Thanks for the clarification. However, I've witnessed some clubs abuse admin privileges due to bias, conflicts of interest, etc. Thus, it seems unfair that innocent members could be blacklisted from all Toastmasters clubs due to an admin abusing this authority for his/her club.
I also understand the value of transparency. However, some valued members have had their identities stolen, abused, etc. Based on what the Pathways project on Building a Social Media Presence teaches us on privacy, we should not be revealing names, email addresses, and other info for web crawlers, hackers, etc. Thus, there should be some way for these valued members to communicate on sensitive or complex matters without revealing their contact info for your team to troubleshoot the black list issues accordingly.
It also seems that clubs should only be able to white and black list members for their club. Likewise, if FTH gives an abusive admin the right to black list an innocent member from all clubs, there should be a system of checks and balances for victims to report the club and/or admin for preventing this from recurring for more innocent members and potentially removing themselves from black lists to communicate with fellow Toastmasters as a valued members by others in the club (regardless of an admin's preferences and power).
Then, FTH may have more of a balanced, holistic perspective for deciding whether the email address in question belongs in the "Crowd-Sourced" Email Black List or the admin is abusing their authority. Moreover, it makes sense if FreeToastHost (FTH) witnesses bad behavior across multiple clubs to add these email addresses to the Crowd-Sourced Email Black List. Unlike FTH, clubs don't have access to this data to warrant having this privilege act beyond their club except to report these individuals for FTH to decide and update this "Crowd-Sourced" email black list.
Last edit: 4 years 6 months ago by virtual.parliamentarians.
The topic has been locked.