This seems like a copout. Surely as administrator and representative of the board, Tuba should police herself in her PMs for the purpose of maintaining good relations between the leadership and membership.
Whether the letter of the law requires her to isn’t even really relevant; a higher standard of conduct is rightfully expected of those who make and enforce the rules. They set the tone for everyone else. If she isn’t inclined to go above and beyond in that respect, I’m not sure why she wants to be an administrator.
I was going to ask that too. I just read the Registration Agreement and the Rules for Posting that are stickied in this forum and I didn’t see that anywhere.
Meh, this is SOP around here. Someone screws up and someone else is sent to pick up the pieces. If the going gets too tough, the chosen escape goat can just wash his hands with the old “it wasn’t me”. At that point a new one is chosen and sent in to look uninformed and innocent of the wreck up to that point. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Plus, I think Marley likes it (or at least doesn’t care). I have seen some other mods really twist in pain trying to defend some right out ridiculous decisions. Marley looks just as cool and refreshed in page 17 as he does in page 1. I mean that as a sincere compliment. You just cannot take any of this stuff to heart.
Bullshit. Or at least it’s never been enforced before - there’s been any number of threads where folks post all or part of emails they’ve gotten from wide variety of folks.
Yup, that’s a good guess on the meaning of the term. It’s just the way my mind works, I always carry things out to all possible logical conclusions and construct parallel examples to test the underlying logic of a position. The more exotically bizarre an example that can be constructed without having the basic congruency fall apart, the more likely it is to me that the initial statement has some significant problems with it. I lose sight of the fact that others don’t process the way I do and therefore will often focus on the bizarre aspects of my analogies, kinda losing the forest because that ‘ere tree is so freakin’ weird, man.
So, basically admins like Tuba can send whatever they want to members via PM, no matter how obnoxious and abusive, and if the member on the receiving end of the PM makes it public, said member will be banned for posting private correspondence?
And it’s not like Seven was snooping on a private e-mail conversation and revealed what was said. He was part of said e-mail conversation. If he wants to make the e-mail conversation known publicly, it’s his right to do so. He has no obligation whatsoever to keep that conversation private.
That was such a ridiculous statement by InvisibleWombat that it’s not even funny.
The bottom line is that if **TubaDiva’**s a little embarrassed that her nastiness was made public (yet again), she shouldn’t have wrote it.
Why? Wasn’t it HIS message, sent To him to do with it as he wanted?
And is this applied only to PM’s or to any sort of correspondence? If I’m asking for financial advise, would I be banned for quoting a letter from my bank? Or from a friend?
And if it’s only appliable to PM’s, am I disallowed to quote any PM? At all? If, let’s say, another poster sends me a terrific recipe for cookies, would I be banned for giving that poster credit when sharing it with anybody else?
These are fairly important questions. I wouldn’t like to be banned by accident here.
I have rarely* commented on the administration/moderation of this board and I don’t feel that this particular banning was without merit based on the poster’s behavior over the past several months, but count me among those who think this rule about quoting private correspondence, if it is indeed a rule, (a) is capricious, arbitary and idiotic and (b) needs to be included in the “Rules for Posting at the Straight Dope Message Boards” if people are going to be banned over it.
But it was private! If she read what she wrote, she’d be violating her confidentiality. Or something.
I would say never, but it’s quite possible I’ve posted something in the past eight years that I don’t remember.
So someone cannot share a PM received, on pain of banning, without the consent of the sender.
Harass someone in PMs.
When they complain, get them banned for sharing confidental correspondence.
Profit!
I figured out step 2, everyone!
Also, for what it’s worth, I evidently think this is a foolish administrative decision, and it was enough for me to dig out my password and post for the perhaps the third time in the last four years to say so.
[quote]
Legally, IIRC, once a letter is received it becomes the property of the recipient, thus allowing people to sell or re-distribute it at will. While the writing inside is still the intellectual property of the writer, the actual letter itself is the property of the recipient.
By that same standard, I would believe it to be perfectly legal to re-distribute a received e-mail. The ethical and moral issue is entirely different; while I don’t particularly understand TVeb’s reasons, I think it is completely her choice as to whether she should post the information contained."
If there’s a cite for a newer rule, I’d love to see it.
I’m not trying to jump on you, but I’ll echo other people’s confusion that this is a stated rule here. I honestly don’t remember it ever coming up or any official intervention when it comes to PMs, but I don’t have a great memory.
In any case, this is an argument for someone sitting down and writing down the rules of the SDMB in one easy to find place so people don’t have to be historians to follow them.
Prediction: Tubadiva will post to this thread in the next few pages. Her post will say something like, “I think this thread has run its course.” It will then be locked.
Oh, and bullshit banning, incredibly lame after-the-fact justifications, and amazingly rude message from Tubadiva to Seven in the first place. I really hope that she does not have a real life job that in any way involves customer service, because her skills in that area are nonexistant.
