Private messages
Poll
 | 18 votes (45%) | ||
| | 22 votes (55%) |
40 members have voted
August 15th, 2012 at 5:06:14 PM
permalink
One of the issues here is the sanctity of private messages. The Wiz has made it a rule of the forum that one member cannot divulge to the forum the contents of a private message. I think that I no longer will want anyone sending me such messages. I would like to think a private message has the same sanctity as any private conversation, no more, no less. The implication that because someone used the 'pm' button instead of a phone call or a text and that has some greater need for secrecy makes no sense to me.
Perhaps I am alone in this thought, here's one way to find out......
Perhaps I am alone in this thought, here's one way to find out......
August 15th, 2012 at 5:10:36 PM
permalink
I think a sender should always have the right to divulge any of their authored messages. The receiver of a PM should not have the same right.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
August 15th, 2012 at 5:13:47 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsI think a sender should always have the right to divulge any of their authored messages. The receiver of a PM should not have the same right.
As an example, JoeSchmo sent me a pm telling me that RaleighCraps is a philandering, murdering, stealing, Advantage Player! You don't think I should have the right to tell you someone is calling you an Advantage Player?
August 15th, 2012 at 5:17:27 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOAs an example, JoeSchmo sent me a pm telling me that RaleighCraps is a philandering, murdering, stealing, Advantage Player! You don't think I should have the right to tell you someone is calling you an Advantage Player?
Damnit Scott! That was a supposed to be a secret!! :-P
I think there needs to be a mechanism for responsibly revealing the info in PMs if there's a compelling reason to do so. That could be some sort of emergency, or a vast difference from what's being said publicly.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:19:06 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOOne of the issues here is the sanctity of private messages. The Wiz has made it a rule of the forum that one member cannot divulge to the forum the contents of a private message. I think that I no longer will want anyone sending me such messages. I would like to think a private message has the same sanctity as any private conversation, no more, no less. The implication that because someone used the 'pm' button instead of a phone call or a text and that has some greater need for secrecy makes no sense to me.
Perhaps I am alone in this thought, here's one way to find out......
Did someone violate the sanctity of the PM in your case?
If that is the case, that person should be suspended. The rule is not flexible.
August 15th, 2012 at 5:21:50 PM
permalink
The reason PM's are secret is because in the past
members have used them as ammo to gang up
on another member. The point of a PM is I want
to say something in private. If I wanted it
spread all over the forum I would have done
that myself. I need to know the person I'm
writing to is forbidden to repeat what I said
without my permission.
members have used them as ammo to gang up
on another member. The point of a PM is I want
to say something in private. If I wanted it
spread all over the forum I would have done
that myself. I need to know the person I'm
writing to is forbidden to repeat what I said
without my permission.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 15th, 2012 at 5:24:26 PM
permalink
Private messaging does not mean you are entering into a confidentiality agreement.
August 15th, 2012 at 5:26:06 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanPrivate messaging does not mean you are entering into a confidentiality agreement.
Nope. But if you reveal the contents here, you get
banned. Its happened a couple times, anybody
remember MKL? And he used the PM's in a vicious
way, too.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 15th, 2012 at 5:26:24 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanPrivate messaging does not mean you are entering into a confidentiality agreement.
I think right now it kind of does. There's a penalty for breaching that confidentiality and everything.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:26:42 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOAs an example, JoeSchmo sent me a pm telling me that RaleighCraps is a philandering, murdering, stealing, Advantage Player! You don't think I should have the right to tell you someone is calling you an Advantage Player?
I'm a craps player. Everyone knows I couldn't be an AP! Need a better example. :-)
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
August 15th, 2012 at 5:34:50 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsI'm a craps player. Everyone knows I couldn't be an AP! Need a better example. :-)
lol! you're not a dice setter?
I guess the most obvious example would be one where another site rule is also violated. Like if I wrote "I don't have a lot of money, but what I do have is a particular set of skills. If you stop your craps AP play now, this can all be over. If not, I will come to NC. I will find you, and I will kill you." I would say that the illegal threats warrant disclosure for the greater good.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:37:10 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusI think right now it kind of does. There's a penalty for breaching that confidentiality and everything.
Is private messaging a means for two parties to have uninterrupted communication? Or is it a means by which two parties can have secret communication with an understanding that both parties are sworn to secrecy?
August 15th, 2012 at 5:37:15 PM
permalink
The P in PM means Private.
Unless you have admin rights or a subpoena, the contents of those messages should be between the sender and the receiver and no one else.
Unless you have admin rights or a subpoena, the contents of those messages should be between the sender and the receiver and no one else.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
August 15th, 2012 at 5:40:28 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanIs private messaging a means for two parties to have uninterrupted communication? Or is it a means by which two parties can have secret communication with an understanding that both parties are sworn to secrecy?
I would prefer the former definition. Right now, it's set up to be the latter.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:41:45 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potuslol! you're not a dice setter?
I guess the most obvious example would be one where another site rule is also violated. Like if I wrote "I don't have a lot of money, but what I do have is a particular set of skills. If you stop your craps AP play now, this can all be over. If not, I will come to NC. I will find you, and I will kill you." I would say that the illegal threats warrant disclosure for the greater good.
Interesting points.
If you wrote a PM to me, and it contained specific threats like that, I feel it would be within my rights (I dare say within my safety) to expose that PM.
At the same time, if you wrote to me that JoeSchmo was a jerk, and you wanted to look him up , and beat some sense into him, would that be enough reason to violate the confidentiality? I think that it would.
For that matter, what if you wrote to me that you were going to beat the crap out of Joe, and I said nothing. Would that make my complicit?
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
August 15th, 2012 at 5:47:06 PM
permalink
In general, whatever information you receive from anyone, and by any means is your property, and you should be able to do whatever you want with it, unless you have previously agreed to certain restrictions as a condition on receiving the information.
So, if somebody sends me a PM, I will not feel obligated not to make the contents public if I wish to, unless, I have promised to keep it secret.
Now, if I do it, Wizard is going to ban me from the forum, but that's a different story. This is his site, and he is free to do whatever he wants here, just like I am free to do whatever I want with information I have in my possession.
So, if somebody sends me a PM, I will not feel obligated not to make the contents public if I wish to, unless, I have promised to keep it secret.
Now, if I do it, Wizard is going to ban me from the forum, but that's a different story. This is his site, and he is free to do whatever he wants here, just like I am free to do whatever I want with information I have in my possession.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 5:47:24 PM
permalink
Quote: RaleighCrapsInteresting points.
If you wrote a PM to me, and it contained specific threats like that, I feel it would be within my rights (I dare say within my safety) to expose that PM.
At the same time, if you wrote to me that JoeSchmo was a jerk, and you wanted to look him up , and beat some sense into him, would that be enough reason to violate the confidentiality? I think that it would.
For that matter, what if you wrote to me that you were going to beat the crap out of Joe, and I said nothing. Would that make my complicit?
I really think that Taken could have played as a series. At least for a season or two, before it got old that the daughter still wasn't found.
I think that you, as the receiver, should violate confidentiality in any of those circumstances. I, as the sender, obviously would want the PMs to stay private. I suppose there's a tipping point somewhere. In any of the circumstances we've mentioned, it'd be worth a suspension from this site to make the PM public.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:48:08 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanPrivate messaging does not mean you are entering into a confidentiality agreement.
Effectively, you are. By posting on any Forum one effectively agrees to the Rules of that Forum (even if not explicitly) to the extent that Rules exist. If there is a rule to the effect that PM's must be private, then the rule has been agreed to by both the sender and recipient of the PM by virtue of the poster posting on the Forum.
I have no idea where you live, but let's say it's Denver (apologies if it actually is) just for the Hell of it. Now, there's another member of this Forum that lives in Denver who I don't care to meet in person, (I don't know if anyone here lives in Denver, honestly) but I care to meet you in person so instead of making a thread titled, "Hey, Rainman," and asking you if you want to meet me at the Isle in Blackhawk, I would just send you a PM. If I make the thread, perhaps the person that I would prefer not to meet takes notice and says, "Great, when are you going to be there."
It could be something innocuous like that, because theoretically, one should have the cajones to say, "I prefer not to meet you," or it could be something more serious. Rather than play it case-by-case with what PM information can be divulged, there is a blanket rule. I'm glad there is. I have not sent anyone anything for which I would really need to invoke that rule, at this point, but I may, so I'm glad it's there.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
August 15th, 2012 at 5:51:06 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146Effectively, you are.
An agreement implies that both sides accept it.
If I ask you to send something to me privately, and you agree, or if you suggest that you'll send something to me privately, and I agree, then we are in agreement, and I am obligated to keep your information private.
If you just choose to send me a PM on your own, beware, because I have not agreed on anything with you in that case, and will not have any obligation to you regarding privacy of that message.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 5:53:37 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselman
If you just choose to send me a PM on your own, beware, because I have not agreed on anything with you in that case, and will not have any obligation to you regarding privacy of that message.
No, if you choose to participate on this site you are agreeing to abide by the rules, which (at least currently) bar the disclosure of the contents of PMs.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 5:54:24 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusNo, if you choose to participate on this site you are agreeing to abide by the rules, which (at least currently) bar the disclosure of the contents of PMs.
Nope. I don't.
I am agreeing that, if I violate the rules, I may get suspended or banned, that's all.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 5:54:43 PM
permalink
Quote: rainmanPrivate messaging does not mean you are entering into a confidentiality agreement.
Someone else already quoted you, but I'll repeat it. Here it does. And that's why I started this thread.
It just doesn't make sense to me. If you text me, is it guaranteed to be private? (Ask ex-congressman Weiner)
If you call me on the phone, am I somehow bound to never quote you?
If I chat with you in Vegas, is that conversation automatically off limits to the rst of the world?
There are a few protected conversations that are clear in our society-
Doctor- patient
Attorney- client
Wizard of Vegas pm sender- Wizard of Vegas pm receiver
I am trying to see if Mike will eliminate the third one.
I think if you do not want the world to know something, then YOU keep it to yourself.
August 15th, 2012 at 5:54:52 PM
permalink
"Private messages" is a description, a hopeful description, and not a guarantee.
Firstly, one should have a pulse on the trustworthiness of the recipient. Someone you've never met, and don't know except through a computer monitor shouldn't warrant a high confidence level, even though there is a bit of comraderie and bonding going on here at times, at least on occasion.
Secondly, watch your content. Why PM a member about an issue of a forum thread if you couldn't say it in the thread?
However, I feel that PM-ing people known to you about non-forum things should be treated like an external email or phone call. Arranging a dinner date, a prop bet, or discussing a trade show incident could be treated like an external text, where the PM was just most convenient.
Firstly, one should have a pulse on the trustworthiness of the recipient. Someone you've never met, and don't know except through a computer monitor shouldn't warrant a high confidence level, even though there is a bit of comraderie and bonding going on here at times, at least on occasion.
Secondly, watch your content. Why PM a member about an issue of a forum thread if you couldn't say it in the thread?
However, I feel that PM-ing people known to you about non-forum things should be treated like an external email or phone call. Arranging a dinner date, a prop bet, or discussing a trade show incident could be treated like an external text, where the PM was just most convenient.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
August 15th, 2012 at 5:56:28 PM
permalink
Quote: s2dbakerThe P in PM means Private.
Unless you have admin rights or a subpoena, the contents of those messages should be between the sender and the receiver and no one else.
I can't speak for here, but I Moderate one of the larger Philosophy Boards to be found on the net, and I can say that I have no ability to see the PM's of others there. I have had PM's forwarded to me for various reasons, but I could not see one without at least one party sending it to me. I could TECHNICALLY change someone's password, but even if I wanted to, (I don't) I would certainly be caught because I cannot view what their current (old) password was at any time.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
August 15th, 2012 at 5:59:47 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO
I think if you do not want the world to know something, then YOU keep it to yourself.
I counter with my example. Just because I want to meet you (or someone else) somewhere doesn't mean I want to meet everyone there!
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/gripes/11182-pet-peeves/120/#post815219
August 15th, 2012 at 6:00:34 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanNope. I don't.
I am agreeing that, if I violate the rules, I may get suspended or banned, that's all.
Yes, if you break the rule, there's a penalty. Compliance is your choice. Is that different than any other rule anywhere?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 6:03:29 PM
permalink
Quote: Mission146I counter with my example. Just because I want to meet you (or someone else) somewhere doesn't mean I want to meet everyone there!
And I would expect a pm to be treated the same as a phone call. If you and I talk on the phone, and choose to share that information, we may have an understanding between us that we will not share the information with others. We do not need any confidentiality rule for that to be so. A pm is nothing more than a convenient way for two people to communicate, especially if they choose NOT to give out other personal information on an internet forum. It should be treated no differently than any conversation between two people. Period.
August 15th, 2012 at 6:03:54 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO
I am trying to see if Mike will eliminate the third one.
All that will do is kill the whole point of PM's. If
you take away the confidentiality, PM's can be used
against you in the future. I just sent somebody a
PM because I wanted it to be between him and I,
not him and 2500 forum members. Why would
you want that taken away?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 15th, 2012 at 6:05:21 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobAll that will do is kill the whole point of PM's. If
you take away the confidentiality, PM's can be used
against you in the future. I just sent somebody a
PM because I wanted it to be between him and I,
not him and 2500 forum members. Why would
you want that taken away?
Because of the multiple reasons I have listed in all of my posts on this thread.
August 15th, 2012 at 6:09:14 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOOBecause of the multiple reasons I have listed in all of my posts on this thread.
What your reasons say to me is, you want to
be able to reveal the content of PM's. Otherwise,
why would you care so much?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 15th, 2012 at 6:10:12 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWhat your reasons say to me is, you want to
be able to reveal the content of PM's. Otherwise,
why would you care so much?
and?
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 6:20:50 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusYes, if you break the rule, there's a penalty. Compliance is your choice. Is that different than any other rule anywhere?
Well ... kinda, yeah ... For example, SOOPOO and I have a bet going on who will be the next president. If I loose, and choose not to pay, there will not be a penalty, but it would still be a wrong thing to do. On the other hand, if you send me a PM, and I publish it on the forum, there (probably) will be a penalty, but doing so still would not be a bad thing.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 6:26:59 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanWell ... kinda, yeah ... For example, SOOPOO and I have a bet going on who will be the next president. If I loose, and choose not to pay, there will not be a penalty, but it would still be a wrong thing to do. On the other hand, if you send me a PM, and I publish it on the forum, there (probably) will be a penalty, but doing so still would not be a bad thing.
I see your point. But how is that different than speeding when your wife is in labor, or assaulting someone to save another, or any other justifiable rule infraction? There's still a potential penalty, it's just also clearly worth taking the offending action.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 7:29:20 PM
permalink
The difference is that this case does not require justification. Justification is needed when you are doing something you know to be wrong to prevent a greater evil. Disclosing content of a conversation, that you have not promised to keep secret is not wrong, and thus does not require justification.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 7:38:12 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanThe difference is that this case does not require justification. Justification is needed when you are doing something you know to be wrong to prevent a greater evil. Disclosing content of a conversation, that you have not promised to keep secret is not wrong, and thus does not require justification.
Without a compelling justification, you will be suspended for violating the rules of this site.
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
August 15th, 2012 at 7:41:43 PM
permalink
Quote: rdw4potusWithout a compelling justification, you will be suspended for violating the rules of this site.
Yes, I know. Like I said from the beginning, this is Wizard's site, and he is free to do whatever he wants and ban whoever he likes (or rather does not like). He could ban me without any reason at all, if he wanted to. To me, this is a question totally separate from that of the innate and/or implied privacy of private messages.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 15th, 2012 at 7:43:13 PM
permalink
Quote: SOOPOO
There are a few protected conversations that are clear in our society-
Doctor- patient
Attorney- client
Wizard of Vegas pm sender- Wizard of Vegas pm receiver
I am trying to see if Mike will eliminate the third one.
I think if you do not want the world to know something, then YOU keep it to yourself.
Let's not forget priest- penitent.
I obviously value and respect the needed place for confidental and private conversations, even on a gambling forum.
August 15th, 2012 at 8:49:52 PM
permalink
As a person who spends entirely way too much time on the internet in various ways, I have a strange view on Private Messages. The Wizard's rules not withstanding, and the rules of any other site not withstanding, PMs pose all KINDS of problems. Consider, the majority of people "busted" on To Catch A Predator had their PMs read back to them by Chris Hansen.
The problem with a Private Message, is the word private. I mean, if someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, I want to tell you something in complete confidentiality, don't tell anybody else," you have the option/ability to say, "No, I don't want to hear what you have to say," and walk away. The same ability doesn't exist in a PM. When the sender sends a PM, it appears in the receiver's box. You can, of course, choose to not read the PM and just delete it, but let's assume you open it. And the PM says, "Hey, I just stabbed somebody to death. Cool, huh? Don't tell anybody." Are you stuck now?
PMs provide an IMPLIED confidentiality. When we send a PM to a person, we make an assumption that the PM conversation is just between the people involved. But the truth of the matter is that we didn't really ask the other person's permission to enter into a confidential conversation. We just make the assumption because it's a PM.
Now, you can have a website that says, hey, any PMs are confidential. But again, you can be forced into a confidential conversation that you don't want to be involved in. There's no asking of permission to enter into confidentiality.
PMs can be a scary thing. You want the ability to communicate with someone in a less than public matter such as the forum, while at the same time hoping for some confidentiality between the persons involved.
I guess, in my years of being online, I came to the following conclusion. PMs are great, and for the most part, the confidentiality between them has been upheld. But at the same time, I treat them with some trepidation. There's a reason why I'm only PMing the person and not giving them my private phone number so they can contact me directly.
The problem with a Private Message, is the word private. I mean, if someone walks up to you and says, "Hey, I want to tell you something in complete confidentiality, don't tell anybody else," you have the option/ability to say, "No, I don't want to hear what you have to say," and walk away. The same ability doesn't exist in a PM. When the sender sends a PM, it appears in the receiver's box. You can, of course, choose to not read the PM and just delete it, but let's assume you open it. And the PM says, "Hey, I just stabbed somebody to death. Cool, huh? Don't tell anybody." Are you stuck now?
PMs provide an IMPLIED confidentiality. When we send a PM to a person, we make an assumption that the PM conversation is just between the people involved. But the truth of the matter is that we didn't really ask the other person's permission to enter into a confidential conversation. We just make the assumption because it's a PM.
Now, you can have a website that says, hey, any PMs are confidential. But again, you can be forced into a confidential conversation that you don't want to be involved in. There's no asking of permission to enter into confidentiality.
PMs can be a scary thing. You want the ability to communicate with someone in a less than public matter such as the forum, while at the same time hoping for some confidentiality between the persons involved.
I guess, in my years of being online, I came to the following conclusion. PMs are great, and for the most part, the confidentiality between them has been upheld. But at the same time, I treat them with some trepidation. There's a reason why I'm only PMing the person and not giving them my private phone number so they can contact me directly.
August 15th, 2012 at 9:03:26 PM
permalink
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't quote private messages in the forum or to other members. What you do with them outside of the site is beyond my control.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 15th, 2012 at 9:43:53 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardAll I'm saying is that you shouldn't quote private messages in the forum or to other members. What you do with them outside of the site is beyond my control.
So if you post them on a seperate site and post
a link to the site, thats OK?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
August 15th, 2012 at 10:01:15 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobSo if you post them on a seperate site and post a link to the site, thats OK?
No, because then you are involving this site.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
August 15th, 2012 at 11:19:54 PM
permalink
I don't know exactly where the real and actual laws stand on this, but a good starting point would be with telephone recording laws (a quick wiki works). This isn't the EXACT same thing, but you could argue implied privacy in "private messages". Personally, I don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to write something to someone that they don't want to get out.
I'll say some pretty ridiculously insensitive, racist, and bigoted comments to a couple of friends on Facebook. The thing is that these are friends who will just laugh it off, then say something similar back to me. The only name for people who send a random PM to someone they barely know that they might be ashamed of... is just plain stupid.
I'll say some pretty ridiculously insensitive, racist, and bigoted comments to a couple of friends on Facebook. The thing is that these are friends who will just laugh it off, then say something similar back to me. The only name for people who send a random PM to someone they barely know that they might be ashamed of... is just plain stupid.
Its - Possessive; It's - "It is" / "It has"; There - Location; Their - Possessive; They're - "They are"
August 15th, 2012 at 11:48:43 PM
permalink
If MustangSally reveals even one PM'd love note from me I'll die of embarrassment.
Keep 'em sealed!
Keep 'em sealed!
100% risk of ruin
August 16th, 2012 at 3:55:45 AM
permalink
Quote: ahiromuI don't know exactly where the real and actual laws stand on this, but a good starting point would be with telephone recording laws (a quick wiki works). This isn't the EXACT same thing, but you could argue implied privacy in "private messages".
No, this is not the same thing, it is completely different.
There is no law or implication, that what you tell me over the phone will remain confidential. Only that it will not be recorded without your consent (not even that in most states btw). There is nothing preventing me from repeating what you told me over the phone to a third party.
In any case I am not sure why you are even comparing the content of PM to a phone conversation. It is much closer to an email. And the latter has much less even implied privacy than phone conversations do. With the phone, at least, if you are in one of the "double consent" states, and you were not informed that the conversation is being recorded, you can be assured, there are no (legal) records of it after you have finished. With email, there is always a record, most of the time more than one, even if you delete everything from your computer, even if you delete it from the server. Email is permanent.
Regardless, these subtle differences concern subpoenas and law enforcement - peaking into somebody else's conversations. There are no laws forbidding you from disclosing the content of your own conversation to anyone (unless, the information was disclosed to you on a specific condition of privacy).
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
August 16th, 2012 at 4:38:43 AM
permalink
Quote: FrGambleLet's not forget priest- penitent.
I obviously value and respect the needed place for confidental and private conversations, even on a gambling forum.
YIKES!!! Sorry, father... I missed that biggie!!
August 16th, 2012 at 5:56:22 AM
permalink
Quote: ahiromuI don't know exactly where the real and actual laws stand on this, but a good starting point would be with telephone recording laws (a quick wiki works). This isn't the EXACT same thing, but you could argue implied privacy in "private messages". Personally, I don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to write something to someone that they don't want to get out.
"Law" has nothing to do with it. It is about the sites policy. With all the back-and-forth on this thread the reality is boiled to a few short points.
1. This is a private web site. It is not the US Mail and it is not a one-to-one telephon"law" e call. While the law may still me undefined on expectation of privacy with what amounts to a glorified email, the "law" on WoV is simple, and that "law" is that all PMs have an expectation of privacy unless clearly expressed otherwise on the part of the sender.
2. The penalty for noncompliance is great yet limited. Wizard may ban you same as a casino can 86 a card counter. Both are private property and there is no appeal process, you are gone. Unless your life is about one blog, your life will move on and WoV will move on, apart from each other.
Knowing this, it should be clearly obvious that insults or worse yet threats should not be sent in a PM. If you get them either block the member or alert site management if a threat crosses the line. But for crying out loud, posting a PM because someone said something? What is this, a Facebook group for junior high girls?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
August 16th, 2012 at 6:50:55 AM
permalink
I screwed up and posted this in the Discussion about suspenstion list thread. I would have edited/deleted it, except I already got a reply there, so pardon this duplicate post:
Sorry I'm late to this discussion. Here's my opinions and input.
Often, PMs are used for things that nave no reason being private.
Recently, someone posted in Dan's thread about the craps table he's selling (giving away?), if it's been spoken for. The post included a comment to respond via PM. Why? Clearly, if they want to talk about the terms of a potential deal, that should be private, but whether or not it's still available should be a public reply.
A while back, I got a PM regarding my Poker For Roulette side bet. The context of the PM was a potential problem with my idea.
I felt that the PM was sent privately to protect me from the down-side of someone at a game distributor from seeing this potential problem. But I have nothing to hide, so I responded in my thread about the bet, and included the context of the PM. I did NOT identify the sender. But I still got a followup PM from that person that I had violated the sanctity of the PM. Really? The only one possibly being hurt by my actions was me, so what's the issue?
A further follow-up PM prompted me to edit the post in question, but was it really necessary?
Sorry I'm late to this discussion. Here's my opinions and input.
Often, PMs are used for things that nave no reason being private.
Recently, someone posted in Dan's thread about the craps table he's selling (giving away?), if it's been spoken for. The post included a comment to respond via PM. Why? Clearly, if they want to talk about the terms of a potential deal, that should be private, but whether or not it's still available should be a public reply.
A while back, I got a PM regarding my Poker For Roulette side bet. The context of the PM was a potential problem with my idea.
I felt that the PM was sent privately to protect me from the down-side of someone at a game distributor from seeing this potential problem. But I have nothing to hide, so I responded in my thread about the bet, and included the context of the PM. I did NOT identify the sender. But I still got a followup PM from that person that I had violated the sanctity of the PM. Really? The only one possibly being hurt by my actions was me, so what's the issue?
A further follow-up PM prompted me to edit the post in question, but was it really necessary?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 16th, 2012 at 7:34:03 AM
permalink
I don't know of anything I have ever said in a P.M. on this forum that I would object to having revealed to anyone anywhere. I generally use a P.M. (as opposed to a thread post) when I know exactly the member I want to provide info to or to receive reply info from and don't think the conversation needs to take everyone else's time to read.
As an example, yesterday I sent a P.M. to a member asking about the availability of a new chip design at a particular casino. I was confident that if the chip was available, that member would know. He did know, and he gave me some details. I expect that very soon I will be making a post of that info in the Casino Chip of the Day thread. I can't imagine that either that member or I would have any problem if our entire exchange of half a dozen messages were posted publicly in the forum, but there was no need to burden everyone else in the process.
Since there seems to be a paranoia/hysteria going around about the sanctity of the private messages, I guess I will need to avoid mentioning who I got the info from and exactly what he said, but that seems rather petty. Everyone else here will probably be able to deduce, just as I did, the best source of the info I was seeking. I think it would be better to be able to give the source the credit for the info without "worrying" that I might be breaking some kind of rule. The way I'm reading some comments here, even if that member told me it was OK to tell everyone what he said, if I did that I would be breaking the rule.
Why would anyone want to go on an internet forum and tell someone else their deepest, darkest secrets, while hoping, expecting, and even demanding that they never be revealed? I just don't see it; I don't know why anyone would use the internet in that way. Maybe that's why I never got into Facebook and all of the privacy hassles there.
As an example, yesterday I sent a P.M. to a member asking about the availability of a new chip design at a particular casino. I was confident that if the chip was available, that member would know. He did know, and he gave me some details. I expect that very soon I will be making a post of that info in the Casino Chip of the Day thread. I can't imagine that either that member or I would have any problem if our entire exchange of half a dozen messages were posted publicly in the forum, but there was no need to burden everyone else in the process.
Since there seems to be a paranoia/hysteria going around about the sanctity of the private messages, I guess I will need to avoid mentioning who I got the info from and exactly what he said, but that seems rather petty. Everyone else here will probably be able to deduce, just as I did, the best source of the info I was seeking. I think it would be better to be able to give the source the credit for the info without "worrying" that I might be breaking some kind of rule. The way I'm reading some comments here, even if that member told me it was OK to tell everyone what he said, if I did that I would be breaking the rule.
Why would anyone want to go on an internet forum and tell someone else their deepest, darkest secrets, while hoping, expecting, and even demanding that they never be revealed? I just don't see it; I don't know why anyone would use the internet in that way. Maybe that's why I never got into Facebook and all of the privacy hassles there.
August 16th, 2012 at 8:18:25 AM
permalink
Doc -
That's a very good example of the other good use of private messages. I.E. There was no info that you wanted to keep private, but that you knew that nobody but the intended recipient would be interested in. So you kept us out of your side discussion. Thank you.
I reviewed some of my private messages. Some of them were general questions that are better served by asking in the forums, so why make them private? And that's what I responded. FYI: Questions such as details of the patent process from newbies. I.E. Info that I had gotten from Dan, from his posts that were already on the forum. Yeah, the search function exists, but isn't great. But the solution certainly is not a private message.
For what it's worth, I did not vote, because neither response is 100% applicable.
That's a very good example of the other good use of private messages. I.E. There was no info that you wanted to keep private, but that you knew that nobody but the intended recipient would be interested in. So you kept us out of your side discussion. Thank you.
I reviewed some of my private messages. Some of them were general questions that are better served by asking in the forums, so why make them private? And that's what I responded. FYI: Questions such as details of the patent process from newbies. I.E. Info that I had gotten from Dan, from his posts that were already on the forum. Yeah, the search function exists, but isn't great. But the solution certainly is not a private message.
For what it's worth, I did not vote, because neither response is 100% applicable.
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
August 16th, 2012 at 8:38:54 AM
permalink
You can have a forum rule to protect contents of PM, but I generally don't see the point or agree with it.
There is no other form of casual private conversation that is protected in the same way. Furthermore, the posting of a PM is not even verifiable. The sender is essentially anonymous (I doubt IPs are even tracked), and the text can be edited by the receiver before being made public. When someone posts the content of a PM, I ignore it. Completely unreliable.
There is no other form of casual private conversation that is protected in the same way. Furthermore, the posting of a PM is not even verifiable. The sender is essentially anonymous (I doubt IPs are even tracked), and the text can be edited by the receiver before being made public. When someone posts the content of a PM, I ignore it. Completely unreliable.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
