twickster, what part of "private" don't you understand?

[magellan01]

In this thread twickster and I had this exchange:

[QUOTE=twickster]

Yes, the rectal suggestion was in a PM.

If you wish to say such things to a moderator, let me suggest that doing so while she is meditating on whether or not to remove the warning she just issued is probably not optimal timing.

[QUOTE=magellan01]
No question on the moderation, but isn’t the content of a Private Message supposed to be, you know, private?
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

In that thread, Gfactor asked that all further discussion about this be place here. So I’m responding to twickster here. Let me just add that I think the PMs, serve a useful function here. It allows people to communicate privately. Once PMs are no longer private, they become less useful.

@twickster

The system of warnings here is public, because this isn’t a police state. In order to keep that system operating publicly, we need to announce (1) the fact that a warning is issued, and (2) the reason for issuing that warning. In this instance, there was no way to take care of the second point without making the contents of the PM public, because he chose a PM to abuse me.

No. There is no need to divulge what the actual PM said. None. You just declaring it so does not make it so.

@twickster

This has come up before, but it bears repeating: a PM is like an email or any other communication, in which the sender has no guarantee that the recipient won’t tell another person what was in that message. In general, it should be considered bad form to quote someone’s PM, but it’s not against the rules, and in this case it was necessary to explain the reason that DG got a warning.

I guess we have different definitions of “necessary”. Very different. Yours seems to include some notion of “easier” or “helpful to you”.

@twickster

See above. Yes, I agree that keeping PMs private is preferable, and this is the first time (out of hundreds that I’ve sent and received here) that I’ve made one public. In this case, however, it was necessary.

No, it wasn’t. You simply could have said that he was warned because he was abusive to a Min in his PMs. Problem solved. And proof that divulging what he said wasn’t “necessary”.

@twickster

Would anyone actually have preferred it if I had said “DG received a warning for something he said to me in a PM, but I can’t tell you what he said”?

Yes. Because you would have been supporting the notion that PMs are private. That’s a much larger and more important issue than any one warning, even if it makes it a little easier for a Mod to explain himself in one particular instance.

FYI, here is our previous exchange:

[QUOTE=magellan01]
I’m surprised to hear that. First, the name overtly implies privacy. And I think that’s the reason for the feature’s existence. If PMs aren’t “private”, why have the feature. We already have public fora.

Second, a poster once innocently revealed some of a PM I had sent. Without any urging from me whatsoever (I don’t think I was even aware of her post at the time), a Mod politely explained to her the PMs were, in fact, private.

And even if there is no board “rule”, it seems that keeping them private is better behavior. And the mods should encourage better behavior not work against it. I don’t think its a big deal here, or even in the situation that I had, but it would cause me to use the helpful feature less if a PMs contents were apt to become public. I think it was a bad an unnecessary move, twickster.
[QUOTE=twickster]

Miller is correct, there is no requirement.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

[aldiboronti]

IMHO a person who sends an abusive PM forfeits any expectations of privacy.

[BigT]

Not only that, but, frankly, it’s the only way to keep jerks from abusing the PM system without just completely turning it off or moderating everyone’s PMs. Especially in a board so adverse to changes, like an actual PM rule.

Furthermore, if you act like a jerk, you’re violating the policy of this board. Why the heck can’t a moderator punish you by posting your jerkishness for all to see?

As far as I’m concerned, the World, and this message board in particular, has enough jerks in it. We need to cull as many as possible. The person most likely to be offended is the person who was stupid enough to send this. If it makes them mad, the worst they can do is something that would get them banned. And, if they aren’t going to reform, getting jerks banned is probably in the best interest of this board. If it adversely affects people who support jerkish behavior, that’s just a side benefit, as the such people are also jerks.

[Syntropy]

Oh, dear. aldiboronti, would you include mods & admins in that sweeping statement? I ask merely for informational purposes. Would you, for example, say that anyone short fused enough to blow a gasket and suspend someone because they used a direct quote from an abusive PM in, say, their signature quite possibly needs to step away and maybe hand their position off to someone else in order to avoid similar abuses of office in the future? Hypothetically as it were.

[twickster]

Syntropy, don’t be disingenuous.

Here is the most recent discussion of this issue. The bottom line is that it isn’t against the rules.

In this case, I made a judgment call that disclosing the specifics of the PM was in the best interest of transparent moderation.

If DG doesn’t want to be quoted as saying things like that, he probably shouldn’t say them.

[Syntropy]

twickster, I’m being anything but. I’m asking for an opinion from someone who did not, to my knowledge, post to any of those threads. And if you think it didn’t play a part, I suggest you go back and read Dex’s official statement about the subject here. Last sentence.

Either using information from a PM is okay or it isn’t. I’m unimpressed with the situational interpretations.

[Fenris]

Yup. I agree.

The fact that the term “private” is in the name of the type of message describes how it’s sent and nothing more. The word “private” doesn’t shield a poster and allow them to send abusive mail.

[Fenris]

Yup. I agree.

The fact that the term “private” is in the name of the type of message describes how it’s sent and nothing more. The word “private” doesn’t shield a poster and allow them to send abusive mail.

[CarnalK]

I suppose, Syntropy, you are cleverly ('oh, dear"? ffs) alluding to the Seven incident a while back. Did aldiboronti actually defend Seven there? Or are you just trying to trick him into an admission of hypocrisy? Why don’t you just give a link instead of expected us to check your facts for you. The search here sucks too much for that.

I certainly felt it was right that I should let Dopers know when I was called a shit-sprayer when it was sent by Admins in email and I think Seven was within his rights when he used that bit from a PM as his sig. When people are antagonizing from behind the scenes we only do the antagonizers a favour by keeping it private. Fuck that.

[Fenris]

Heh–those two posts were made about 25 minutes ago when aldiboronti’s response was the only one. And yes, I only pushed the “Post Quick Reply” button once.

[aldiboronti]

Beats me what **Syntropy ** is alluding to. As far as I can recall I took no part in the Seven business.

And why on earth would I need to have posted to the thread under discussion here to have an opinion on privacy in PMs?

[Syntropy]

@CarnalK

I suppose, Syntropy, you are cleverly ('oh, dear"? ffs) alluding to the Seven incident a while back. Did aldiboronti actually defend Seven there? Or are you just trying to trick him into an admission of hypocrisy? Why don’t you just give a link instead of expected us to check your facts for you. The search here sucks too much for that.

No. I looked back through the thread (Why was Seven banned?) and noticed he did not post at all. It occurred to me I might actually get a reasoned, semi-objective response. So, no link to give.

I certainly felt it was right that I should let Dopers know when I was called a shit-sprayer when it was sent by Admins in email and I think Seven was within his rights when he used that bit from a PM as his sig. When people are antagonizing from behind the scenes we only do the antagonizers a favour by keeping it private. Fuck that.

And I agree. Why should moderator reputations be kept lily white when they have no compunction to respect posters’ reputations or privacy? Had I been posting at that time I would have given you my full support in that.

ETA: aldiboronti; I simply wanted to know if you agreed mods and admins should be included in that rule or if they should be exempt. Since you had no dog in the fight, I would respect your opinion as unbiased.

[DudleyGarrett]

[QUOTE=twickster]

If DG doesn’t want to be quoted as saying things like that, he probably shouldn’t say them.
[/QUOTE]

Stop that shit, please. If you have nothing else to say to me as you put it, then leave me out of this discussion.

[twickster]

I was responding to magellan01. If you want people to stop discussing this, take it up with him or her.

[magellan01]

@Fenris

Yup. I agree.

The fact that the term “private” is in the name of the type of message describes how it’s sent and nothing more. The word “private” doesn’t shield a poster and allow them to send abusive mail.

Even if the message is kept private, their is no shield. If they abuse a Mod, the mod can issue a warning or ban them. If they abuse another poster, that poster can share the PM with the Mod and the Mod can take whatever action appropriate.

[tacoloco]

If someone sends me a PM and acts like a jerkoff, then they have no reason to bitch when I let other people know now much of a jerkoff they are.

[magellan01]

@twickster

Syntropy, don’t be disingenuous.

Here is the most recent discussion of this issue. The bottom line is that it isn’t against the rules.

In this case, I made a judgment call that disclosing the specifics of the PM was in the best interest of transparent moderation.

If DG doesn’t want to be quoted as saying things like that, he probably shouldn’t say them.

Excuse me for saying so, but this is bullshit. Just because you don’t like what a poster says in a PM does not give you license to share that information. THAT is the fucking point of PRIVATE Messaging someone.

You took the easy way out here and are now trying to justify it. It ain’t flying. Sorry. But no one should share the contents of a PM with public unless authorized to do so. And your claim that it was “necessary” is nonsense, even if you retroactively attempt to apply the suddenly Holy Criterion of “transparent moderation”.

I noticed you chose not to respond to the majority of my comments, particulalry the one about how a Mod had admonished someone for innocently divulging the contents of my PM to her with no prodding.

As far as your “not against the rules” defense. It’s not against “the rules” to share information a friend tells you in confidence. Do you get to share that to because you don’t like what he said?

[Cat_Whisperer]

I can see both sides to this argument (that the PMs are private, period, and that only the method of sending PMs are private); my request is that we decide on one and stick to it. Either PMs are completely private or they aren’t. I will adjust the things I say in PMs accordingly once I know if I can reasonably expect privacy or not.

[CarnalK]

@magellan01

As far as your “not against the rules” defense. It’s not against “the rules” to share information a friend tells you in confidence. Do you get to share that to because you don’t like what he said?

The difference is that you accepted the friend’s comments in confidence, there isn’t really that expectation with unsolicited correspondence. Yes, even if the vB function is called Private Messaging.

[aldiboronti]

@Syntropy

ETA: aldiboronti; I simply wanted to know if you agreed mods and admins should be included in that rule or if they should be exempt. Since you had no dog in the fight, I would respect your opinion as unbiased.

Well, yes, if a mod or admin used abusive language to a member in a PM I’d expect it to be reported and I think the member would be justified in making the content public. Bear in mind I’m talking about abusive language here, not accusations of trolling, etc. To be truthful I can’t imagine a mod here resorting to such abuse anyway, but if they did then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.