People who send private messages have the same expectation of privacy as do people who send physical letters addressed to an individual.
It’s nice if the recipient keeps it private, but does the recipient have an *obligation *to keep it private? No.
At odds? Somewhat.
I still feel that it’s bad etiquette and generally bad form to share the contents of a message that was clearly intended for your eyes only. I have, however, come to realize that making it an official rule would be pointless, because it would be unenforceable. If you are interested in my thought processes, I explained it here, in the “Is quoting the contents of a PM against the ‘rules?’” thread.
Do you find being snide and vaguely insulting that comforting? I speak for myself, thank you. And being a reasonable human being, I am capable of changing my opinion when presented with compelling arguments.
I believe it was in 2001 that masochism was officially added to the requirements list to be a moderator.
This is very interesting, because as I said, two of my PMs were openly discussed recently, and nary a word from any mods. Of course, I didn’t report the posts where it happened because I didn’t believe that PMs were confidential, but I wonder what would have happened if I did. Probably nothing. I do think it’s tacky to reveal the contents of PMs, but if you are PMing someone you’re not good buddies with, you shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t respect your privacy. I sure wasn’t.
In that vein, I am curious to see if you are going to address the point made in post 106, in which you are quoted saying that a poster should feel free to share the contents of a PM with a moderator.
Tuba, could you clear up whether that applies to all paid members, guests, and staff?
Yes.
It’s hard to believe this is necessary, but here you go:
On these boards, PMs should be private. Period. The staff should take actions that 1) respect that and 2) encourage it.
Now, if a poster feels that he or she was sent one that is abusive, he or she has the ability to report that abusive behavior. Is that “sharing” it? Technically, yes. But it is doing so in the least public manner possible (administrator? mod?), thereby keeping as much of the “private” nature of that mode of communication as possible.
If you have more of this, "you say you want to keep it private but now you say you want to “share” it—AHA!!!, go ask Colonel Mustard in the library. While you’re there, look up “excluded middle”.
No, it wouldn’t. You could enforce it on the SDMB.It could be just as enforceable as a lot of the other rules. There’s a rule here against certain language or being a jerk, but it is understood that you seek to enforce it only as far as activity on the board, not in people’s lives in general. Same with PMs. The board policy could be that PMs are intended to remain private and that sharing the content of a PM would be open to mod action, just like other violations.
Do I find it comforting? No. But I don’t see how one might expect that to be “comforting” in the way that being part of a crowd can be. ::shrug::
Changing one’s mind is fine. And if that’s what you’ve done, good for you. But that means you’d also be able to change your mind back to what is somewhat at odds with your new position. And beyond. You’re reason for not agreeing with me that PMs should remain private is that it is unenforceable. I think I’ve shown quite simply how to do that. Have I not. If not, why?
With respect, your wording seems aimed at members and guests only. For example, you begin with
We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server.
If the rule does apply to staff, why did you not specify that, especially since the question had been asked beforehand whether it would? Could you not, for example have said this?:
We offer the private message function as a convenience for our members and guests and staff. It is not the goal of the Straight Dope Message Board to operate a mail server.
I do realize that there is the possibility that merely asking the question might raise your hackles. You could be thinking, “God, is there nothing that can please these people?”. Or “No matter how we worded it, someone would have complained.”
But to anticipate those possible thoughts, let me emphasize that I am not complaining, nor am I difficult to please about this matter, and I don’t mean to raise your hackles. I’m just wondering why, with all this controversy swirling — much of it originating when a staff member revealed the contents of a PM — your final wording was so “Us” versus “Them”. The staff that can’t read the PMs, but the members and guests for which it is a convenience.
Even this:
There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and you assume the risk that any PM you send might be made public by the recipient.
could have been worded more like
There is no guarantee of privacy in these messages, and we all assume the risk that any PM we send might be made public by the recipient.
but you said “you” — you people, almost like Ross Perot at an NAACP meeting. Again, you did not include the staff.
And the reference to the “Don’t be a jerk” rule (and other rules) was the topper. It is a ruling that has never been made against a staff member that I can recall.
There is really nothing in there to indicate that it applies at all to staff. And even though you say “Yes” (assuming you were answering that “yes it does apply to staff” and not simply "yes, Tuba can answer your question), the “four corners” principle of law doesn’t give your “Yes” much authority, unless it and the question it answered are considered an addendum to the rule.
I’m sure you’re rolling your eyes. At least, I would be rolling mine in your position. But I’m not in your position, so I can only calls 'em as I sees 'em. I just hope you will calmly reword the notice, and that Dex will not blow his top over my bringing this up. And that’s all I really have to say about that.
Technically as you state then it isn’t private if you share it-there is no need for an AHA moment. You by sharing it have broken that privacy compact you seem to hold so dear to your heart.
If it is private it is private. Period. Then it is private and the staff should not be involved. Once you involve another entity other then the orignal two you no longer have privacy. And you do realize you can send a private message to 10 people at the same time right and bcc them as well? How private is that?
So you are just using the word private to mean what you want it to mean to bolster your argument. This is just a silly semantics game you are playing. You staff members have my sympathy for having to deal with this silliness.
I can’t imagine anything I would say in a PM that I wouldn’t be comfortable sharing with anyone. I think PM’s are side conversations that don’t derail a thread and nothing more. If you want privacy and confidentiality go see a priest or your lawyer. Do tell who is this excluded middle you speak of? Do you have support that most of the board wants the PM’s to be private to the extent you say they should be? It has no more privacy then an email I send out, even if I put ‘confidential’ on it, once it leaves my computer all privacy is off the table.
It applies to everyone who uses the private message function.
It applies to everyone who uses the private message function.
You have not, for reasons discussed at great length, both in this thread and the one that triggered it. Let me recap, one last time.
[ul]
[li]What if you claim that someone posted something you said in a PM, and they say no, you said it in an email, or a text message, or mailed it to them on a postcard? You have no way to prove they revealed the contents of a PM, and we can’t cite them for breaking a rule.[/li][li]How about if you claim someone sent you a threatening PM, and you send me a copy as proof. How do I know you didn’t just sit down and type it yourself? Since I can’t read your PMs, I have no way of knowing whether you made it up.[/li][li]As I’ve said here at least three times, you can’t safely assume your PMs are private anyway. This board software could hiccup and make them public. Someone could look over the recipient’s shoulder. Having such a rule would give you false confidence.[/li][/ul]
In a nutshell, every single case of someone crying “she revealed the contents of my PM” could swiftly degenerate into a “he said/she said” situation, making the rule completely unenforceable.
Sorry. I bowed out. I responded to your question of associations with real world conversations with direct ties to actual real world situations. You waved away my comparisons, insisting on some odd definition of your own. Since I have seen no other poster join you on your quest, I figured we just disagreed and see no reason to continue to disagree for another dozen posts.
Aha! You said “everyone.” What if it’s a group and not a “one”? Well, mods are a group, but also a “one.” This seems like a pretty clear opportunity to skate around this rule if desired.
This gives me pause. Great pause. You’ve brought up such profound complications and conundrums with my position that it will take my full powers to fully appreciate them, not to mention even attempt to sort them out. So, if you have more observations along these lines, and you should feel fit to share them with me, please do so with all due urgency. If, perchance, I don’t get back to you right away, rest assured that it is solely because I will be attempting to have each synapse-spark that my being expends fire with the singular goal of working through the profound problems that you and your brilliance have placed before me.
Wish me luck.
—Oh, and feel free to ignore any previous statements of mine which have already addressed your concerns. They were written “pre-enlightenment”, if you will. In the meantime, tell Colonel Mustard I said “hi”.
Which is NOT the same as the virtual world, which was a main point of that post (#99). Your response was quite unresponsive.
I didn’t “wave away” your comparisons, I pointed out the limitations of looking to the real world for analogies, as helpful as they can be.
Oh, so now a position needs the support of others before it deserves your attention? For future reference, just how much of a crowd must I have supporting me before you deign to respond?
I don’t agree with this idea of harm, and PMs serve the same purpose they always did. The only thing that’s potentially changed is your understanding of what they do.
They do.
I felt there was until the last time we discussed the subject, when I learned many people on the board felt differently.
I’ve read this style of response from you too many times in this thread. I won’t be wasting any more time with you.
As I’ve said, just because you can’t enforce every instance of an infraction doesn’t mean that taking a strong position against it isn’t worthwhile. Again, take my example using speeders.
You enforce when you can. The point is to set a tone. There are probably a couple hundred thousand people speeding right now and will get away with it. Do you suggest we do away with laws against speeding? Heck, I guess about the law gets only about 1 in 1,000 speeders, if that.