Lighten up Rogue.
By the language alone a Private Message is just that,private.
I was angered when you decided to publish Frank's PM to you,as a result of which he left the forum which I still consider to be a loss.
Maybe we should add a sidebar to the ToC.To that effect.
Share This Page:
You couldn't make it up
-
Rogue Chef
- Guest
Paul,
I stand by my comments. If you want confidentiality you make it clear in your message, even then I will do what I like with it if I feel that is the right thing to do. Once it lands in my inbox it belongs to me. Anything anyone needs to say to me can be said in open forum. There is no need for any secrecy. I would draw the line at sensitive or very personal information, but veiled threats by a jumped up, self important nob can be viewed by all.
I have always been very wary of people who adopt a "This'll be our little secret" attitude. In my experience they range from insecure to dangerous!
I had no real issues with Frank (I didn't know him), but I wasn't going to be chastised like a naughty little boy. My responses to him were measured and by my standards very mild. He wanted to dish it out but didn't like a bit back, perhaps he forgot that his role is to moderate these forums not to be the Sgt Major.
Adding another rule or constraint to the ToA wouldn't, in my view, be of any benefit. The most important terms are frequently broken without any apparent recourse by the Mods (the recent issue with Kiwi being an exception). Abusive and foul language of a bullying nature is commonplace. No complaints from me, but it seems pointless having rules if they aren't upheld. That said, I have added a little rule of my own. It's in my signature block.
One last small point. If some here view the confidentiality of PMs as sacrosanct, what would happen if a PM contained information of a morally reprehensible or illegal nature?
And one more very last tiny point, I am light and never bitter. That said I do enjoy a light and bitter. Anyone fancy a pint?
I stand by my comments. If you want confidentiality you make it clear in your message, even then I will do what I like with it if I feel that is the right thing to do. Once it lands in my inbox it belongs to me. Anything anyone needs to say to me can be said in open forum. There is no need for any secrecy. I would draw the line at sensitive or very personal information, but veiled threats by a jumped up, self important nob can be viewed by all.
I have always been very wary of people who adopt a "This'll be our little secret" attitude. In my experience they range from insecure to dangerous!
I had no real issues with Frank (I didn't know him), but I wasn't going to be chastised like a naughty little boy. My responses to him were measured and by my standards very mild. He wanted to dish it out but didn't like a bit back, perhaps he forgot that his role is to moderate these forums not to be the Sgt Major.
Adding another rule or constraint to the ToA wouldn't, in my view, be of any benefit. The most important terms are frequently broken without any apparent recourse by the Mods (the recent issue with Kiwi being an exception). Abusive and foul language of a bullying nature is commonplace. No complaints from me, but it seems pointless having rules if they aren't upheld. That said, I have added a little rule of my own. It's in my signature block.
One last small point. If some here view the confidentiality of PMs as sacrosanct, what would happen if a PM contained information of a morally reprehensible or illegal nature?
And one more very last tiny point, I am light and never bitter. That said I do enjoy a light and bitter. Anyone fancy a pint?
Last edited by Rogue Chef on Wed 11 Jun, 2008 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Clearly not. We are still bickering. I find a healthy chat far better than poking with sticks from behind a screen.SO19 wrote:Why on earth do I need to ring you up over something said on an internet forum? You have a strange habbit of insisting people ring you everytime you disagree with them.
A simple post will suffice.
Habit has one 'b' by the way.
Rogue, keep up. Your mate picks as many holes in my spelling as I do in his ..... if not more.
And, no, there is no ''law'' which decrees contents of PMs being kept private. However, on this forum and the others of which I am a member it is considered good form.
Jayne
-
Rogue Chef
- Guest
Wholley,
There are currently over 30 PMs in my inbox, some from you, but the contents have not been made public. I don't have a policy of broadcasting all PMs. I have only ever promulgated when I believed it was the right thing to do.
I would suggest that if someone wants to share something, intimate, private, sensitive etc. then that person should ask the intended recipient if he/she is prepared to share the burden and maintain confidentiality.
In the interest of the forums and members, perhaps the Mods could make it compulsory that posts should be coherent and have a valid point. As opposed to some of the random, senseless nonsense that is sometimes promulgated on these boards. Now that would get my vote!
Quite often, I have no idea what some posts are about or what they refer to. Really I don't.
There are currently over 30 PMs in my inbox, some from you, but the contents have not been made public. I don't have a policy of broadcasting all PMs. I have only ever promulgated when I believed it was the right thing to do.
I would suggest that if someone wants to share something, intimate, private, sensitive etc. then that person should ask the intended recipient if he/she is prepared to share the burden and maintain confidentiality.
In the interest of the forums and members, perhaps the Mods could make it compulsory that posts should be coherent and have a valid point. As opposed to some of the random, senseless nonsense that is sometimes promulgated on these boards. Now that would get my vote!
Quite often, I have no idea what some posts are about or what they refer to. Really I don't.
Do we really need a 'legal definition' of the words 'Private Message' or 'Personal Message', whichever we take the abbreviation to mean? Surely, the meaning of either or both terms is self evident?Rogue Chef wrote:Could Admin, or one of the Moderators, please steer me to the part in the ToG (Terms of Agreement) that stipulates that the content of PMs is strictly private and not to be rebroadcast elsewhere?
It seems obvious that people don't [usually??] state in their PMs that they don't want it broadcasting precisely because they understand it to be private and/or personal.
On the other hand, it would seem more appropriate that the recipient should notify the sender that she/he intends to make public the content of the PM and, so, give the sender the opportunity to request the thing is deleted.
Of course, if PMs are not treated as confidential then there seems little point in providing the facility - unless we agree it really means 'Public Message' - which rather seems to make the whole thing pointless.
-
Rogue Chef
- Guest
Sisyphus,
You're wrong.
A private or personal message is not by definition confidential, and neither should confidentiality be assumed or demanded. If you send a message to me, it is mine to do with as I wish. If you're not happy with that, don't trouble me with your nonsense PMs. Very simple really.
The PMs in my inbox and my replies would not be of interest to most people on here, but you are all more than welcome to view them.
They occured because the person involved and myself discussed something of mutual interest that was not considered to be of general interest. There is nothing of a sensitive, secretive, private, intimate or illegal nature in any of them.
My question, as quoted by Sisyphus, was tinged with mild and humourous sarcasm. I know there is nothing regarding this issue in ToA. The inference that all PMs are strictly private/confidential is a bit 'La La land' and at best only a tacit agreement. The recipient would usually not have any choice if someone sends something unwanted. So the sender has a responsibility to ensure that the recipient is not unduly burdened with information that he/she may not want. I refuse to accept junk mail from the post office why should I accept junk mail via PM then be expected to sit quietly and accept it.
As my old Sgt Major used to say "Don't play with fire and you won't get burned".
Sound advice from an accomplished arsonist!
You're wrong.
A private or personal message is not by definition confidential, and neither should confidentiality be assumed or demanded. If you send a message to me, it is mine to do with as I wish. If you're not happy with that, don't trouble me with your nonsense PMs. Very simple really.
The PMs in my inbox and my replies would not be of interest to most people on here, but you are all more than welcome to view them.
They occured because the person involved and myself discussed something of mutual interest that was not considered to be of general interest. There is nothing of a sensitive, secretive, private, intimate or illegal nature in any of them.
My question, as quoted by Sisyphus, was tinged with mild and humourous sarcasm. I know there is nothing regarding this issue in ToA. The inference that all PMs are strictly private/confidential is a bit 'La La land' and at best only a tacit agreement. The recipient would usually not have any choice if someone sends something unwanted. So the sender has a responsibility to ensure that the recipient is not unduly burdened with information that he/she may not want. I refuse to accept junk mail from the post office why should I accept junk mail via PM then be expected to sit quietly and accept it.
As my old Sgt Major used to say "Don't play with fire and you won't get burned".
Sound advice from an accomplished arsonist!
Last edited by Rogue Chef on Wed 11 Jun, 2008 5:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Sisyphus, PM does stand for Private Message, it says so at the top of the browser when you are viewing your messages.
"A private or personal message is not by definition confidential"
Sure it is, see right there, private?
Although as you said they are used mostly for general chat rather than 'confessions' or whatever, thats beyond the point unless anything illegal etc. is involved. There is little point in anybody arguing with you as you seem to be set in your ways and it is a waste of time arguing anyway, but the solution to anybody who gives a shite is simple, don't send Rogue a PM. Magic. 
"A private or personal message is not by definition confidential"
Sure it is, see right there, private?
Although as you said they are used mostly for general chat rather than 'confessions' or whatever, thats beyond the point unless anything illegal etc. is involved. There is little point in anybody arguing with you as you seem to be set in your ways and it is a waste of time arguing anyway, but the solution to anybody who gives a shite is simple, don't send Rogue a PM. Magic. -
London Boy
- Member
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Wed 19 Dec, 2007 4:19 pm
- Location: Not in UK
I've not been involved in this particular engagment before but now I'm going to wade in and say I agree with Rogue and SO19.
And I want to add another perspective or simply stress something that has already been touched on, the majoirty of Rogue's PMs he states are innocent or not of interest to the rest of us.
However, let's suppose for a minute he has received several offensive PMs or argumentative PMs. Then I feel he is fully entitled to air those on the forum for the other members to either support or denounce him.
For individual members to conduct arguments via PM, I think is not only cowardly but is also an attempt to put the receiver of said PMs at an ethical disadvantage, regarding disclosure ofcontents of said PM.
And personally I wouldn't stand for any of that.
If a member here sends an offensive or argumentative PM to another member then they should be prepared to stand up for what they wrote and if need be defend it on the open forum.
A famous quote, "Print and be damned"
In other words, if you're not prepared to face the consequences of what you send via PMs then don't send them! Which is equally true for what is written on the forums in general.
And I want to add another perspective or simply stress something that has already been touched on, the majoirty of Rogue's PMs he states are innocent or not of interest to the rest of us.
However, let's suppose for a minute he has received several offensive PMs or argumentative PMs. Then I feel he is fully entitled to air those on the forum for the other members to either support or denounce him.
For individual members to conduct arguments via PM, I think is not only cowardly but is also an attempt to put the receiver of said PMs at an ethical disadvantage, regarding disclosure ofcontents of said PM.
And personally I wouldn't stand for any of that.
If a member here sends an offensive or argumentative PM to another member then they should be prepared to stand up for what they wrote and if need be defend it on the open forum.
A famous quote, "Print and be damned"
In other words, if you're not prepared to face the consequences of what you send via PMs then don't send them! Which is equally true for what is written on the forums in general.
-
Rogue Chef
- Guest
Mike,
You're wrong.
However you did make my point rather well that the confidentiality aspect is not sacrosanct
Sending a private or personal message does not give anyone the right to demand and receive confidentiality. By all means request it from the recipient but once you've 'spilled the beans' you've 'opened a can of worms'. For the reasons I refer to my previous messages and LB's.
As my old Sgt Major used to say "Anyone for tennis?"
An astute observation from the wily old fox.
You're wrong.
However you did make my point rather well that the confidentiality aspect is not sacrosanct
If a member did ask me to keep something confidential, I would probably respect that request in most cases and I have not divulged information from the vast majority of the dozens of PMs I have received. For the reasons why I wouldn't respect confidentiality I refer to my previous posts and LB's.Although as you said they are used mostly for general chat rather than 'confessions' or whatever, thats beyond the point unless anything illegal etc. is involved.
Sending a private or personal message does not give anyone the right to demand and receive confidentiality. By all means request it from the recipient but once you've 'spilled the beans' you've 'opened a can of worms'. For the reasons I refer to my previous messages and LB's.
As my old Sgt Major used to say "Anyone for tennis?"
An astute observation from the wily old fox.
Sure, when sending a PM the sender doesn't have the right to 'demand' confidentiality, but unless the subject of the Private Message is illegal, morally wrong or plain abusive etc. then I feel that if the topic is of a sensitive or personal nature then it would be assumed to be kept between the two people out of nothing other than common courtesy. As you said though, in the vast majority of cases you have kept the contents of such PM's private and so I get the feeling that this 'debate' is regarding a specific past event(s) so I'll keep my beak out from now on as I know nothing about any such occurrence.
LondonBoy, I can see what you are saying about it being somewhat cowardly to insult and 'attack' somebody via PM's rather than out in the open, but I for one feel that there is enough shite hurling going on out in the open as it is, hardly gives a great first impression of the site to guests and new members if every second post was abusive would it?
Just my 2 pennies.
LondonBoy, I can see what you are saying about it being somewhat cowardly to insult and 'attack' somebody via PM's rather than out in the open, but I for one feel that there is enough shite hurling going on out in the open as it is, hardly gives a great first impression of the site to guests and new members if every second post was abusive would it?
Just my 2 pennies.
-
Rogue Chef
- Guest
Rogue,Rogue Chef wrote:Sisyphus,
You're wrong.
A private or personal message is not by definition confidential, and neither should confidentiality be assumed or demanded.
Wrong depends on the definition of 'private'. Maybe your dictionary defines it as something different from: 'kept or removed from public knowledge or observation; confidential; not public; secluded;sequestered; not publicly known.... and so on.
If you choose to make public the contents of PMs that's entirely a matter for you but let's not try to justify it by redefining [or ignoring] the meaning of the word private.
As private is synonymous with confidential [and I mean to most people, not just lexicographers] then a private message is 'by definition' confidential - or, at least, might be expected to be treated as such by the sender. It's semantic gymnastics to suggest otherwise.
I don't think in anonymous forums anyone can expect an absolute right to anything. However, if there is such a thing as forum etiquette I think anyone who wanted to publish the contents of a PM should give the sender the opportunity to retract [delete] the message first.
Alternatively, rename PMs as CMs..... or do away with the option altogether then there can be no misunderstanding about what PMs are, or aren't.
No doubt people who join the forum in the future will be unaware that some people judge private not to have its generally accepted meaning when applied to PMs.
Rock on Sissy. Spot on!Sisyphus wrote:Rogue,Rogue Chef wrote:Sisyphus,
You're wrong.
A private or personal message is not by definition confidential, and neither should confidentiality be assumed or demanded.
Wrong depends on the definition of 'private'. Maybe your dictionary defines it as something different from: 'kept or removed from public knowledge or observation; confidential; not public; secluded;sequestered; not publicly known.... and so on.
If you choose to make public the contents of PMs that's entirely a matter for you but let's not try to justify it by redefining [or ignoring] the meaning of the word private.
As private is synonymous with confidential [and I mean to most people, not just lexicographers] then a private message is 'by definition' confidential - or, at least, might be expected to be treated as such by the sender. It's semantic gymnastics to suggest otherwise.
I don't think in anonymous forums anyone can expect an absolute right to anything. However, if there is such a thing as forum etiquette I think anyone who wanted to publish the contents of a PM should give the sender the opportunity to retract [delete] the message first.
Alternatively, rename PMs as CMs..... or do away with the option altogether then there can be no misunderstanding about what PMs are, or aren't.
No doubt people who join the forum in the future will be unaware that some people judge private not to have its generally accepted meaning when applied to PMs.
