Standards for private messages

About This Message Board
21

[QUOTE=Liberal]
The unmentionable ignore list rule doesn’t make any sense the way Tuba has explained it here. People “show their disdain/dislike for someone” with insults, invective, lies, speculations, accusations, and just plain cruelty. In the scheme of things, informing someone that you’re ignoring them is downright civilized.
[/QUOTE]

It is probably a legacy ruling.

22

So who owns the copyright on PMs? For posts in threads, the poster has the copyright, but the Chicago Reader has a non-exclusive right to reprint. Does this also hold for PMs?

Although PMs are very convenient, I was surprised when they were enabled, because of moderation and property issues.

23

I really liked it for the modernization.

24

[QUOTE=Sapo]
It is probably a legacy ruling.
[/QUOTE]
Before we told people not to do that, they’d invoke the function to get the last word in an argument, that sort of thing. “I dismiss you.” That would make the other person all pissossified and it would generate more complaint and etc., administration would get called in to settle playground disputes. That very quickly proved to be tiresome and we found keeping your ignore list to yourself cut down on a lot of that action.

To sum up, I would hope that all of us would treat one another with civility and even consideration and kindness; you can agree to disagree and still be reasonable. Politeness is the grease that lubricates the wheel of life.

25

[QUOTE=TubaDiva]
pissossified
[/QUOTE]

Am adding to personal vocabulary immediately.

26

[QUOTE=MsWhatsit]
Am adding to personal vocabulary immediately.
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was properly spelled pisoffified. I see Tuba converted the old medial ‘s’. :smiley:

27

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
I thought it was properly spelled pisoffified. I see Tuba converted the old medial ‘s’.
[/QUOTE]

That or she has kidney stones.

28

[QUOTE=Pleonast]
So who owns the copyright on PMs? For posts in threads, the poster has the copyright, but the Chicago Reader has a non-exclusive right to reprint. Does this also hold for PMs?

Although PMs are very convenient, I was surprised when they were enabled, because of moderation and property issues.
[/QUOTE]
PMs are not published online as a general rule so no, PMs as a whole would not apply.

If you publish it in a posting, yes, like all other posts, the Reader has right of re-publication.

We have no access to your private messages.