regarding PM's

[anastrophe]

a reminder: PM stands for "Private Messaging". Private cuts in all directions - what you PM to somebody else is private - but that means that what someone else PM's to you is private, and is not to be shared with anyone else - by any mechanism, posting or via PM - without the original author's consent.

We don't monitor or control PM's. It's not practical to do so, nor is it something we want to do. However, we *do* have the ability to read PM's if necessary or warranted, either due to a complaint or due to a request from law enforcement (upon presentment of a sworn subpoena, and that has never happened).

down at the bottom of every single page on forum garden is a link to "legal info". within that, is a link to our terms of service. read both pages. it's a buncha legalese, primarily to cover our asses. but it does affect you.

of course, if you just use common sense, about 85% of it will already be covered. don't violate confidences. be nice to one another. don't drink month old milk. objects in mirror are closer than they appear.

[spot]

May I ask the purpose of the Control Button marked "Forward" in the PM space? Perhaps that causes confusion - the site's provision of the facility to pass PMs on.

(added on edit): Since this matter causes such continuous friction, perhaps you could revisit your reason for setting the site policy that way. Perhaps a free-for-all on sharing PMs (though not posting them in public) would make a lot more sense and free you from so many complaints to investigate?

Is there? Blimey, I never noticed!
Not that I would, of course.

[anastrophe]

Originally Posted by spot

May I ask the purpose of the Control Button marked "Forward" in the PM space? Perhaps that causes confusion - the site's provision of the facility to pass PMs on.

(added on edit): Since this matter causes such continuous friction, perhaps you could revisit your reason for setting the site policy that way. Perhaps a free-for-all on sharing PMs (though not posting them in public) would make a lot more sense and free you from so many complaints to investigate?

if we got a lot of complaints, we might. but we don't get very many complaints at all. rarer than hen's teeth.

[spot]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

if we got a lot of complaints, we might. but we don't get very many complaints at all. rarer than hen's teeth.

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.

Funny enough, I just had a pm which the writer has asked me to post, regarding pm's! Of course I won't, even though the sender requested it.
The overall content was about people PM'ing each other trying to get other members banned.
I think this is absolutely abhorrent - I hate to think any of our FG family would do that to one another.

[anastrophe]

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.

[spot]

Originally Posted by anastrophe

me, i think i'll order a pizza.

Fair enough. I thought I'd wave it in the air and see if anyone was impressed.

[abbey]

Originally Posted by Pinky

Funny enough, I just had a pm which the writer has asked me to post, regarding pm's! Of course I won't, even though the sender requested it.
The overall content was about people PM'ing each other trying to get other members banned.
I think this is absolutely abhorrent - I hate to think any of our FG family would do that to one another.

Why did'nt the writer post it

They kind of did!