IMO, what this place doesn't need is some additional "rule" to enforce on the user base. Posting a PM in a public forum may be bad manners, but should hardly constitute a crime of some sort. Also, remember if you send a PM to me--its now mine. If you fear that someone might post your PM publically, and that you may be embarrassed as a result, you might want to think twice about sending that PM.

From Curt, in the original thread that I inadvertently screwed up. ..

thanks amber for re-posting curt's previous post. he hit the nail on the proverbial head. now you can lock the thread. :wink:

Keep in mind that all private e-mail is considered to be copyrighted by the original author. If you post private e-mail to a public list or board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must include the author's permission to post the material publicly. Not doing so can get you into some deep doo-doo legally or with your friends and associates. Think of it this way... how would you feel if a personal private e-mail that you had written for a specific purpose/person is then plastered across the Internet or forwarded to folks you do not know? Always ask for permission before forwarding or posting any private e-mails!

What is the purpose of the poll?

Are you going to allow the majority to dictate?

Or just give the illusion that this is the case?

With so many registered users, how many people does it take before you feel you've reached a consensus?

I voted for the 2nd hardest violation (meaning it leads down the standard issue path towards banning, but is not an immediately banable offense), but also think the offending thread should be nuked.

The reason for this is simple:

It is called a PRIVATE Message. Not a personal, not a semi-private, not a "may get posted" message, but a PRIVATE Message. Considering the current wording of PRIVATE message, and if the course of action is to remain with private messages being "publishable", they shouild be changed to be called "Personal Messages". Private implies, hell not even that, is SAYS it is private.

Private, in this context, merely means that when the PM originator sends the PM, it goes only to the designated private party--and not to the public at large.

so i think what the original question is asking is when "the designated private party" actually does turn it around "to the public at large" should this behaviour be addressed??

Private, in this context, merely means that when the PM originator sends the PM, it goes only to the designated private party--and not to the public at large. To expand upon this meaning is quite absurd.

Curt

- Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others.
- Designed or intended for one's exclusive use
- Of or confined to the individual
- Undertaken on an individual basis
- Not available for public use, control, or participation

There are no copyright issues here, absent a properly executed confidentiality agreement previously entered into by both the originator and the recipient of such information.

Curt

Actually, private in this context does not just mean that it only goes to the designated party. Go to any other reputable website with a Private Message system and look at their TOS concerning Private Messages. You will find pretty much universally that they have strict policies regarding the publication of private messages.

If RC.com wants to change the meaning of a Private Message to a Personal Message, which more adequately describes what you are saying the current "context" of the messages by which thet are sent under, then they should do exactly that, change the title to "Personal Message".

Look up "private" in a dictionary, it is clear as to what the definition is:


I think that last one hits the nail on the head.

If a PM is sent to you that you find offensive, forward it on to an admin. Though I would chose your admins wisely. A few of the current ones have either directly supported or have personally published private emails, private messages, and personal information in the past to the general forums.

I'm sorry but i take offense at this! I don't have prior knowledge as to what happened before i joined rc.com

What is the purpose of the poll?
Keep private messages private, and like communications between clergy, doctors, spouses, other priviledged people. Maintain the integrity of the communications system. Penalize harshly those that have disregard for this simple, yet so fundamental, issue, no matter what position they may hold. In fact, the more "official" a person is, the higher the standards they should be measured up against. What has happened to integrity?

Yes, but that definition applies only to the initial transmission from the original sender to the original recipient as being private. After that, the recipient of such information is quite free to do with it what he/she sees fit. The recipient is under absolutely NO obligation to keep the information sent to him/her private.

Curt

- Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others.
- Designed or intended for one's exclusive use
- Of or confined to the individual
- Undertaken on an individual basis
- Not available for public use, control, or participation

If a PM is sent to you that you find offensive, forward it on to an admin. Though I would chose your admins wisely. A few of the current ones have either directly supported or have personally published private emails, private messages, and personal information in the past to the general forums.

Persuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.), notice is hereby given that there are no facilities by this system for sending or recieving completely private or confidential electronic communications.

Your continued use of this online system constitutes acceptance of the above notice.

The big differnce is that the conversations with the people you mentioned above are privileged for very specific resons, basically because they ussualy concern very personal matters. Tarpitting people for disclosing PMs would be like giving people fines for blabbing other peoples' secrets in real life. Unles there is a very powerful reason to do this, it makes very little sens, IMHO.

There are very strong legal arguments for including verbiage as follows, in the TOS:



- d.

People shouldnt say things privately if they arent prepared to take public responsibility for their words.

That about covers it for me.

At first glance, I want to agree with you. But the behavior that is encouraged (or "not discouraged") in the public forums can have pretty significant impacts on people. A number of Timy Fairfield's friends signed up for the express purpose of defending his character. Do we want people coming to the site to stem the tide of a character assassination -- is that the best we have to offer? If not, is there any reason to encourage such a negative climate?

Our existing policy should be reconsidered, in light of what's happened. Even if only to let people know that attempts to use the website as a bully pulpit for character assassinations simply cannot be tolerated. It's not decent and it's not acceptable, regardless of the mechanism. Whether through discipline or simple 'cleanup', this degree of malicious misconduct cannot be allowed to stand or the site will become a cesspool.

(more so)