Constitutional Review

[Demon17 5,091]

17 hours ago, Bozo said:

Much like the result of this years tiresome back slapping and self congratulation over last years success as if that somehow indicates or gaurantees subsequent Premierships?

I have news for you...We failed BADLY this season despite attempts by many at creating a narrative that suggests all is rosey.

Second on the ladder at the conclusion of the home and away season for sure but then straight set finals losses is hardly something to be proud of. We didn't even look close for the second half of the year.

If you don't have what it takes when it matters everything else is just [censored].

The details matter whether they regard the constitution, the list depth, appropriate fitness,  or faith in an game plan that lacks subtlety and is egregiously flawed tactically. Why did they persist so? Where was the creativity and gall required to address the obvious flaw in the plan?

I remain unconvinced that we deserve to win again or indeed that we will anytime soon.

 

 

The above wasn't news to me at all.  Even in the first half 10 win run you could see they were running on 5 cylinders, not 8.

Then a whole lot of issues caught them out.

My comments were just lisitng the position the club is nmow in c.f. the disasters I have lived through watching them live for so long.

[Demon17 5,091]

19 hours ago, Palace Dees said:

I guess the answer to some on here is that the MFC current Board, AND the bloody Romans, have done nothing.

Not true though as we both know....

At least the Romans brought peace.

[Demon17 5,091]

15 hours ago, Its Time for Another said:

Fido is the name of a dog and Daffy a duck. I was ironically implying his dog and duck are the other members of his group. I wasn't disparaging any humans. 
 

Your comment above I have extracted highlights the key issue here. Why are members getting worked up and supporting a group about which we know nothing w.r.t personnel, backgrounds, or really just any shred of info.

Transparency my a.....e.

They may well be Fido and Daffy as you say - we have no idea of knowing.

Good one ITA.

[Its Time for Another 4,088]

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

How does having your email address equate to an increase risk of having your email hacked? Rhetorical question; it doesn't. It equates to an increased risk of receiving some emails - that's it. Your email address is everywhere. You used it to register your Demonland account. As an admin, I could click on your profile right now, see it, and email you. 

It's completely ridiculous to compare this to the Optus and Medibank breaches. He doesn't have all your personal data. He has your name, your address, and your email address. The Optus and Medibank breaches gave enough personal data that in the wrong hands, could result in mass identity theft. That's not a plausible concern here.

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. 

It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. 

This is starting to go around in circles. In summary some people like you and Tim and Dr G evidently don't care at all about the risk of this data being in the hands of Lawrence and his faceless group. Others like me do care. I've asked for their details and a description of their cyber security. They ignored the requests. They are faceless and practice being unaccountable. There's plenty of other risks of having personal addresses and emails hacked. Maybe in a community of 66,000 there's domestic abuse sufferers who don't want their details exposed. Maybe people with personal security risks. Maybe these people like most of us didn't know that an MFC membership exposes their details to someone like Lawrence. He was given the option at the end of the court case for the club to send out his emails so our data wouldn't be at risk from him. He insisted on getting our data for himself. Why? Don't you think we should have a democratic right to decide where our data gets used and that right is greater than his right to pursue his personal agendas for the Club.

[drysdale demon 4,703]

21 minutes ago, Dante said:

Would it surprise you that some of the current members of the board are also financial backers of the club, does that make them liniment sniffers as well?

Not at all, to me it is just the way he is going about it to get on the board, it is though his ego is a bit damaged i due to  past unsuccessful  attempts. That is my opinion and nothing will change that.

[Its Time for Another 4,088]

30 minutes ago, Dante said:

Ok then, so that's just your opinion, no basis of fact at all.

Carry on.

Thought I'd been careful by saying "might" that it was clear it's my opinion. We're on a forum. But I will say it's my opinion developed from the facts of his conduct. I've never met him. He might be dee-lightful for all I know but the deemocracy he practices certainly isn't democracy or transparency or accountability. "In my opinion" his actions are deestructive not constructive. 

Edited October 26, 2022 by Its Time for Another

[Ugottobekidding 1,056]

12 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. 

It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. 

This is starting to go around in circles. In summary some people like you and Tim and Dr G evidently don't care at all about the risk of this data being in the hands of Lawrence and his faceless group. Others like me do care. I've asked for their details and a description of their cyber security. They ignored the requests. They are faceless and practice being unaccountable. There's plenty of other risks of having personal addresses and emails hacked. Maybe in a community of 66,000 there's domestic abuse sufferers who don't want their details exposed. Maybe people with personal security risks. Maybe these people like most of us didn't know that an MFC membership exposes their details to someone like Lawrence. He was given the option at the end of the court case for the club to send out his emails so our data wouldn't be at risk from him. He insisted on getting our data for himself. Why? Don't you think we should have a democratic right to decide where our data gets used and that right is greater than his right to pursue his personal agendas for the Club.

Faceless group of Russian operatives. They only have your email address, not your bank account passwords. Judging from the amount of junkmail I get, many people have my address. You most likely have more data than that circulating the dark web.

[Nasher 33,607]

20 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. 

You told a cautionary tale about how your email was hacked and it caused you a great deal of damage, in the context of a thread discussing a member having access to your email address. I drew an inference that you saw this as being a risk here. I'm not misrepresenting you, I think that inference is reasonable. If it's not what you were trying to communicate, then I can't draw any other link between what you've posted and the topic at hand.

20 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. 

You said this: "This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data". He has not got yours or anyone's personal data. Optus and Medibank have your personal data. 

20 minutes ago, Its Time for Another said:

Nasher all respect to you but please if you're going to respond to my Posts please represent them accurately. In my post I explained that the damage I suffered was caused by the hackers hijacking my email address and sending emails out using my email address. That was what caused all the problems not them sending emails to me. I don't know how it is done but it is a well known hack. 

It's clear from my post I talked about Optus and Medibank and Lawrence in the context of each ones cyber security. I didn't compare the type of data that is exposed. I also didn't say all my data. My grammar was poor when I said all our data what I meant was the data of all 66,000 of us. 

This is starting to go around in circles. In summary some people like you and Tim and Dr G evidently don't care at all about the risk of this data being in the hands of Lawrence and his faceless group. Others like me do care. I've asked for their details and a description of their cyber security. They ignored the requests. They are faceless and practice being unaccountable. There's plenty of other risks of having personal addresses and emails hacked. Maybe in a community of 66,000 there's domestic abuse sufferers who don't want their details exposed. Maybe people with personal security risks. Maybe these people like most of us didn't know that an MFC membership exposes their details to someone like Lawrence. He was given the option at the end of the court case for the club to send out his emails so our data wouldn't be at risk from him. He insisted on getting our data for himself. Why? Don't you think we should have a democratic right to decide where our data gets used and that right is greater than his right to pursue his personal agendas for the Club.

To be honest I think a request for documentation on how they are going to manage the list of email addresses they have been given going forward, is quite reasonable. I just don't think there's any plausible threat or danger to have come from him/them having my email address, and I think people are being a bit selective about their concerns when in reality, your email address is likely everywhere.

[Its Time for Another 4,088]

2 minutes ago, Nasher said:

You told a cautionary tale about how your email was hacked and it caused you a great deal of damage, in the context of a thread discussing a member having access to your email address. I drew an inference that you saw this as being a risk here. I'm not misrepresenting you, I think that inference is reasonable. If it's not what you were trying to communicate, then I can't draw any other link between what you've posted and the topic at hand.

You said this: "This joker has got front page publicity in national newspapers about getting all our personal data". He has not got yours or anyone's personal data. Optus and Medibank have your personal data. 

To be honest I a request for documentation on how they are going to manage the list of email addresses they have been given going forward, is quite reasonable. I just don't think there's any plausible threat or danger to have come from him/them having it. 

I don't really understand your first paragraph. If by here you mean demonland. I was not referring to demonland. You raised the damage as being caused by receiving emails, I explained it was about people sending emails. Not sure how you don't see what happened to me as being a threat but each to his own. 

I call my personal address my personal data. For personal reasons we have to be very careful about our home address getting into the public domain. I am now going to have to speak to the club about how I can be a member and not have my personal address on their database. 

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree about him getting our data. It would have been far more acceptable to me for the outcome of his court case to be that the club sent out an email saying he wanted to contact us and providing his email for us to respond to him and say we do or don't want him to contact us or have our data. 

I don't know where this is going to leave us going forward and what we are going to have to do about it. We now know if we are members of the Melbourne Football Club any other random member can get what you don't call but I call our personal details that I don't want them to have. I think you would find that a majority of people in the community would regard their private address as personal information that they don't want released to anyone without their permission.  

[Its Time for Another 4,088]

31 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Faceless group of Russian operatives. They only have your email address, not your bank account passwords. Judging from the amount of junkmail I get, many people have my address. You most likely have more data than that circulating the dark web.

Email addresses together with our names and private home addresses

[daisycutter 29,343]

the combination of email address linked to a physical address and name can be quite powerful

i could be quite anonymous with just a name and/or email address. nobody could easily find me. i could be anywhere in australia or even the world.

but now someone who wants to harm me (physically or otherwise), for some slight either current or in the deep past, can possibly track me down, all without leaving their keyboard, by just knowing those three items.

any and all info about you when put together exposes you. email address, name and home address might seem relatively minor but it is the thin edge of the sword that enables a starting point to build on for someone who doesn't think like you.

[Ugottobekidding 1,056]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

the combination of email address linked to a physical address and name can be quite powerful

i could be quite anonymous with just a name and/or email address. nobody could easily find me. i could be anywhere in australia or even the world.

but now someone who wants to harm me (physically or otherwise), for some slight either currentsl or in the deep past, can possibly track me down, all without leaving their keyboard, by just knowing those three items.

any and all info about you when put together exposes you. email address, name and home address might seem relatively minor but it is the thin edge of the sword that enables a starting point to build on for someone who doesn't think like you.

Seemingly as the court case proves, emails are seperate. There is no way you could link [email protected] with someones real name and address.

[Lord Nev 13,512]

46 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Seemingly as the court case proves, emails are seperate. There is no way you could link [email protected] with someones real name and address.

Unless you're going to show us all the specific document(s) provided there's no way to say exactly how it was provided.

Perhaps emails and addresses were separate, perhaps names were provided alongside the emails, perhaps they were all together, it hasn't really been clarified.

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

22 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Unless you're going to show us all the specific document(s) provided there's no way to say exactly how it was provided.

Perhaps emails and addresses were separate, perhaps names were provided alongside the emails, perhaps they were all together, it hasn't really been clarified.

Suspect both sets of info had some common identifier as you suggest

Should have just sent on behalf to begin with, all would have been avoided 

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

Kate Roffey  "except I suspect Joey from Moe is likely not an MCC member"

OMG... 🤔

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

Great question on why not provide members options within the vote

Could have provided FOR and AGAINST option by item, or by logically grouped items similar to layout of explanatory memo

[Supermercado 2,784]

I don't agree with @george_on_the_outer about this topic but was still starstruck by seeing him live. 

[Lord Nev 13,512]

45 minutes ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Suspect both sets of info had some common identifier as you suggest

Should have just sent on behalf to begin with, all would have been avoided 

I don't know if they did or didn't, or exactly how the data was provided, so not really suggesting either way.

[daisycutter 29,343]

1 hour ago, Ugottobekidding said:

Seemingly as the court case proves, emails are seperate. There is no way you could link [email protected] with someones real name and address.

1. not everyone has a cryptic email address. even if only some have their real name in their email that's still a risk for them. 

2. i believe his supplied data is supplied already linked (but i don't know for sure)

3. i said the combination of name or email and home address would be enough 

whichever way you look at it at least some if not most members could be exposed

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

Resolution passed

3907 voted

84.1%

[Lord Nev 13,512]

 

[Matt Demon 1,407]

Anything mentioned about a home base / training facility?

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

2 minutes ago, Matt Demon said:

Anything mentioned about a home base / training facility?

Nope

Very much on point, as directed and as appropriate for the special meeting 

[BDA 22,311]

84% is pretty comprehensive. Hopefully no more board related distraction for a while. The focus should be on our teams

[Graeme Yeats' Mullet 6,723]

All the questions from the floor were good I thought. Didn't count numbers, but would say 7-8 people

With maybe 4-5 specifically focussed on the Nominations 20+ number, 1 around the presence of the preamble, 1 on electioneering, 1 on all/nothing vs options, 1 on voting procedure

I was surprised to hear the working group added the Nominations amendments after member input - would love to know some stats as to how many gave feedback in either direction as thats clearly the divisive point... My gut tells me they heard what they wanted to hear