ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,329 
Likes: 11,549
|
Post by ilmoro on Dec 6, 2015 18:31:42 GMT
While james makes a valid point about the current situation regarding borrower names etc on the SS website what would be the consequences should SS change their approach & restrict or redact the info? The mods/admin (as only they could) would then have to trawl through all posts and redact all sensitive information. Personally Im amazed that SS allow such info to be visible to every Tom, Dick & Harriet Firstly because it must have data protection implications allowing private information about borrowers to be in the general public domain (at least one borrower is of a sensitive nature) Secondly because some of the information must be commercially sensitive both for the companies/individuals concerned - most are private companies whose general info is publically available via Companies House etc but not specifics ie borrowings are aggregated, SS refers to specific loans/projects - and for SS as competitors can identify who, what and how they lending and potentially gazunder them. SS is the only platform Im aware of that allows such info in the public domain - MT has some borrower names, AC nothing, ABL nothing, FS - nothing, even limited on site. Also while we have all agreed to some form of T&Cs restricting what we will disclose & the use we make of it, the general public hasnt. IMHO as someone for whom redaction generates the most work (keeping updates list, regularly posting update etc) I dont find it a particularly onerous task, even on a phone/tablet, so will carry on doing so. Pigheaded  |
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 6, 2015 19:13:24 GMT
Picking up on a few points made in this thread:
a) It is not 'some moderators' who are objecting, it is the considered view of the team at this time. Should that team view change, then so will the behaviours / responses of individual admin team members.
b) The 'exception' rule one poster has quoted was frankly included in order to give an 'out' for exceptional and reasonable circumstances. My interpretation of it was and currently remains that it was included so as to allow for situations such as publicity / marketing references to named borrowers, since it would be a bonkers situation if the rules prohibited naming a borrower that were the subject of e.g. a piece of marketing material.
c) The situation with SS is recent, and frankly until we know whether that situation is here to stay or is a transient one, the topic of whether SS should be an exception to other platforms is not worth more than passing consideration. For the moment the admin team have no intention of letting a situation arise whereby a whole raft of SS borrowers get mentioned across a swathe of posts, and subsequently SS goes 'whoopsey, perhaps that wasn't so clever', reverts, and this forum is left dangling in a somewhat uncomfortable position.
d) since there has never been any real benefit in publicly identifying borrowers rather than using a platforms loan identifier when discussing loans, deliberate naming of borrowers when knowing it is against the wishes of the Admin team is nothing other than willful goading.
e) It has been stated on other occasions, particularly when AC used to publicly show details of some of their borrowers, that another reason for enforcing the rule regardless was that if an exception was made for one platform it would tend to inadvertently influence behaviours generally. Even more so with regard to new members who would see what had been posted on one subb-board and think it OK to do it on another. This is not a situation we want to create.
|
|
mikes1531
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,453
Likes: 2,320
|
Post by mikes1531 on Dec 6, 2015 19:22:47 GMT
I don't understand the downside of referring to SS loans via their loan ID (PBL068, etc.); even on the FC board this works fine and there are thousands of loans there, not just 50 - 60. A general rule for message boards is that there are many readers for each post so it's good practice for a poster to link directly to information to make life as easy as possible for the readers. So if I was writing PBL068 I'd automatically go ahead and link that to the loan details page if there was a public one, just as I've done many times for private links to say Bondora that only a Bondora customer could follow successfully. I'd expect that a high percentage of posters would do the same and it also reduces the chance of misunderstanding which loan is meant. There's no demon aspect in naming borrowers when borrowers and platforms are content to be named, it's just that in most cases we've become used to neither wanting that and in most cases it's still so. I really can't see the downside of not naming borrowers, etc., so I'd be happy if the rules were changed to a blanket 'no name' policy. As for james's suggestion above that posters could include a link to a loan, such as PBL068, that would seem to be a good way to proceed if the poster wished to do that. It has the additional advantage that if a platform such as SS were to change their policy again, and revert to making such info available only if logged in, then those links would work subsequently only for those who had access to the data, which is exactly what should happen in that case. It certainly should relieve the concerns of moderators that they'd have to trawl through a zillion messages redacting references to info that was available to the general public at the time it was posted but subsequently withdrawn. At this point, it seems that SS are the 'odd one out'. IMHO, they made a mistake in making this data public, and I expect that they will revert to their previous policy -- eventually. The moderators are unpaid volunteers that are essential for us to have the benefit of this forum, and I really don't think we want to make their jobs any harder than they are already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 10:26:37 GMT
I see no need for the names on this site, the names accessible from within the portal allow us to carry our court case reviews, alternative directorships, administration orders etc while our interpretation of these is certainly nothing to be shared on these pages.
Of more critical interest would be, say to note how many student orientated housing developments there are going up in say Chester and that is hardly difficult to do with google. Though recent AB and C loans on a line of flats certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.
I'd keep it simple, loan numbers are easy to understand, people's names are not required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ton ⓉⓞⓃ on Dec 7, 2015 12:54:02 GMT
The rule as it stands it trying to achieve something or allow activities that not many want to do and in truth don't need to do. If anyone wants to talk about a loan just use the loan no or id. I can't see that there is a continuing need to name Borrowers.
In a way it's nice to see James correctly exercise his right to name Borrowers that the platforms have already named, but to me it's a bit like the right of Freemen of London to drive sheep across London Bridge. Nice but of no practical value, both these activities must and do cause chaos and confusion for other users of the roads and forum...
New Users and some old Users don't understand the rule, the rules should be easy to understand and easy to comply with. As is the rule implies, I would suggest, that Users need to go back to all their old post and regularly remove links and details (i.e. where the User names Borrowers) when platforms remove them from their sites perhaps because a loan has fallen into trouble. I note that SS seem to only show the newest dozen or so loans not all of them. Requiring Users to constantly go back to all their old posts checking that they're not accidentally naming a newly defaulting or litigious Borrower is an impossible requirement. It's not just SS, AC, LC & FC name Borrowers on their sites still. LC name their Borrowers when they post on this site!
As it's worded the rule tries to keeps us inside the law, perhaps just inside the law, I would say just up to the ragged edge of the law. I think the forum should be well away from that edge. If there were a compelling reason to state Borrowers names then perhaps we should go right up to the where we are legally allowed but I just don't see that reason, it's time the rule was updated/changed.
|
|
unmadem
Member of DD Central
Posts: 377
Likes: 181
|
Post by unmadem on Dec 7, 2015 14:16:42 GMT
savingstream , on the Pipelines Loan page would it be possible to indicate whether or not the valuation document and development prospectus were available? At the moment you have to check each loan to see.
Raised before savingstream with quite a bit of support there too so would be great if you can do it. Doesn't sound like a change which would be difficult to implement and it worked well on the old site. p2pindependentforum.com/post/75249
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Dec 8, 2015 11:31:11 GMT
This new website is a complete waste of time, takes about 30 seconds to "process the investment" by which time its gone.  |
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2015 11:46:08 GMT
This new website is a complete waste of time, takes about 30 seconds to "process the investment" by which time its gone. I've managed to pick up quite a few bits since 69 and 70 went live - hone your skills on the overdue loans, they tend to be a bit slower...
|
|
|
|
Post by savingstream on Dec 8, 2015 12:08:34 GMT
This new website is a complete waste of time, takes about 30 seconds to "process the investment" by which time its gone. Looking into it. Lots of processing going on in the background.
|
|
geoff
Member of DD Central
Posts: 54
Likes: 49
Member is Online
|
Post by geoff on Dec 8, 2015 12:31:36 GMT
savingstream No SMS or email notification for the latest new loan releases. If this is now your policy then you are, in my opinion, unfairly restricting the limited opportunity for SM purchases to a select band of permanently logged-on forum members and/or platform users. On the other hand maybe you just forgot this time.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 8, 2015 12:35:27 GMT
Yes, I received no SMS/email this time (but I was already online and alert).
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,807
Likes: 3,237
|
Post by jonno on Dec 8, 2015 12:39:37 GMT
Yes, I received no SMS/email this time (but I was already online and alert). Online and ALERT? Are you on something? 
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,014
Likes: 5,143
|
Post by adrianc on Dec 8, 2015 12:44:46 GMT
<shrug> This was received here...
Can't vouch for 70 or 71, because I removed my pre-fund after the other thread's sleuthery - and I'm not set up for SMS (no mobile signal here in the boonies), so don't know if that was working or not.
More general "New loans launched" email, covering all three, received - timestamp 13:23.
|
|
oldgrumpy
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,087
Likes: 3,233
|
Post by oldgrumpy on Dec 8, 2015 12:55:36 GMT
Yes, I received no SMS/email this time (but I was already online and alert). Online and ALERT? Are you on something? WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT?!!!! PAH! Attachments:
|
|
paulgul
Member of DD Central
Posts: 401
Likes: 92
|
Post by paulgul on Dec 8, 2015 13:06:15 GMT
This new website is a complete waste of time, takes about 30 seconds to "process the investment" by which time its gone. Looking into it. Lots of processing going on in the background. I did get a few bits in the end but it was certainly trying my patience
|
|
