# Is quoting the contents of a PM against the "rules?" **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 30, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811 "2009-07-30T21:33:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/101 "2009-07-31T18:35:47Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Something that surprises me is that people are allowed to post threads questioning bans and warnings. I can’t think of another board I visit on a regular basis that allows this. . > > I’m not sure how I feel about it. On one hand it gives transparency to the process and can effect a change of decision (see Seven thead(s)) on the other hand, it makes for a lot of divisive conversation. > > Apropos of nothing, I supposed. > > Carry on. _See generally_ [Exit, Voice, and Loyalty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty). ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/102 "2009-07-31T18:40:30Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Do you always check with the sender before forwarding an e-mail? I do before I publish it. But that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![spinky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@spinky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spinky)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/103 "2009-07-31T18:54:57Z")
> [@ntucker](#): > > Also, **Marley’s** idea that you shouldn’t be held to a standard of professionalism because you’re volunteers is bogus. Rereading, I realize this is unfair. **Marley** didn’t actually say volunteers shouldn’t be held to a standard of professionalism. He simply pointed out, in response to my call for professionalism, that mods aren’t employees – they’re volunteers. While this implies that there should be a distinction, he doesn’t actually say there should be **no** standard for volunteers. We still disagree on the main point – I don’t think the distinction between volunteer and employee changes anything – but what I wrote above is just going to result in a “that’s not what I’m saying” argument and that’s not productive. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/104 "2009-07-31T18:57:17Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I do before I publish it. But that’s just me. Are you making a distinction between publishing and forwarding? And do you do it so as not to run afoul of copyright laws? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/105 "2009-07-31T19:00:39Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > If David Duke or Fred Phelps sent me a personal “You’re going to hell you fucking Jew” e-mail, I’d be gleefully sharing it with the world You are thinking in terms of whistle blowing and there I agree with you. In those cases you have almost a duty to report it, more than a duty to protect the privacy of the sender. In all other cases, I think it is more an issue of courtesy than of actual duty. Yes, you should keep it private and you know than failure to do so will result in a falling out with the sender and probably with some onlookers. It is entirely up to you to decide whether that price is a fair price to pay for whatever it is that you seek to gain from publishing that private mail. Rules or not, most people will expect you to keep their private messages, well, private. If you publish one, others might have some doubts as to whether or not to send you one in the future. If everybody publishes them, then the trust of society on their privacy is eroded. This is where we are headed as a society now, I think. Signs of the times and pains of transition. If you want to live on the cutting edge, expect to bleed some. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/106 "2009-07-31T19:06:49Z")
> [@ntucker](#): > > Here’s the difference: if I send you obnoxious, threatening, nasty, stupid, error-ridden, drunken PMs, you have recourse: you can warn and/or ban me for it. It is **against the rules** for me to abuse the staff and you have the ability to dish out consequences. So don’t pretend you’re just expected to smile and take it. But the point is, we do. I have received such PMs, and have not warned or banned the poster for sending them. Well–except for the threatening part. I have not been threatened, and I would not take that lightly. As for the standards of professionalism, of course we should do our best to carry out our duties in a reasonably professional manner. But for goodness’ sake, remember what this is! The popularity of the Straight Dope comes in large part from Cecil’s snide attitude. This board is _filled_ with smart alecs. We have fun here. I, for one, would not even _be_ a moderator if it meant I couldn’t still be me. > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Do you always check with the sender before forwarding an e-mail? Forwarding? Not always – depends on the context of the situation. If someone sends me an email asking a question and someone else can answer it better, I’ll forward the email to them in toto. But publishing it? I absolutely ask first. And posting something on a public bulletin board or Web site does count as publishing. Obviously, there are exceptions: Emails that are clearly intended to be forwarded or passed on to many people, or when the email was broadcast to a large diverse group (e.g., spam, political glurge, marketing emails…). Those were not sent out with any expectation of privacy. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/107 "2009-07-31T19:18:00Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Wait a minute. Do you mean it is against the rules to insult a mod or admin in a PM? A PM? Something that nobody else reads? I mean, I can understand no insults on the public board, since it would be a form of revolt and anarchy. But PM stands for _Private_ Message (or so it says in the User CP). So, I think we should be free to blast away in that medium without fear of public repercussion. Of course it should be against the rules to be a jerk to ANYBODY in a PM, not just mods or admins. Being a jerk is being a jerk publicly or privately. Imagine getting a PM every day saying “@#^@ you stinking %^&@# bleeep @#$%^^”. How is that different from it coming in public?. We still have to decide when an insult becomes being a jerk, though. > [@Una\_Persson](#): > > “Despite their moniker, a private message is a posting _intended_, **but not guaranteed** , to be read by only specific members of this message board. Once a private message is sent the sender **has no more control over its further use and distribution than they would any other public posting on the message board.** It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server - private messages are a _convenience only,_ and **just like any other posting they are composed at your own risk.** Since they are treated as a posting, the rules of conduct for private messages will be the same as that of the **general forums** of the Straight Dope Message Board.” Got my vote > [@Gfactor](#): > > For those who missed it, we banned \*\*KGS \*\*for threatening litigation. He did this in an email, but we didn’t post the email. He’d threatened litigation against a poster in a thread, and folks thought that we’d interpreted his post as a litigation threat against the board. So people asked, “why’d you ban him? He didn’t trheaten litigation.” And it was then right for you to summarize what he said in that email. Had he had the right to respond to that post and say “I did not”, then you would have had the right to publish that email and prove he had (or let people decide, if it was veiled) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/108 "2009-07-31T19:23:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Are you making a distinction between publishing and forwarding? And do you do it so as not to run afoul of copyright laws? I’m not making a legal distinction between the two–merely a practical one. I don’t for forwards usually, because I’d only forward an email to someone I trust with it. If I publish it, lots of people will know. Moreover, I’m more concerned with liability for things like publication of private facts, which requires publication; distribution to a small group of people isn’t generally enough. But I worry about copyright, too. The “he-sent-it-to-you, so-you-can-publish-it defense” was rejected in the 1800s and the code has not been amended to change that result. So I think it probably is copyright infringement, although there may be an affirmative defense or two that win the day. That said, last time I checked “everybody’s doing it,” wasn’t a defense to copyright infringement. I’d be happy to settle the issue with a friendly test case if the owners of the other boards are willing. _Gfactor v. Giraffe_\*? We could be the next _Pierson_ and _Post_! What do you say? But as I pointed out in the other thread, that’s not the basis of the rule that we are discussing. \*This is not a threat. I will not sue \*\*Giraffe \*\*or anybody else. But as an academic matter, I’d like to see the matter resolved. I actually had a case involving some of these issues, but the damages were so minor that the client decided not to pursue it. Before my client decided to drop the matter, I argued the legal points with the other lawyer pretty extensively. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/109 "2009-07-31T19:27:12Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > And it was then right for you to summarize what he said in that email. Had he had the right to respond to that post and say “I did not”, then you would have had the right to publish that email and prove he had (or let people decide, if it was veiled) Interesting. How is a summary better (maybe the wrong word here) than the email itself? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/110 "2009-07-31T19:28:48Z")
**Sapo** , can you link to that post by **Una**? Is it written as a rule somewhere? If so, great catch. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/111 "2009-07-31T19:33:36Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > Interesting. How is a summary better (maybe the wrong word here) than the email itself? Just saying “he did threaten the sdmb by private mail”, which was the response I got when I asked in ATMB about his banning. That gives away the fact that he did but does not publish his entire mail. I think it was more tactful than just posting his threatening email. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/112 "2009-07-31T19:34:13Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > **Sapo** , can you link to that post by **Una**? Is it written as a rule somewhere? If so, great catch. The “\>” pointer in the blue box next to the text “Originally Posted by **Una Persson** ” will take you precisely where you want to go. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/113 "2009-07-31T19:35:06Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > **Sapo** , can you link to that post by **Una**? Is it written as a rule somewhere? If so, great catch. Click on the blue square with the \> next to her name. That should take you to her post where she suggests that. So no, it is not a written rule, just her opinion which I really liked. ETA: Curse you, Kimmy! My one chance to actually fight ignorance lost by mere seconds. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/114 "2009-07-31T19:36:10Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The “\>” pointer in the blue box next to the text “Originally Posted by **Una Persson** ” will take you precisely where you want to go. I knew that. You can’t tell me anything. I was just testing you. So there. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/115 "2009-07-31T19:43:17Z")
This is an interesting issue. My gut tells me private messages should generally be private, but that gut feeling tends to be based upon the relationship between myself and the other party. For example, if someone told me privately that they loved me and I published that, I would be breaking the trust between us (it’s up to them to decide when to announce that to the world if ever). If my boss told me something private, I would also be reluctant to publish that information, although the reasons are not identical to the first example. If I barely knew someone and they sent me an email expressing their negative opinion of me, I would have no problem publishing it, but if they sent me a message detailing some medical condition, I would not feel right about publishing that. So, it seems that the relationship of the parties and the content of the message both come in to play (at least for me). This current situation seems somewhere in between my examples. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/116 "2009-07-31T19:43:27Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Just saying “he did threaten the sdmb by private mail”, which was the response I got when I asked in ATMB about his banning. That gives away the fact that he did but does not publish his entire mail. I think it was more tactful than just posting his threatening email. That’s how I’ve approached it in the past. I agree it probably is a little more tactful (although in this case at least the two revelations made in the thread pretty much gave away the whole email). I don’t have a rule-based reason why the two are different though. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/117 "2009-07-31T20:00:48Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > **Sapo** , can you link to that post by **Una**? Is it written as a rule somewhere? If so, great catch. Just so everyone is clear, my post is not a Rule. I work for the Straight Dope; I have no official position on the message board. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/118 "2009-07-31T20:14:02Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > This is an interesting issue. > > My gut tells me private messages should generally be private, but that gut feeling tends to be based upon the relationship between myself and the other party. > > For example, if someone told me privately that they loved me and I published that, I would be breaking the trust between us (it’s up to them to decide when to announce that to the world if ever). > > If my boss told me something private, I would also be reluctant to publish that information, although the reasons are not identical to the first example. > > If I barely knew someone and they sent me an email expressing their negative opinion of me, I would have no problem publishing it, but if they sent me a message detailing some medical condition, I would not feel right about publishing that. > > So, it seems that the relationship of the parties and the content of the message both come in to play (at least for me). This current situation seems somewhere in between my examples. Good examples and it seems to match my own expectations. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/119 "2009-07-31T20:23:19Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > I assume you realize I’m not arguing that legal ethics rules literally apply to this situation. Given that we’re trading analogies, let me give you a real life example, ripped from the headlines, so that we can have some basis for comparison. The \*\*KGS \*\*banning. > > For those who missed it, we banned \*\*KGS \*\*for threatening litigation. He did this in an email, but we didn’t post the email. He’d threatened litigation against a poster in a thread, and folks thought that we’d interpreted his post as a litigation threat against the board. So people asked, “why’d you ban him? He didn’t trheaten litigation.” Now if we were applying legal ethics, it would be just as unethical for us to summarize his communication as it would to publish it verbatim. Later, I added some more detail from the email (he’d demanded that we ban someone else as a condition for not suing) Nevertheless, we aren’t lawyers, and legal ethics rules don’t apply, so that’s what we did. And that disclosure was based on the self-defense rule, because in a sense, ATMB is where appeals take place here. In many cases the person whose appeal is being heard either can’t, or doesn’t care to, raise the issue. Of course, we could solve this problem by imposing a standing requirement–only the poster who was the subject of the action may appeal, if they’re banned, they may appeal by email, but I don’t think anybody wants that. Anyway, I’ve gotten off track. You see, the self defense rule is already well-accepted here. People thanked us for the additional details and let the matter drop. There is no practical difference between describing the contents of an email or PM and quoting it verbatim, and the ethical rules in question protect “confidences” and “secrets,” which covers way more than verbatim quotations. Thanks for the response. 🙂 In my opinion, it would have just as easily been handled by simply saying something like, “there were other, real world reasons which contributed to this banning, which we cannot divulge because it was communicated to us as staff in private.” But I think we are quibbling over some pretty small potatoes when it seems to me that Rome is still in need of a fire hose. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2009, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811/120 "2009-08-01T00:13:04Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Dude–as you’ve been told–it wasn’t out of context. Trying to argue this with you is frustrating because you’re not looking at the evidence. The entire PM has been published on Giraffe’s board and you can see how nasty and unprofessional the thing is. > Read Tuba’s message. If you STILL don’t think it’s nasty and totally unprofessional, that’s fine and we can certainly debate that. Well, there’s two points. All we know is that Seven \*claims \*that’s what Tuba said. It may have been edited. And we don’t know what Seven’s PM to her was- that could have been far more nasty. Thus, even if he quoted it correctly, it’s still \*out of context. \* In any case, the cited PM is only fairly snarky. I have seen worse in the Pit, just about on a daily basis. It doesn’t even get close to “hate speech”. (your made up “David Duke or Fred Phelps” email is “hate speech”, btw. ) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-quoting-the-contents-of-a-pm-against-the-rules/504811.md?page=7)