Abstaining from ranking

[nazgob]

So, from a GDPR perspective, I'd think Dreamscreator has made the best suggestion. An anonymous nonNaf member could be used to record all games. This should always have a reading of 150 and would allow everyone to gain ranking when playing non members. Alternatively, the game could be recorded for the 24 (26) without affecting rankings if that were preferred.

My suggestion for anyone who wanted to remove themselves from the NAF would be for all of their games to be amalgamated into that non-member member.

To remove their games would be to unfairly disadvantage all of those who had played them previously. For example, I have played Member A, who is leaving. If his games were deleted, then I would lose the benefit of that ranking. It would also mess up everyone else's ranking who I had played since that game against Member A.

To be compliant, my opinion is that anonymity in this manner would be sufficient, while also being fair to other users.

For the record though, it is important to remember that any information made publicly available by Member A on any forum/public arena, or about Member A by any other member on any forum/public arena would not have to be deleted. That public data might also make it impossible to anonymise the personal data of Member A held by the NAF.

[sann0638]

This is not a straightforward change to the database, and has been discussed a few times. But I'm in a crappy mood, so probably best not to post...

[mepmuff]

For the record though, it is important to remember that any information made publicly available by Member A on any forum/public arena, or about Member A by any other member on any forum/public arena would not have to be deleted. That public data might also make it impossible to anonymise the personal data of Member A held by the NAF.

False. The NAF needs to provide a reason to keep said personal data. That data being available in the public domain does not give them the right to store or otherwise process that data without the subject's consent.

[sann0638]

We have some professional guys looking at gdpr. This is a red herring from the other issue.

[nazgob]

Mepmuff, that's interesting; not my area of expertise, but what you say Congress with my understanding. I thought that if data was made public, that would make a difference. Of to do some more reading.

Sann, fair enough. I for one would be interested to know the answer from your professionals, though.

[frogboy]

If you dont renew your membership though Darkson, or even if you do in my case, you could be locked out of the NAF... forever

Screenshot_20180114-195520.png

[Glowworm]

Some do, so don't. The ARBBL has always had a cheaper ticket price for members, but joining was never complusory.
But then there are issues with forcibly signing people up (Data Protection for one) - you can't force someone to join if they don't want to.
A tournament can insist the your a member to attend.

This.

Jeez Simon, heres an idea, choose someone elses tournament to vent your ire, mines a friendly fun event, not ultra competative, youve been before, you know the score, i thank you for all the support and on a personal level i like you but this has gone far enough, Ill not "fix the draw" so you dont play Khorne or Bretts, Ill not "discount" games so other people miss out on ranking or crossing another team off thier 24 (26?) so if your not a NAF member and dont want to renew on the day ill refund your entry fee in full and wish you well Ive got better things to do than pander to your ego when there are 50+ others out there happy with the situatuion, this goes for frogboy as well BTW, stop flaming and spamming and try to be constructive, shame on you both!!

[Darkson]

Whoop! Will you also refund my day's holiday, the travel etc etc? When I signed up for your event (early on) there was zero indication that you were going to add the 2 new races, nor was there any indication the NAF was going to change it's 15yo policy that a) a member could request not to be ranked and b) non-members couldn't be forced to be ranked. You also never said that you had to be a NAF member.

And I am being constructive - based on my (non-expert, but I have to do it for work) the NAF could be getting itself into issues with the Data Protection Act (UK and EU, can't say for the RoW) and the upcoming replacement by recording information that they've been asked not to by non-members.
Given that this change was pushed through without any discussion, for no good reason (and I'm talking about non-members here, not members asking not to be ranked at an event), along with the potential Data Protection issues , and despite Sann's defensive criticism, I am being nothing but constructive.

Either way, I'll be taking up Gaxio's offer to permanently deactivate my account, so I still won't be ranked.


@frogboy - that's ok, I don't intend to be in the NAF until B&K are removed or made official by GW.

[Glowworm]

Whoop! Will you also refund my day's holiday, the travel etc etc? .

holidays can be changed or cancelled, never met an employer yet that was that inflexable.... and i doubt youve bought the tickets or fuel to travel in April recently, so lets not go down that road.

will be interested to see if you attend the WC4 or the NAFC? im assuming not but it would be nice to see you

[Darkson]

Nope, already dropped out of the Exiles (potential) WC squad.

And this isn't just about your tournament, you're just unfortunately the first one I'm attending after my NAF runs out (other than my own, which I shouldn't be playing in, but will be unranked if I do). Also missing a few events I could have gone to (Thor's, Bag of Holding) because of B&K/forced NAF/both.

[Heff]

A non member of the naf is someone who has never had a naf number. There has never been a need for a category of someone renouncing their naf number.

Darkson needs to get some nails and hammer his 95 theses about the nature of the NAF and the effectiveness of Indulgences (Naf Dice) on the door of Sanns House. FFS people this is Toy Soldiers, you don't hear me whining about dwarves...oh

[nazgob]

But you still played against my guard spamming munchkins without too much complaint

Seconded on the toy soldiers.

[Heff]

But you still played against my guard spamming munchkins without too much complaint

Seconded on the toy soldiers.

Because they are a legal team. Quorne and Brattonians are also sanctioned by the organising body. Now we can have a debate as to whether they SHOULD have been, and whether we should have had the vote NOW, but hey we had a little poll and 500 who bothered to vote said YEAH lets have them. So I will play them. I might think they are un-neccessary and stupid but so are dwarves. I might tell you in no uncertain terms why they are stupid but I will play them. And you know what I will have more fun playing them than I will those countless games against bleedin dwarves!

[Willi]

I love this thread. Not for the discussion about being a member or not and having your games recorded or not but for the GDPR discussion.

Being a data protection officer myself I have gathered a bit of experience about that matter. ATM I am in the process of implementing the changes brought by the GDPR in our company and the issue with deleting data has of course come up.

The question here ist, which data has to be deleted if a person (member A) asks to have his personal data deleted.
Supposing the NAF has no right to keep the data (anymore) the personal data has to be removed. This means all data through which you can identify a person, so his personal information in his account have to be removed of course.
The same goes for his NAF name and number as through this data a person can easily be identified (by looking into the NAFs own data). A more difficult question is the games itself, as by keeping the games in the database you could argue that by checking the result of "former member" in a given tournament and asking his opponents who he is, you could still identify him.
However data protection experts have not yet come to a solution about that and it will probably take a couple of years until we know more about that when the European Court has ruled about this (although not in Darksons case as he will be out of the EU by then ).

So the suggestion to have one "Non-member" ranking always staying at 150 to have the games played against former members who want to have their data removed seems good to me from a GDPR point of view.
Also it might be necessary to change the NAF charter to allow the NAF to keep the data until the former member asks to have the data removed and have a waiting period after that request in the charter as well.

Anyway the GDPR is lots of fun imho.

[Vanguard]

Disclaimer: Another data guy here, not an expert but dealing with GDPR ramifications currently.

I believe the easiest solution is to make it part of NAF sanctioning that the rulepack includes the disclaimer that all participants agree to there results and name/email address being recorded. That nice and unambiguous. It is then down to coaches and TOs to decide how they run or attend tournaments. Other organised play (Fantasy Flight for example) tournaments follow this kind of route.

The NAF records matches for the purposes of providing coach rankings and a historical record fo Tournaments. It is a necessary part of that that matches played by the same coach can be linked together, so an identifying attribute (NAF ID) is required. Arbitrarily removing matches from the records or reallocating them to a fixed 150 ranked ID would severely disrupt the current rankings.
Removing personal data from a NAF account would leave only a NAF number which would not identify a person on it's own, and could be changed to a randomly generated number if there was a concern around it still being linked through outside data. Although that's arguably outside the NAF's domain.

Data must be held for no longer than necessary, but there is no limit to this. For the purposes of maintaining match records, it would always be necessary to retain the data.

inidviduals have "a right to object to processing that is likely to cause or is causing damage or distress" and "a right in certain circumstances to have inaccurate personal data rectified, blocked, erased or destroyed", neither of which I believe would apply to the NAF. (No matter how much your sub 150 rating may upset you. )

Allocating matches to a 'Non NAF' ID where the coach is not a registered member may be possible, but should not be included in Rankings calculations.

I believe the NAF would be covered by the Legitimate Interest justification (more info) of the GDPR in terms of why they are retaining the data.