Private Messages

[nathanbforrest45]

I am formally requesting the the Private Message function hereby be eliminated. Once more we see a member making public a private message. If this is allowable the entire reason for this type of communication is null and void. Since its obvious some members cannot keep private messages as they were intended, private then perhaps it should be eliminated in its entirety.

I would make an exception to messages that were of a threatening nature. Saying you are a bigot and a big dope is not threatening.

Thats my opinion at any rate

[Chris]

I always thought posting private messages publicly was against the rules here and dealt with severely.

You can and should report threatening PMs to the mods/Admin.

[Dr. Who]

The PM (mentioned in another thread) was not posted but just referenced by the member who received it, who was publicly making it known that the message was hateful and that they want no further PMs from the member who sent it. I don't know that this can be construed as quoting or summarizing, since the contents of the message were not disclosed. It may fall under "shared" in a general sense.

Rule 13.

As implied in the name, PM's (Private Messages) must be kept private. They are not to be shared, quoted or summarized on the public forum. If it is believed that a PM, or series of PMs, is over the line (threats, harassment, name-calling, etc.), the PM should be reported and moderators will decide when or how to act. Questions regarding if a decision has been made may be brought to moderators through PM. Posting PMs on the open forum will lead to infractions.

Reporting the PM or advising the sender not to send any further PMs in a reply has been the traditional approach to these issues.

I don't think that in general there has been a great deal of abuse of the PM function or incidents of making them public on the forum and certainly not enough to justify the elimination of the PM function. It might be useful if PMs from specific members could be blocked, but I don't know if such a modification is possible in vbulletin or in this version of vbulletin.

[Standing Wolf]

As I noted in the thread where all this happened, my personal view is that naming the author, the subject and the character (vile and disgusting, or whatever the words were) of the PM does constitute summarization. Just my opinion.

[Mister D]

I am formally requesting the the Private Message function hereby be eliminated. Once more we see a member making public a private message. If this is allowable the entire reason for this type of communication is null and void. Since its obvious some members cannot keep private messages as they were intended, private then perhaps it should be eliminated in its entirety.

I would make an exception to messages that were of a threatening nature. Saying you are a bigot and a big dope is not threatening.

Thats my opinion at any rate

What happened?

[Dr. Who]

As I noted in the thread where all this happened, my personal view is that naming the author, the subject and the character (vile and disgusting, or whatever the words were) of the PM does constitute summarization. Just my opinion.

I don't agree that characterization constitutes summarization. For instance, were I to post (in reply to a member) - "stop sending me hate mail", would that violate the spirit of rule 13? If I told you about a movie, starring (name actor) and stated that it was a great SF movie with lots of action, aliens, suspense and a great plot line, would that constitute a summary?

[Chris]

I don't agree that characterization constitutes summarization. For instance, were I to post (in reply to a member) - "stop sending me hate mail", would that violate the spirit of rule 13? If I told you about a movie, starring (name actor) and stated that it was a great SF movie with lots of action, aliens, suspense and a great plot line, would that constitute a summary?

Yes, "characterization" is summary and violates the rules. IMO, as I'm not a mod.

[Standing Wolf]

I don't agree that characterization constitutes summarization. For instance, were I to post (in reply to a member) - "stop sending me hate mail", would that violate the spirit of rule 13? If I told you about a movie, starring (name actor) and stated that it was a great SF movie with lots of action, aliens, suspense and a great plot line, would that constitute a summary?

It could. Some summaries are more detailed and comprehensive than others. In the end, I guess it would be a judgment call on the part of the Mods, but in my view it's just a little too close to being a violation to totally ignore.

[Dr. Who]

It could. Some summaries are more detailed and comprehensive than others. In the end, I guess it would be a judgment call on the part of the Mods, but in my view it's just a little too close to being a violation to totally ignore.

I agree that it is thin ice territory, however IMO, the distinction rests in the difference between the meanings of description versus summary. The member used certain adjectives to describe the PM received. Since the member did so via the quote function, the other member's identity and topic were transparent. The response was then picked up by other members and discussed, but at no point did I notice any specific content being discussed.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, "characterization" is summary and violates the rules. IMO, as I'm not a mod.

Characterization, in the sense that it is being used in this discussion, means "a description of the distinctive nature or features of someone or something." A summary, on the other hand is: "A brief statement or account of the main points of something".

They do not have the same meaning.