Poll

18 votes (45%)
22 votes (55%)

40 members have voted

rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7157
August 15th, 2012 at 5:34:50 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

I'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
rainman
rainman
Joined: Mar 28, 2012
  • Threads: 18
  • Posts: 1380
August 15th, 2012 at 5:37:10 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

I 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?
s2dbaker
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 3259
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.
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
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7157
August 15th, 2012 at 5:40:28 PM permalink
Quote: rainman

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?



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
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
August 15th, 2012 at 5:41:45 PM permalink
Quote: rdw4potus

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.



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!
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
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.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7157
August 15th, 2012 at 5:47:24 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

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?



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
Mission146
Mission146
Joined: May 15, 2012
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 12979
August 15th, 2012 at 5:48:08 PM permalink
Quote: rainman

Private 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.
Vultures can't be choosers.
weaselman
weaselman
Joined: Jul 11, 2010
  • Threads: 20
  • Posts: 2349
August 15th, 2012 at 5:51:06 PM permalink
Quote: Mission146

Effectively, 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"
rdw4potus
rdw4potus
Joined: Mar 11, 2010
  • Threads: 80
  • Posts: 7157
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

  • Jump to: