Thread: regarding PM's
View Single Post
Old 06-09-2006, 05:26 PM   #7 (permalink)
anastrophe
Catnip, Stat!
Supporting Member
 
anastrophe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sonoma County, California, United States of America
country flag
Posts: 3,026
Re: regarding PM's

Quote:
Originally Posted by spot
I think the sharing prohibition rule is actually responsible for a lot of the friction. The fuss is that some people are trying to get other people banned, by proving that the other people shared PM text with yet further members but without consent of the original writer. It's been going on for a year at least. The trying to get someone banned technique to end a fight is particularly horrible. You admins retain full flexibility when it comes to punishment for a given offence, of course, so there's a sensible backstop to it all.

None of this is about violating confidences, all of it is about passing round threats and abuse. I suggest there would be a lot less threats and abuse without the existing rule.
there'd be a lot less threats and abuse if we spiked the water with ecstasy, too. we're looking into it.

yes, i'm being flip. as i said, complaints are rare. most FGers have bigger fish to fry than these petty 'maybe i can get someone who gets under my skin banned' squabbles.

me, i think i'll order a pizza.

Local Time: 07:05 AM
Local Date: 01-08-2009
anastrophe is offline  
Reply With Quote