# Confidentiality and the SDMB **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426 "2005-03-14T06:16:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![peri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/67e7ee/32.png) [@peri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peri)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/1 "2005-03-14T06:16:54Z")
In light of the “recent unpleasantness” that occurred, what are the new and improved rules governing what information mods and administrators may reveal on or off the board? [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5835337&postcount=47) we were told a formal written agreement was in the works and a general overview of it would likely be posted. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/2 "2005-03-14T11:58:07Z")
It is in the final process of review by both the SDMB staff and the management of the Chicago Reader. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/3 "2005-03-14T12:01:10Z")
And since this is (initially) a question, rather than a complaint or a challenge, I am moving it to **ATMB**. [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![peri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/67e7ee/32.png) [@peri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peri)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/4 "2005-03-15T05:12:58Z")
The OP was in the right forum: “This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB” From the Chicago Reader privacy policy: “Chicago Reader, Inc. respects your privacy and will never release any personal information about you without your consent.” Is it not just a wee bit intemperate to reinstate (with pre-suspension privileges) someone who broke the only extant rule on privacy, the person whose actions are the impetus for the new rules, without said rules being in place? To forestall those who will exclaim, “TubaDiva is not the Chicago Reader!,” I will point out The Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc. and that all threads discussing how to obtain drugs, tips for file sharing and instructions on bomb building are closed with admonitions regarding the illegality of those practices and how such threads can open the CR to lawsuits. The SDMB and those who represent it in any official manner are inextricably tied to the CR. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/5 "2005-03-15T05:50:57Z")
> [@](#): > > The OP was in the right forum: “This is the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB” If you will re-read your OP, you will note that you did not lodge a complaint and that you asked a straight up question regarding policy without asserting an actual position to be discussed. > [@](#): > > **About This Message Board** > For technical questions and concerns about the SDMB. This is also the place for practice posts. Since the Administrators are more likely to read and respond to questions posted in **ATMB** , I moved it here so that you would more quickly receive a response to your question. Now, if you are more interested in hashing out some debatable point among the Teeming Millions or if you inadvertantly posted a question when you had intended to post a complaint, I’m sure we can move it back to the **Pit** where it will acquire several hundred feuding responses unremarked by the Administration. I really was trying to place your thread where it would get the response that it appeared you sought. ---
**Author:** ![peri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/67e7ee/32.png) [@peri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/peri)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/6 "2005-03-15T06:36:48Z")
Yes, I wanted a response to a question on policy. It was “… **and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB** ” that determined where I put the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/confidentiality-and-the-sdmb/294426/7 "2005-03-15T13:15:26Z")
In a determined effort to keep this a legitimate question, rather than a snipe hunt, may I suggest to **Ed** et al. that the proposed privacy policy be put up for public comment for a few days before formal adoption, after that final review that **Tom~** references, with the idea of critiquing it for possible improvements? I have no doubt that such a thread will attract some jerkitude, but I think it might also be helpful to get as many constructive minds as possible behind it.