise if that is how you've perceived it but it's not the case.

I did also sincerely offer my hopes that the Dame's issues are quickly resolved to her satisfaction. I don't wish her ill, but the fact remains that damage has been done and the statements just feel like too little too late.

The bolded is a classic non-apology.  I don't think the Dame's sounded like that.  The fact that her post covered multiple topics does not negate the sincerity of the apology offered in the first section.  Whether or not you agree that it was sincere, you don't really help your case when you call her out for it publicly.  There is always a private way to express that you think serious damage has been done without being adequately addressed.  If you still feel that way, you might be better off using a PM.

I used that as an example. That is how the Dame's apology read to me.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: cass2591 on December 29, 2011, 11:07:27 PM
@EG: I've stayed out of this until now but what do you want? How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. Since when is 'You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.' incorrect? Jeanne is talking about how she related to posters due to her frustration, handled it poorly, owned that and apologized. She was not apologizing for not taking action, or the proper action as some have criticized.


Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 29, 2011, 11:18:09 PM
@EG: I've stayed out of this until now but what do you want? How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. Since when is 'You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.' incorrect? Jeanne is talking about how she related to posters due to her frustration, handled it poorly, owned that and apologized. She was not apologizing for not taking action, or the proper action as some have criticized.

What I'm trying to explain is that the apology was offered followed by disclaimers. Personal stress and issues and feeling 'attacked' by people in emails and PMs. Had I sent my concerns via PM, would I have been considered another person just accusing or attacking her? Public statements have been made against individuals and there has been no mention of them in the apology, nor if she plans to rescind the banning of one who was accused of something that was patently untrue.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: cass2591 on December 29, 2011, 11:31:57 PM
I interpreted it differently, as will likely the 200+ members of your new group. Seriously, the issue is, if not resolved, certainly on its way to being so. You don't like the way it was handled, fine, move on. What is the point of belaboring this? We're talking one website, one owner, enough already.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Scritzy on December 29, 2011, 11:51:06 PM
I'm glad that things have been resolved. :)
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ceallach on December 29, 2011, 11:52:33 PM
I am responding to the Dame's public actions. If we perceive rude or even egregious behaviour, is it not sometimes better to politely call on it in the same forum? I don't believe this is retaliatory rudeness, nor is it inflammatory. The Dame has made statements in public that I strongly disagree with, including statements of negative repute against my friends. Yet I should only address that in PM? If my friend - or myself - is publicly called a liar, I shall address that publicly.

I can assure you I am not trying to cause trouble. My criticism makes up a very tiny proportion of my thoughts and actions regarding the forum. But, again, I felt my concerns warranted speaking up. You don't have to agree with them, but that doesn't make them invalid.

Yes.  But you've not just made a comment and left it, you've repeatedly and consistedly tried to demonstrate that the dame is somehow dishonest, insincere, over-reacting, and treating people badly.

It's the equivalent of the person in the store who instead of politely addressing concerns with the manager starts creating a scene in front of everybody.  It would be fine if you were just asking questions / expressing concerns in response to what she is saying publically, but you're not - you're criticizing her personally and insulting her character.   Even if the manager addressed the entire store to apologize for the queues, you wouldn't start calling out in front of everybody how it's clearly insincere, why haven't they done something about it earlier etc etc.  The type of behaviour designed to start a riot, in fact.  You might ask a polite question or express a concern, but that's very different to what you've been doing here. You haven't been saying "When do you expect to hear back from google?" or "What precautions have been taken to minimise the risk?" or any such constructive comments. It's all been negative.    And no, I don't agree that it's polite to "call" people out on their rude behaviour.  It's certainly ok to address concerns, show spine in the face of an insult, or give the cut direct, but it's not polite to repeatedly say "I think you're rude! You're insincere and have been mean to my friends! I disagree with how you run your life/shop/website!"
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ceallach on December 29, 2011, 11:53:00 PM
I'm glad that things have been resolved. :)

Me too.   :)   I'm going to be quiet now, because really that's all that matters!!
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 30, 2011, 12:07:50 AM
I am responding to the Dame's public actions. If we perceive rude or even egregious behaviour, is it not sometimes better to politely call on it in the same forum? I don't believe this is retaliatory rudeness, nor is it inflammatory. The Dame has made statements in public that I strongly disagree with, including statements of negative repute against my friends. Yet I should only address that in PM? If my friend - or myself - is publicly called a liar, I shall address that publicly.

I can assure you I am not trying to cause trouble. My criticism makes up a very tiny proportion of my thoughts and actions regarding the forum. But, again, I felt my concerns warranted speaking up. You don't have to agree with them, but that doesn't make them invalid.

Yes.  But you've not just made a comment and left it, you've repeatedly and consistedly tried to demonstrate that the dame is somehow dishonest, insincere, over-reacting, and treating people badly.

It's the equivalent of the person in the store who instead of politely addressing concerns with the manager starts creating a scene in front of everybody.  It would be fine if you were just asking questions / expressing concerns in response to what she is saying publically, but you're not - you're criticizing her personally and insulting her character.   Even if the manager addressed the entire store to apologize for the queues, you wouldn't start calling out in front of everybody how it's clearly insincere, why haven't they done something about it earlier etc etc.  The type of behaviour designed to start a riot, in fact.  You might ask a polite question or express a concern, but that's very different to what you've been doing here. You haven't been saying "When do you expect to hear back from google?" or "What precautions have been taken to minimise the risk?" or any such constructive comments. It's all been negative.    And no, I don't agree that it's polite to "call" people out on their rude behaviour.  It's certainly ok to address concerns, show spine in the face of an insult, or give the cut direct, but it's not polite to repeatedly say "I think you're rude! You're insincere and have been mean to my friends! I disagree with how you run your life/shop/website!"

Ceallach, I believe you are going to read exactly what you want to in my posts and there's not much I can do to change that. Regardless of what you believe happened, hot_shaker was accused publically of threatening to create havoc with her sig file. This was untrue. She has now been banned pre-emptively. This has not been addressed.

You believe I'm screaming and trying to start a riot. I am not. I haven't "raised my voice" electronically or otherwise. I believe the Dame wants her site to be healthy and well run. It would be pointless otherwise. That does not negate my other concerns.

In addition, my concerns are not mine alone. They are shared by a number of others. I do not speak for them, but I am not alone in holding them.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Scuba_Dog on December 30, 2011, 12:21:02 AM
I have two PC's, one laptop and an iPad.  I've accessed EHell multiple times from all of them and never got a virus.  That said, I'm really thankful for the time, effort and energy that was put into trying to figure out what was going on and to ensure the safety of the forum.  All of this over the holidays, too, so I'm sure it wasn't easy. 

I didn't see anything unprofessional or rude in any of the forum responses by EHell Dame.  Maybe the PM's were different, I don't know.  I do know that it takes courage to make a public apology when you feel you have done something wrong.  It then takes grace and understanding to accept that apology.

Thank you for all of the time and effort you have put into trying to figure out and resolve this issue.  I really hope it didn't mar your holiday season.

Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 12:24:14 AM

I can assure you I am not trying to cause trouble.
You are a troll who has once again derailed a thread pushing a personal agenda.  You have not once communicated with me in private.   Your comments referencing my personal life, which I never mentioned, is designed to instigate a fight. 

Taking up another person's offense can be very patronizing.  Hot_shaker has always been quite capable of speaking for herself.  And please don't whine that she's unable to contact me.  People reach me privately all the time via numerous avenues. 


Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: furrcats on December 30, 2011, 12:28:22 AM
I thank you were fine in your posting dame
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 12:30:59 AM
There are apparently viewers of the forum who have made up their minds that the forum is a source of malware infection for them.  No amount of information or assurance  is going to convince them otherwise.  Those folks will perhaps be comfortable elsewhere and therefore we invite them to go where they are comfortable.  We will continue to do all  in our power to maintain the safety and security of the forum. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: EduardosGirl on December 30, 2011, 12:35:33 AM

I can assure you I am not trying to cause trouble.
You are a troll who has once again derailed a thread pushing a personal agenda.  You have not once communicated with me in private.   Your comments referencing my personal life, which I never mentioned, is designed to instigate a fight. 

Taking up another person's offense can be very patronizing.  Hot_shaker has always been quite capable of speaking for herself.  And please don't whine that she's unable to contact me.  People reach me privately all the time via numerous avenues.

I apologise, I misread. I was thinking back to another thread that mentioned your recent concerns. It was not mentioned to instigate a fight. How would that even work?

However I am not a troll. Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll. And I can assure you that hot_shaker is not patronised by my speaking here. I've never said she couldn't email you herself, much less whined about it.

As I also stated in another thread, I didn't get any malware from the forum. That's not what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 01:28:10 AM

We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

One of the persons who reported a few days ago that her work computer had been infected with the Win 7 Security virus emailed me earlier today.  She had taken her computer to the IT person who revealed that hers was the 11th employee computer in 2 days to be infected with the exact same virus via shopping online, opening an ecard, etc.     She further reported that she and the other employees were not on the VPN (Virtual Privacy Network) which the tech explained adds a layer of protection when it is used. 


Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Larrabee on December 30, 2011, 05:07:55 AM
Dame, does this mean that the poster who was banned for the actions of other people despite not breaking the rules herself has been reinstated?

That did make me very uncomfortable.  :(
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: strangetimes on December 30, 2011, 05:55:15 AM
@EG: I've stayed out of this until now but what do you want? How often has it been stated on the boards that if you apologise and sincerely mean it, then you apologise. Since when is 'You don't add disclaimers or qualifiers. "I made a mistake, I handled it poorly, I apologise." That is my point.' incorrect? Jeanne is talking about how she related to posters due to her frustration, handled it poorly, owned that and apologized. She was not apologizing for not taking action, or the proper action as some have criticized.

What I'm trying to explain is that the apology was offered followed by disclaimers. Personal stress and issues and feeling 'attacked' by people in emails and PMs. Had I sent my concerns via PM, would I have been considered another person just accusing or attacking her? Public statements have been made against individuals and there has been no mention of them in the apology, nor if she plans to rescind the banning of one who was accused of something that was patently untrue.

Jeanne's apology wasn't followed by disclaimers or qualifiers, it was followed by an explanation of her uncharacteristic behaviour.

A non-apology is saying something that equates to "I'm sorry you took offense to my perfectly reasonable statement".

An apology with disclaimers is, "I'm sorry I hurt you, but it's really your fault, because you insulted my cat first."

If you're not affected by this issue personally, nor are your friends who've been maligned asking you to intervene on their behalf, why are you continuously airing their gripes? You don't seem willing to accept an apology, so what next? What is it that you'd like to achieve, or the consensus you'd like to reach, with this discussion?
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Streganona on December 30, 2011, 06:05:19 AM
I believe miss Jeanne is sincere in her apology but I admit I looked askance at the line about loosing her temper with people who "probably didn't deserve it" something about that seemed a bit off bit I'm sure that's just me. I thought there was a comment in there about recent illness or death in the family which would make it understndable that this was extra upsetting but I must have been confused since I didn't see it when I reread the post
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: readingchick on December 30, 2011, 07:44:45 AM
Thank you for addressing this issue, Dame. I'd like to think everyone can rest easy now.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 07:47:05 AM
Thank you for addressing this issue, Dame. I'd like to think everyone can rest easy now.

Yes, thank you. I feel assured that E-hell is a safe place, emotionally as well as practically. That trolls, potstirrers and troublemakers are not tolerated is to be lauded, not griped about.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Wonderflonium on December 30, 2011, 08:03:02 AM
We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

One of the persons who reported a few days ago that her work computer had been infected with the Win 7 Security virus emailed me earlier today.  She had taken her computer to the IT person who revealed that hers was the 11th employee computer in 2 days to be infected with the exact same virus via shopping online, opening an ecard, etc.     She further reported that she and the other employees were not on the VPN (Virtual Privacy Network) which the tech explained adds a layer of protection when it is used.

I never said or thought that eHell was infected; I believed (and still do) that the malware came from an ad on eHell. The fact that the ad potentially showed up on other sites and caused infection doesn't mean it didn't also appear on this site.

I obviously can't prove where it came from, and I really no longer care. I'm tired of the issue. However, I do care when it is implied that myself and others are too dim to look for actual evidence and therefore just assumed that "a happened before b, so a caused b." That was the implication of Art's post, and I was replying to that.

Also, I am extremely bothered by EduardosGirl being called a troll. She's not. She's not trying to cause trouble, she's not stirring the pot, she's not being hateful; she's trying to address actual issues and is doing so politely.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:06:41 AM
We aren't coming to the conclusion based soley on the order of events. We are basing the conclusion on multiple factors. The 2 main ones are the fact that the virus tried to download when we were only on eHell (not just that it appeared when we had eHell open, but that it was actively blocked from loading onto formerly clean computers when only eHell was open) and the fact that it was the ONLY site that we all had in common.

Of course correlation doesn't prove causation, but at the same time, Occam's Razor (and common sense) should be considered.

One of the persons who reported a few days ago that her work computer had been infected with the Win 7 Security virus emailed me earlier today.  She had taken her computer to the IT person who revealed that hers was the 11th employee computer in 2 days to be infected with the exact same virus via shopping online, opening an ecard, etc.     She further reported that she and the other employees were not on the VPN (Virtual Privacy Network) which the tech explained adds a layer of protection when it is used.

I never said or thought that eHell was infected; I believed (and still do) that the malware came from an ad on eHell. The fact that the ad potentially showed up on other sites and caused infection doesn't mean it didn't also appear on this site.

I obviously can't prove where it came from, and I really no longer care. I'm tired of the issue. However, I do care when it is implied that myself and others are too dim to look for actual evidence and therefore just assumed that "a happened before b, so a caused b." That was the implication of Art's post, and I was replying to that.

Also, I am extremely bothered by EduardosGirl being called a troll. She's not. She's not trying to cause trouble, she's not stirring the pot, she's not being hateful; she's trying to address actual issues and is doing so politely.

EG, as did people in the original 'Ex Member' thread, seems to be very much looking for offense, picking apart posts, and generally being snarky. I can feel the hostility radiating from her posts, and it takes me vack to October, I had really hoped we were past all of this by now.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:09:48 AM
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Wonderflonium on December 30, 2011, 08:14:03 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 08:16:27 AM
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.

But in that case I think it's better to cast the apology net too wide, rather than cast the potstirrer net too wide. Better to apologize to a larger group of people (even if some of them later turned out to be potstirrers) than to apologize but imply that some of the people being apologized to don't really deserve it. That cheapens the apology IMO. ETA: It may just be a clumsy phrasing, of course, but that's why it's coming off the way it is. And I worry that simple disagreement is sometimes seen as "potstirring" here.

Edited for typo.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:16:47 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Streganona on December 30, 2011, 08:20:06 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 08:21:26 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: still in va on December 30, 2011, 08:23:35 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

that was me, and that was part of it. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Streganona on December 30, 2011, 08:25:30 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

that was me, and that was part of it.

I'm still confused as to who is supposed to be apologizing if what they are supposed to be apologizing for didn't actually happen but was a rumor that came out of a misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: still in va on December 30, 2011, 08:26:54 AM
Also, this is from the apology that the Dame gave.

Quote
I, in turn, expressed myself very angrily to a number of people that probably did not deserve it and for that I am sorry.

I think the bolded is a large part of why people feel it's a nonapology.

Non apology? It's a turn of phrase! And how is the Dame to know exactly who does and does not deserve and apology, when the line between genuinely concerned person and potstirrer is blurred (entirely because , I might add, of the unpleasant nature of the now-deleted troll group.) You can't expect things to just bounce back to normal after the extrodinary display of October.

But in that case I think it's better to cast the apology net too wide, rather than cast the potstirrer net too wide. Better to apologize to a larger group of people (even if some of them later turned out to be potstirrers) than to apologize but imply that some of the people being apologized to don't really deserve it. That cheapens the apology IMO. ETA: It may just be a clumsy phrasing, of course, but that's why it's coming off the way it is. And I worry that simple disagreement is sometimes seen as "potstirring" here.

Edited for typo.

i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:29:35 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I'm confused - what do you mean troll groups? I thought in the now deleted malware thread it was confirmed that one of the posters (something to do with VA I think) misunderstood something miss jeanne had said and that was were some of the confusion came from - not that anyone was actually trying to infect the site - I thought miss jeanne specifically said that was not the case

I think that's referring to the earlier conflict in October.

Yes, exactly. There are two seperate issues here, I feel: the malware problem and the 'historical' problem of the October debacle. However, my position is that the Dame feels understandably ruffled by critcism, as the business in October was so toxic, and so beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour, that it is difficult to know who to trust. Now, that is not an ideal situation. I'm not saying it is. But overall, I think that the Dame is doing what she can to ensure that e-hell is a safe space on as many fronts as possible. Sorry if that makes me sound like a brown noser (though I assure you I am not-I am a direct and forthright person who would speak out if I felt the need.) But back in October, it was more dangeorus to go against the 'super secret meangirl group' than against the mods, as we found out.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 08:31:17 AM
i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads.

People are responding to the Dame publicly because the Dame's own communications are public. I just see it as communicating in the same medium the Dame chose to use. *shrug*
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Bexx27 on December 30, 2011, 08:33:04 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I believe the members of the alleged "troll group(s)" have attemtped repeatedly in multiple threads - many of which have been deleted - to explain that they are not actually trolls and that the discussions on FB are mostly general "get-to-know-you" stuff centered on recipes, pets, etc. That possibly there were a few members who played vigilante on ehell, but this was hardly an organized effort to troll or something the whole group was aware of/involved in.

I would encourage anyone who's curious about all this to join the unofficial FB group, which is open to anyone and does not require you to disclose your ehell handle, and see what it's really about.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:36:14 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I believe the members of the alleged "troll group(s)" have attemtped repeatedly in multiple threads - many of which have been deleted - to explain that they are not actually trolls and that the discussions on FB are mostly general "get-to-know-you" stuff centered on recipes, pets, etc. That possibly there were a few members who played vigilante on ehell, but this was hardly an organized effort to troll or something the whole group was aware of/involved in.

I would encourage anyone who's curious about all this to join the unofficial FB group, which is open to anyone and does not require you to disclose your ehell handle, and see what it's really about.

How does one do that?
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: still in va on December 30, 2011, 08:36:52 AM
i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads.

People are responding to the Dame publicly because the Dame's own communications are public. I just see it as communicating in the same medium the Dame chose to use. *shrug*

i think what the Dame is saying (or at least the way i'm reading her comments) is pretty much the same as it's always been.  she would prefer it if someone who has a problem with her to contact her privately to attempt to work things out.  EG has not done this, preferring to continue to post the same comments over and over.

Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:38:36 AM
i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads.

People are responding to the Dame publicly because the Dame's own communications are public. I just see it as communicating in the same medium the Dame chose to use. *shrug*

i think what the Dame is saying (or at least the way i'm reading her comments) is pretty much the same as it's always been.  she would prefer it if someone who has a problem with her to contact her privately to attempt to work things out.  EG has not done this, preferring to continue to post the same comments over and over.

Yeah, that's how I read it, as well.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: O'Dell on December 30, 2011, 08:41:23 AM
I'm not interested in any FB group. I've seen the posts by people that may or may not be associated with those groups that were *very* ugly...and I'm not the shrinking violet sort. IMO, at least some of the pot-stirrers show signs of being burnt out on this forum. I've seen it before and I've even experienced it. They are get worked up over the slightest of things and will.not.let.it.go. I've seen it in threads having nothing to do with the last Big Ban.

If anyone is feeling angry after being here, or when reading certain topics, or even anger toward the Ehelldame or mods, then they need to step away and take a breather for awhile. Get some perspective. Then come back when they are refreshed...if they still want to, of course. I've done it myself on this and other forums when I found myself losing patience. Sometimes it's hard to see it when you are in the middle of being burnt out, but once you take that break and look back, you can often see it. Or so my experience has been.

ETA: My post isn't directed at any one particular person. I probably can't even identify specific usernames. This is more of an observation built up over the last few months. I see the signs, think of the possibility and the move on to the topics that interest me more.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 08:42:31 AM
i can only speak for myself, Yvaine, but in my eyes, EG, while i don't consider her to be a troll, is engaging in some pot-stirring.  she has expressed her opinion over and over again.  she is not trying to discuss this privately with the Dame, but consistently brings it up here, in multiple threads.

People are responding to the Dame publicly because the Dame's own communications are public. I just see it as communicating in the same medium the Dame chose to use. *shrug*

i think what the Dame is saying (or at least the way i'm reading her comments) is pretty much the same as it's always been.  she would prefer it if someone who has a problem with her to contact her privately to attempt to work things out.  EG has not done this, preferring to continue to post the same comments over and over.

Yeah, that's how I read it, as well.

Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Crazy Chicken Lady on December 30, 2011, 08:43:47 AM
I do not see EG as being a troll or pot-stirring. There seems to be such a fear of trolls that it has created a witchhunt where many who are not guilty are punished just for sharing their concerns. In a way the real trolls are winning. It is really sad. :-(
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Wonderflonium on December 30, 2011, 08:45:47 AM
Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\

I agree.

I also wanted to add that in the most recently deleted malware thread, there was a lot of snark coming from the Dame herself that would have gotten others at least warned if not gagged. Someone asked earlier what apologies were needed, and I think the snark is another thing for which there should be apologies.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: still in va on December 30, 2011, 08:48:00 AM
Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\

I agree.

I also wanted to add that in the most recently deleted malware thread, there was a lot of snark coming from the Dame herself that would have gotten others at least warned if not gagged. Someone asked earlier what apologies were needed, and I think the snark is another thing for which there should be apologies.

and she apologized for that.  the current debate now seems to be if the apology went far enough.  it seems that many of us think that it did. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Bexx27 on December 30, 2011, 08:49:40 AM
I'm not asking her to list posters by name to sort out who deserved an apology and who didn't (although I can come up with a few who certainly did deserve an apology). However, adding "probably" to the sentence negates the apology for everyone. A proper apology does not contain qualifiers.

I don't agree, so I think that it is an 'agree to disagree' thing. I wonder, though, if any of the troll group have apologised to anyone, (privately, I suppose) for their behaviour in this whole debacle.

I believe the members of the alleged "troll group(s)" have attemtped repeatedly in multiple threads - many of which have been deleted - to explain that they are not actually trolls and that the discussions on FB are mostly general "get-to-know-you" stuff centered on recipes, pets, etc. That possibly there were a few members who played vigilante on ehell, but this was hardly an organized effort to troll or something the whole group was aware of/involved in.

I would encourage anyone who's curious about all this to join the unofficial FB group, which is open to anyone and does not require you to disclose your ehell handle, and see what it's really about.

How does one do that?

I'm pretty sure any member you're friends with on FB can add you. (I'm not particularly knowledgeable about FB, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong.) If you're interested, you can PM me or someone else who's said they're a member with your FB information.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 08:49:50 AM
I'm not interested in any FB group. I've seen the posts by people that may or may not be associated with those groups that were *very* ugly...and I'm not the shrinking violet sort. IMO, at least some of the pot-stirrers show signs of being burnt out on this forum. I've seen it before and I've even experienced it. They are get worked up over the slightest of things and will.not.let.it.go. I've seen it in threads having nothing to do with the last Big Ban.

If anyone is feeling angry after being here, or when reading certain topics, or even anger toward the Ehelldame or mods, then they need to step away and take a breather for awhile. Get some perspective. Then come back when they are refreshed...if they still want to, of course. I've done it myself on this and other forums when I found myself losing patience. Sometimes it's hard to see it when you are in the middle of being burnt out, but once you take that break and look back, you can often see it. Or so my experience has been.

On balance, I agree with this. Lurking, (back in the summer) I noticed a lot of anger and spite, just on the main boards. I also agree that I wouldn't risk being caught up in any FB group-I am very rarely on FB anyway, and it is weird how these things can develop a life of their own. As it is not clear who has been banned, or the link between their real name and e-hell handle, I would rather not know. I just remember feeling who I could and could not trust based on reading posts, with no way of knowing who those people are IRL. For those complaining about people being outed, it was actually someone on the thread back in October who said who was banned, not the Dame or the mod team.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 08:56:50 AM
On balance, I agree with this. Lurking, (back in the summer) I noticed a lot of anger and spite, just on the main boards. I also agree that I wouldn't risk being caught up in any FB group-I am very rarely on FB anyway, and it is weird how these things can develop a life of their own. As it is not clear who has been banned, or the link between their real name and e-hell handle, I would rather not know. I just remember feeling who I could and could not trust based on reading posts, with no way of knowing who those people are IRL. For those complaining about people being outed, it was actually someone on the thread back in October who said who was banned, not the Dame or the mod team.

But there's all this weird atmosphere about what's a secret and what's not, and I think it contributes to the anger levels. A longtime poster got banned by accident, was going to be reinstated, but then the ban ended up being upheld because she'd spoken to another ehellion about it--who was also a RL friend--and that person had defended her. Thus the ban stuck. And I know I'd definitely go to a friend for sympathy if I was banned unexpectedly from my favorite forum. But we were told we were supposed to keep it quiet if banned. But the mods will publicize other bans, and that's OK. And comments vanish off the FB page so that the conversation doesn't make sense anymore, and then the posts disappear entirely. The whole atmosphere feels like one where we all need to navigate an increasingly arcane set of rules about what is "private" and therefore bannable or deletable if we voice it, and what is not.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Wonderflonium on December 30, 2011, 08:57:40 AM
Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\

I agree.

I also wanted to add that in the most recently deleted malware thread, there was a lot of snark coming from the Dame herself that would have gotten others at least warned if not gagged. Someone asked earlier what apologies were needed, and I think the snark is another thing for which there should be apologies.

and she apologized for that.  the current debate now seems to be if the apology went far enough.  it seems that many of us think that it did.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I personally don't feel like an apology with a qualifier is a proper apology.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 09:00:08 AM
Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\

I agree.

I also wanted to add that in the most recently deleted malware thread, there was a lot of snark coming from the Dame herself that would have gotten others at least warned if not gagged. Someone asked earlier what apologies were needed, and I think the snark is another thing for which there should be apologies.

I don't understand, really, genuinely don't understand, why people are so surpised that there is a stricter standard for posters than for the Dame and Mod team. (In some ways) They run the place! It is not a full democracy (thought there is the 'report to mod' button for posts that cross a line. This place would be unrunnable if everyone's opinion etc. was given equal weight.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: DuBois on December 30, 2011, 09:02:56 AM
On balance, I agree with this. Lurking, (back in the summer) I noticed a lot of anger and spite, just on the main boards. I also agree that I wouldn't risk being caught up in any FB group-I am very rarely on FB anyway, and it is weird how these things can develop a life of their own. As it is not clear who has been banned, or the link between their real name and e-hell handle, I would rather not know. I just remember feeling who I could and could not trust based on reading posts, with no way of knowing who those people are IRL. For those complaining about people being outed, it was actually someone on the thread back in October who said who was banned, not the Dame or the mod team.

But there's all this weird atmosphere about what's a secret and what's not, and I think it contributes to the anger levels. A longtime poster got banned by accident, was going to be reinstated, but then the ban ended up being upheld because she'd spoken to another ehellion about it--who was also a RL friend--and that person had defended her. Thus the ban stuck. And I know I'd definitely go to a friend for sympathy if I was banned unexpectedly from my favorite forum. But we were told we were supposed to keep it quiet if banned. But the mods will publicize other bans, and that's OK. And comments vanish off the FB page so that the conversation doesn't make sense anymore, and then the posts disappear entirely. The whole atmosphere feels like one where we all need to navigate an increasingly arcane set of rules about what is "private" and therefore bannable or deletable if we voice it, and what is not.

Ah, that makes sense. I am not really on FB much, so I'm not really sure what went down there. But I still think that some of the stuff that was revealed on the October thread had to be stamped out, it was pretty vile. Whatever secrecy there was, there was no excuse for that.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 09:03:59 AM
Which feels, in a way, like her opinions are acceptable as public matters while disagreement needs to be hushed and hidden.  :-\

I agree.

I also wanted to add that in the most recently deleted malware thread, there was a lot of snark coming from the Dame herself that would have gotten others at least warned if not gagged. Someone asked earlier what apologies were needed, and I think the snark is another thing for which there should be apologies.

I don't understand, really, genuinely don't understand, why people are so surpised that there is a stricter standard for posters than for the Dame and Mod team. (In some ways) They run the place! It is not a full democracy (thought there is the 'report to mod' button for posts that cross a line. This place would be unrunnable if everyone's opinion etc. was given equal weight.

It's not a democracy--it's more like a business, really (and not quite like the private house it's also often compared to), and the mods are the business owners. They have the right to make decisions regarding how to run their business. But it behooves a business to be diplomatic to its customers and to have concern for customer feedback. They don't have to, of course, legally, but they'll do better and make more money if they do.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: LadyL on December 30, 2011, 09:04:38 AM
The dame has repeatedly said that criticism of the forum should first be communicated through PM. It seems that EG has not done so. I am also not clear what EG wants; a perfect apology? Reinstatement of a banned poster that is not her? At a minimum her posts in the malware threads have, by her own admission, had nothing to do with malware.  I think repeated purposeful derailing is also bad netiquette. It's also not a great idea to appoint yourself spokesperson for someone else's cause (hot_shaker).

One pattern I've seen  is that even when forum critics may have valid points they often express them in rude or inappropriate ways which gets them written off by the admins. Then the people who agree with their points feel the admins are not listening or being unduly harsh. But the admins have good reason for a zero tolerance policy towards nonsense because of all the trolls lately.

If one is giving a friend, coworker, etc. constructive criticism often one goes to extra care to phrase things politely and sensitively - this being the internet the opposite tends to happen. Think about how it might feel to be on the other end of that feedback, being told you won't take responsibility - then when you do, that it's insincere - would you not start to feel like nothing is every good enough for some people, and be tempted to write all of them off?

This is not "members vs. admins" but there are a lot of people who seemed determined to turn it into that, which is sad.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 09:20:55 AM
Dame, does this mean that the poster who was banned for the actions of other people despite not breaking the rules herself has been reinstated?

That did make me very uncomfortable.  :(

The most basic rule of this forum (and the site overall really) is do not bring trouble here.   

If you are referring to the person I think you are, her name was never mentioned publicly by any moderator as having been banned.   We don't typically announce gags or bans publicly unless someone is being a very obvious troll or troublemaker.

Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

 You, Larrabee,  have firsthand knowledge of how well private communication can work to resolve a problem and thus leaving all drama off the forum.

So, the question arises as to how people know she was banned.  Since her user ID was not published to any Ehell affiliated site by any moderator, the only other logical explanation is that she has told people she was banned.  And some of those people have taken up her offense and her cause and made it a public issue on the Ehell Facebook wall and hijacking forum threads reporting on malware issues.   That is trouble by anyone's definition. 

Or are you are saying that the people who have taken up her cause are doing so against her wishes to harm her?  In which case I suggest she contact me immediately to identify those people so they can be publicly outed on the forum and then banned from this site as being malicious, hateful people.  I'll be happy to welcome her back as the victim of nasty people who used her for their own petty agendas against Ehell.   

As for hot-shaker, I have unbanned her.  I readily admit that I misconstrued several of her comments about not wanting to go to Ehell, etc.  However, I most certainly did not misconstrue her comments below:

"Quite frankly, I trust the reports from my fellow posters more than I trust the the EHell administration."

 "Yes, I will freely admit that I have recently expressed disdain for the actions of the EHell admins."


She has not been happy on this forum and if she cannot trust me or others in the forum administration, I doubt she will ever be happy here and probably needs to find someplace where she is. 
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 09:29:31 AM
Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

One of the things that gets discussed a lot on ehell is "training" people to behave in certain ways. What is clear from this quote is that you respond rapidly when addressed in public, and take a while to respond when sent a PM. We're all getting trained that public posts "work" in getting issues addressed and PMs don't. You say you want PMs but your actions--probably inadvertently--say the opposite.

In addition, I think people have a right to defend themselves publicly if they are criticized publicly.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: TheBardess on December 30, 2011, 09:41:22 AM
Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

One of the things that gets discussed a lot on ehell is "training" people to behave in certain ways. What is clear from this quote is that you respond rapidly when addressed in public, and take a while to respond when sent a PM. We're all getting trained that public posts "work" in getting issues addressed and PMs don't. You say you want PMs but your actions--probably inadvertently--say the opposite.

In addition, I think people have a right to defend themselves publicly if they are criticized publicly.

POD.

Also, it seems to me that the word "troll" is getting thrown around more and more loosely of late. Rather than refer to somebody who makes up false stories to garner attention, or who is deliberately rude and inflammatory in every post just to stir up drama, the term now seems to be being used to describe any poster who expresses any kind of disagreement about the forum at all, no matter how politely they do so. That worries me. I don't think that simple disagreement should be enough to have someone labeled a troll.

In addition, disagreeing with an action taken by a forum administrator or having concerns about the way the forum is run does not translate to not liking EHell, wanting to bring trouble here, or wanting to destroy the forum. Very often, people have these concerns in the first place because they care about and enjoy EHell and they are afraid of seeing it spiral downhill. I know that, overall, I really enjoy these forums. I enjoy the posters and the threads, and even when I don't post much myself, I always enjoy reading. But that doesn't mean that I agree with every action the admins take, or that I don't occasionally have concerns about the way things are done.* In the same way that one does not have to agree with every action the president takes to be a loyal American, I don't think one should have to agree with everything the administration here does and never ever express disagreement in order to be considered a loyal EHellion.

*I don't usually express my concerns for two reasons: 1) in general they are very mild and 2) sadly, I am more and more afraid to express any disagreement, even privately, for fear of being labeled a troll and banned. I don't want that. As I said above, I do like it here, and I would like to remain.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 09:43:24 AM
In the same way that one does not have to agree with every action the president takes to be a loyal American, I don't think one should have to agree with everything the administration here does and never ever express disagreement in order to be considered a loyal EHellion.

Big pod. This is the perfect analogy.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 09:43:31 AM
Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

One of the things that gets discussed a lot on ehell is "training" people to behave in certain ways. What is clear from this quote is that you respond rapidly when addressed in public, and take a while to respond when sent a PM. We're all getting trained that public posts "work" in getting issues addressed and PMs don't. You say you want PMs but your actions--probably inadvertently--say the opposite.

In addition, I think people have a right to defend themselves publicly if they are criticized publicly.

You, of all people, know the power of private communication.  When a moderator added a group of IP addresses to the ban triggers in October, you unintentionally got caught up in that ban. It happens sometimes.  You privately contacted me and the matter was resolved with no forum drama.  You cannot, from personal experience, make any claim that your PMs have been  brushed off or not acted upon in a timely manner.  People who have legitimate forum issues such as glitches, errors, log in problems, etc. are given first priority.  Every person who PMed me with an antivirus data received prompt attention.   
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Yvaine on December 30, 2011, 09:44:42 AM
Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

One of the things that gets discussed a lot on ehell is "training" people to behave in certain ways. What is clear from this quote is that you respond rapidly when addressed in public, and take a while to respond when sent a PM. We're all getting trained that public posts "work" in getting issues addressed and PMs don't. You say you want PMs but your actions--probably inadvertently--say the opposite.

In addition, I think people have a right to defend themselves publicly if they are criticized publicly.

You, of all people, know the power of private communication.  When a moderator added a group of IP addresses to the ban triggers in October, you unintentionally got caught up in that ban. It happens sometimes.  You privately contacted me and the matter was resolved with no forum drama.  You cannot, from personal experience, make any claim that your PMs have been  brushed off or not acted upon in a timely manner.  People who have legitimate forum issues such as glitches, errors, log in problems, etc. are given first priority.  Every person who PMed me with an antivirus data received prompt attention.

No, I think you have me confused with someone else. That story did not happen to me.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ms_Cellany on December 30, 2011, 09:51:12 AM
In the same way that one does not have to agree with every action the president takes to be a loyal American, I don't think one should have to agree with everything the administration here does and never ever express disagreement in order to be considered a loyal EHellion.

Big pod. This is the perfect analogy.

Excellent analogy. I've gotten a "Love it or leave it" vibe in recent months. "Strive to make it better" is a middle ground.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 10:15:34 AM

I would encourage anyone who's curious about all this to join the unofficial FB group, which is open to anyone and does not require you to disclose your ehell handle, and see what it's really about.

No, Ma'am, it is not an open group.  It is listed as "closed".  There is nothing public about it.  And I know I was on the group at one time and am no longer, not by my choice.  Also, I believe at least one other moderator, possibly two, were removed from the member lists as well.  In contrast, there are no secret groups on Ehell except the Staff folder. 

And we do know from people inside that closed group that when someone "shows Ehelldame up" on the forum (Spoder, for example), it gets discussed and there are high fives.  We know there was a screen shot posted a few days ago showing an Ehell Facebook wall post of a person "calling" me out on on my inability to kill said virus and how I don't care about the site or the people that visit.   The fact that these discussions exist and have the effect of encouraging those members of the closed group to troll or make trouble on Ehell so they return to congratulatory kudos means this is not a benign group of fellow knitters discussing their latest child rearing follies.     For anyone to claim this group does not promote and encourage troublemaking on the Ehell Facebook page or the forum is either wildly ignorant or barely visits or is disingenuous about the content and actions of some people on that group that are allowed to promote trouble on Ehell. 

Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: TheBardess on December 30, 2011, 10:20:48 AM

I would encourage anyone who's curious about all this to join the unofficial FB group, which is open to anyone and does not require you to disclose your ehell handle, and see what it's really about.

No, Ma'am, it is not an open group.  It is listed as "closed".  There is nothing public about it.  And I know I was on the group at one time and am no longer, not by my choice.  Also, I believe at least one other moderator, possibly two, were removed from the member lists as well.  In contrast, there are no secret groups on Ehell except the Staff folder. 


It is true that the group is closed so that only members can see posts. However, it is "open to everyone" in that anyone may request to join, and the admin of the group has stated several times that no membership requests are denied.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 10:32:15 AM
Her ban was lifted weeks ago, at least early November, by me, and she was notified of this.  She may not have received that email because I kept getting repeatedly contact from her asking to be unbanned well after she was.  However, I sometimes have bigger administrative fish to fry and do not have time to have repeated private communications over the same issues.  There are very patient, long suffering members who are due a response from their messages to me and I still haven't had the time for any replies other than a quick, "I haven't forgotten you," or a quick "I'll get back to you".

One of the things that gets discussed a lot on ehell is "training" people to behave in certain ways. What is clear from this quote is that you respond rapidly when addressed in public, and take a while to respond when sent a PM. We're all getting trained that public posts "work" in getting issues addressed and PMs don't. You say you want PMs but your actions--probably inadvertently--say the opposite.

In addition, I think people have a right to defend themselves publicly if they are criticized publicly.

You, of all people, know the power of private communication.  When a moderator added a group of IP addresses to the ban triggers in October, you unintentionally got caught up in that ban. It happens sometimes.  You privately contacted me and the matter was resolved with no forum drama.  You cannot, from personal experience, make any claim that your PMs have been  brushed off or not acted upon in a timely manner.  People who have legitimate forum issues such as glitches, errors, log in problems, etc. are given first priority.  Every person who PMed me with an antivirus data received prompt attention.

No, I think you have me confused with someone else. That story did not happen to me.

You are correct.  I apologize.  Your name is very similar to another's.   However, you do not have firsthand knowledge of contacting me personally and being rebuffed so your assertions are based on secondhand reports at best.   

Thread closed as this has once again derailed from the intended topic of the thread.
Title: Re: Malware Update/Apology
Post by: Ehelldame on December 30, 2011, 10:50:45 AM
Update:

Of the few screen shots I have received of AV alerting to an attack, the information they reveal is leading me to think there is a misunderstanding as to how browsers work. 

If you are viewing Ehell on one tab but have other tabs to other sites open as well, God only knows which site actually alerted to the attack.   I am viewing Ehell right at this moment on a tab in the Fire  Fox browser but I love hopping from site to site so I have about a dozen other tabs open as well.  *All* of the tabs are active and talking with my browser even though I may not be looking at any particular site at the moment.   A few of the screenshots show people viewing Ehell when their Av alerted that it blocked an intrusion but it also shows other tabs to Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, and other sites as being open as well. 

We need a screenshots where the only tab open and active is Ehell for there to be hope in identifying which Google Ad, assuming it is a Google Ad, that is trying to give malware. 

This particular malware has been given different names by the various AV companies but it is the same.  And it is epidemic across the Internet on even sites you would assume are safe.   Your best defense is to upgrade to a very good AV software, keep your definitions updated and scan weekly.