This. It was a message as an Admin, and that is something that involves us all. So Seven was entirely correct in quoting it for all to see. Don’t want your ass hanging out in the wind? Then don’t use PMs to attack a customer.
As I’ve said before, I believe people have been warned for it in the past, so there’s an understanding it’s against the rules. I can’t remember any such warnings myself because I can’t remember the last time it even came up. And on top of that, we prefer not to warn people in private. It’s happened a few times, but we try not to do that. If a poster has an issue with a warning I’d rather the warning itself be public so the poster not feel pressured to keep it quiet.
As a mod stating my opinion rather than speaking for the group, I think it makes sense for us to act if private messaging rises to the level of harrassment, but we’re not in the business of policing everybody’s private conversations. We can’t read them and I don’t think we want to go there because of the privacy issue and the time involved. And as I see it, the main reason we police insults is that they detract from threads, which is not the case with a private message even if it’s insulting.
If someone is harrassing you by private message, I’d say the recourse is to tell the mods and not to post it publicly. And I think the idea that if you are rude, you lose the expectation of privacy is ridiculous. The idea that TubaDiva was near or over such a line and had no expectation of privacy I can only say is bullshit. Seven asked her a question in private and she had no reason to expect her answer would be made public.
I’ve said this several times, but the issue with Seven as far as I was concerned is not that he quoted someone’s private message or a PM from an administrator, it’s that the comment he quoted was a clear signal he was trolling. But as the guy who wrote up the banning announcement I never tried to hang it on the fact that it was from a PM. If his sig had said “I am here only to snark, troll and annoy” or whatever, that would have earned much the same response since I think the message would have been the same. Since this is a controversial point on its own perhaps we should leave it for another thread.
I may be off base, but it seems the sticking point is that both of the people involved are members of this board.
I have seen people post portions of emails they have received from coworkers and family members asking for advice. They probably did not receive permission to post those emails.
Why would they need to?
The OP’s question was:
Is an email not private correspondence? How is it less invasive than posting portions of a private message except that one party is not aware it has been made public? Were both parties not members of the same board, it would not be a sticking point.
While it may be a breach of etiquette, I don’t think it’s a moderating concern unless perhaps you’re giving out someone’s credit card info. Being a jerk in real life sucks, too, but we’re only concerned with people acting like jerks on this message board.
I am not really following the Seven thing, so don’t take this as any sort of comment on that situation.
I don’t think anyone has the right to bind someone else to secrets just by sending something in an email or private message–and it’s not just hate mail or threats that bother me, either. Suppose I’m involved in a thread about race and someone PMs me "I can’t say this aloud, but [horrible racist diatribe], I don’t think I’m being a jerk if I call them on it publicly, or if I forward the PM to other people in the thread and say “don’t bother engaging so-and-so, this is what they really think”. Or let’s say someone reveals in a PM that they have been lying about something–if I stay silent when they lie about it in the future, I’d feel like I was part of it.
To me, when you tell someone something you give them the right to repeat your words. The only exception is when you’ve asked for confidentiality. In some relationships and contexts that confidentiality is assumed–coworkers gripping about the boss, say–but I don’t think it’s automatic for PMs or emails, especially when they are conversations between people that are not friends.
First of all, Marley, I genuinely appreciate that you are spending so much of your time trying to explain things over the last couple of days. I would like it if we keep the answer to my questions to the general case. Obviously, this was inspired by the Seven incident but I am asking about what should happen in the future.
If I understand you correctly, we are not allowed to post the contents of a PM received on the SDMB from anyone, staff and posters alike, unless we get permission from the sender. Correct?
Does the same apply for an email received from a Doper or Dope Staffer?
Would we expect to be warned or punished if we post a PM somewhere else that was received here? I know that people have been banned in the past, and rightfully so, for threatening true harm to the SDMB in their blog.
Then… why is it different if one is posting non confidential portions of pm’s if not that it’s because they’re both members of the same board? Because…if you’re a jerk for posting that here, then surely you’re a jerk for posting private emails here too, no? Really not trying to be obnoxious; I don’t see any other distinction.
I’m offering one moderator’s opinion right now, but I don’t think you would be allowed to post a PM from anyone, staff or not, in most cases. A charitable appeal would be overlooked, I think.
It seems to me that the idea of an exception for PMs from staffers is being offered as a way to excuse Seven for his actions, so I’m not buying it. I think mods have an expectation of privacy as well.
Why would we find out about it? If it’s a threat to the board and we found out about it, maybe. Otherwise we usually don’t pay attention to what happens on other boards.
Again, from a moderating standpoint I’m concerned about the privacy of members of the SDMB, and that’s it. It might be rude to share someone else’s email here but I don’t think we have to protect the privacy of people who don’t post here, the same way we don’t warn people for insulting people who don’t post here.
Eh, I don’t know Marley, it seems like mods could easily prohibit both. I will say that with PMs, the implication that they not be shared is easier to draw (after all, if that weren’t the sender’s reason for the PM, why wouldn’t the send just post the information). But there is another way: the mods just won’t get involved in deciding what was meant as postable and non-postable information in emails and PMs. This rule requires the sender–rather than the mods (a not unimportant benefit, I would think)–to do the work of keeping private information private, namely by being selective in choosing the recipients, the contents, and the tone of the PM.
And in time, members will get a sense of who can be trusted to keep PM secret and who cannot, and they’ll adjust the PMing strategies accordingly. Now and again, people will get a bit of an unpleasant surprise, but that’s life, isn’t it? And I’d reiterate, I’m not sure the mod effort in monitoring and enforcing the rule is worth the dubious payoff it seems to afford.
To my mind, if someone sends me a personal message (PM or email) based on a posting on a board, it is usually so as not to clutter up the board with fluff.
“I like your avatar” or “Are you the Scruff who is PokerScruff on …” or even “God, that EmmaPeeling woman is a bitch*” are the sort of thing that I might get. Equally I might get or send something along the lines of “I pity the electrons that died displaying that post on my screen”.
My assertion is that the recipient of the note can be expected to do anything with it, (except change the content surreptitiously) and I have no recourse.
I am very surprised at the statement that the rule is different here.
- AFAIK there is no such poster
At the moment, it comes up so rarely that I’m not concerned about the effort involved. But we’ll see. Now that it’s been subject to debate perhaps the temptation to post PMs will just be irresistable.
Since I’m the one who inadvertently kicked off this controversy, let me give a definitive answer:
**[mod hat on]
There is no published SDMB rule against posting the contents of private messages or emails.
I said there was in another thread, because I thought there was. I was wrong, said so in that thread, and apologized. The above answer is definitive.
[mod hat off]**
Now, with my “just a longtime member” hat on, I think there bloody well ought to be such a rule. Posting the contents of someone else’s private message is a breach of etiquette at best and a violation of federal copyright law at worst (reality is somewhere between those two extremes).
I like the idea that when someone privately asks me a question, I can respond to them privately and my response doesn’t end up plastered all over the Internet. I am a regular human being, and what I say to my buddies over a beer is not necessarily the same thing I’d say in a prepared statement in a press conference.
Fortunately or unfortunately (you make the call), we are swiftly moving toward a society where everything you do might as well happen at a press conference. It’s been over a decade since Scott McNealy of Sun Microsystems said “You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it.”
It may be inevitable, but it still bothers me, and I haven’t gotten over it.
I think what you are saying is that in the specific case of Seven, his posting of that PM was jerkish. If another PM was posted, you’d have to make a decision based on the circumstances. It’s not a hard and fast rule but it’s probably going to get you spanked.
Back before your time as a Mod but I think in your time as a poster, someone was banned because while they were on suspension they said on their Live Journal that they were going to “hack the boards.” Someone reported it and they were banned. I think it was techchick. I recall that someone else threatened to sue the Dope on their LJ and was banned.
In another case, someone was banned and they made a sock sometime later. They were stupid enough to cross post to their Live Journal and to here. The LJ post was under their original Dope name. That’s how the sock was discovered.
Don’t get me wrong, both of these were righteous bannings.
If we’re made aware of a threat or a sock we’d be dumb not to act on it, but that’s a more urgent situation than just reposting a private message. I am sure that happens on other boards anyhow. And yes, to my eyes, the issue with Seven was what he said - not the source of what he said.
But an unsolicited PM isn’t something said among friends over a beer: it’s a stranger in a bar grabbing you and whispering something in your ear.
I think we’ve also seen that personal emails are fair game for ‘discovery’ in legal cases - detectives releasing the emails of Casey Anthony’s mother, for example.
I would think that having the possiblity of disclosure would keep the responsibility for the message content on the writer, which I see as a good thing.
I agree. If you don’t want something shared publicly, don’t say it. If you say it, know that there is a reasonable chance that it will be made public.