PMs and ToS

Poltsamaa

Poltsamaa

TNPer
I said your PM was more descriptive and referred to me in third person!! Are you saying this is false?!

Here is the PM entitled "cutting corners again"!!

The Prime Minister, as is his usual practice has failed to follow the Constitution's specific requirement that the referendum last for seven days.

He even acknowledged this requirement in his post that opened the thread.

http://s13.invisionfree.com/TNP/index.php?...dpost&p=3768787

The thread should be kept open for the full seven days as the Constitution requires.

schnauzers
Click to expand...

I'd say that was more descriptive that your public post and it referred to me in third person, but I'm sure you'll say other wise!! and before you bleat, the PM was sent to me and is my property!! It is perfectly fine to post it here!!
 
*Bleats* I have no problem with anything Polts posted... up until that last post here. I take issue with the notion that a PM is someone's property to post as they wish. PM is short for "Personal Message." I'm sure Schnauzers would have given permission to post it, but Polts needed to extend the courtesy of asking for it.
 
GBM is correct.

Invisionfree Terms of Service:
Users may not reproduce, distribute, or publish Content posted by other users without the prior permission of the owner.
Click to expand...

Since the PM was not posted in a public location by Schnauzer, he is supposed to have given consent for it to have been posted elsewhere. This is the same rule that I believe spawned the requirement for consent of IRC transcripts. As this forum isn't visible to the public in general, it probably isn't too big of a deal, but please try to keep this in mind in the future.

And Fedele, if you don't have any useful to contribute, please don't.
 
Actually, no!! If someone sends you a private letter it becomes the receivers property!! If I want to show someone a letter sent to me I can do so quite legally!! I can publish sections or the entire contents of a letter in the media if I choose to!!

Pleased to see the bleating followed as predicted!!
 
Not whatever, fact!! But since when do people let those things get in the way of a good story!!

Carry on!!
 
Hersfold:
Users may not reproduce, distribute, or publish Content posted by other users without the prior permission of the owner.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything about Private Messages in there. I do see posting, but nothing about Messaging through the board. It's best not to brush this sort of thing off when it comes up, we should all come to some sort of agreement what exactly it means so we don't have to deal with it every time it comes up.

As it stands, I agree with Poltsamaa on the issue. Which is why I personally don't send PMs I would regret if the receiver decided to share with everyone.


Edit: Basically what Polts said, but a little less blunt. :D
 
So it is rude to post something that has already made public now?! :unsure:

Grosseschnauzer:
The PM in question was sent to Hersfold and copied to Poltsamaa.

Not a thing in the PM wasn't also posted. The PM essentially provided certain facts to support a statement.
Click to expand...

* emphasis mine!!

Seems like the accusations of TOS breach have fallen over so now Plan B is in action!! :w00t:
 
It IS rude to post a PM without the sender's permission. I should think that would be obvious.

As DD pointed out, it is called a Private Message, not a Semi-Private Message, or a Soon-to-be-Public Message. The fact that he is circumspect in his use of the system is a testimony to his wisdom in such matters. Truth is, most of us consider a Private Message to be just that, private. I know if some of mine were posted here, I would be embarrassed to the point of tears.
 
I'm going to have to agree with DD's interpretation of that section.

I also don't see a reference to PM's explicitly. It mentions posted content but nothing more.

What needs to be hashed out is whether the "need" to ask for someone's permission before posting a PM is something that we've all taken for granted. That is, it may be a common thing to do, but not required via the TOS.

Personally, I would never post a PM without asking for permission. In addition, if I write something in a PM that I don't intend for public consumption, I make sure to add a disclaimer to the person I'm sending the message to (e.g. "off the record..").

We could argue over whether it's rude to post a PM without permission; however, rudeness does not necessarily rise to the level of an Invision TOS violation.

If we want to make posting a PM without permission a "warnable" offense, that's fine, but it would have to be done separately.
 
Great Bights Mum:
It IS rude to post a PM without the sender's permission. I should think that would be obvious.

As DD pointed out, it is called a Private Message, not a Semi-Private Message, or a Soon-to-be-Public Message. The fact that he is circumspect in his use of the system is a testimony to his wisdom in such matters. Truth is, most of us consider a Private Message to be just that, private. I know if some of mine were posted here, I would be embarrassed to the point of tears.
Click to expand...
Depends what is in the PM!! I was not asked to keep it confidential, if I had been I would have done so!! In fact, the author of said message claimed publicly that all information in that PM had been made public so there was no betrayal of any trust given or implied!!

I think you'll find that if people entrust me with information then it stays with me!! If people post me information they claim is already public knowledge, I see no reason not to post the PM in public as there is nothing in the PM that is not already public knowledge!!

I notice there is no such outcry from the posting of PMs sent by Tweedy...at least I'm consistent!!
 
Let's keep this simple.

The PM was sent to Hersfold and out of polietness, since it related to him, a copy was sent to Poltsamaa.

Poltsamaa's original complaint about the PM was that it referred to him in the third person. Well, since it was sent to Hersfold, of course I would refer to Poltsamaa in the third person. It certainly would make no grammarical sense to refer to Poltsamaa in the first person, when the PM involved was addressed to someone else.

Why Poltsamma even felt it necessary to publish the PM is beyond me, since, as I noted in an earlier post, the information in it was posted publiclly (although not in one post). I see no reason to publishing the PM, especially since it was essentially a message from me to Hersfold. For that reason, Hersfold has far more rights decide to publish the PM had he chosen to do so than Poltsamma does, as far as I am concerned.
 
Well, Gross, you did send the pm to Polts even if only a copy of it. If we are going to allow some people's pms to be posted in here then I feel we should be consistent. However, on the publically viewable areas of the forum I feel it should be a warnable offense and the pm should be deleted from the post.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Let's keep this simple.

The PM was sent to Hersfold and out of polietness, since it related to him, a copy was sent to Poltsamaa.

Poltsamaa's original complaint about the PM was that it referred to him in the third person. Well, since it was sent to Hersfold, of course I would refer to Poltsamaa in the third person. It certainly would make no grammarical sense to refer to Poltsamaa in the first person, when the PM involved was addressed to someone else.

Why Poltsamma even felt it necessary to publish the PM is beyond me, since, as I noted in an earlier post, the information in it was posted publiclly (although not in one post). I see no reason to publishing the PM, especially since it was essentially a message from me to Hersfold. For that reason, Hersfold has far more rights decide to publish the PM had he chosen to do so than Poltsamma does, as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Actually, I did not complain about the PM, the only person complaining in here is you, Grosseschnauzer!!

What I did say was that the PM was more descriptive than what was posted publicly and referred to me in the third person!! You'll also note that I stated that I believed the PM must have been sent to one or more people other than myself due to the third person reference!!

If you send me a telegram or PM containing material you have stated is in the public domain, then you can hardly complain when the PM is released publicly, albeit in the mod section of the forum!! I posted the PM because of your references to it being nothing more than what was posted publicly by yourself!! If this is indeed the cae then I see no problem with releasing a PM containing publicly available material!!

Again, I apologise for letting facts get in the way of your story!!
 
Wait a minute.

I just spent 10 minutes reading the first two pages of this thread. Everyone was practically having a love-fest back there :P .

If I read the posts correctly, the initial request was to determine whether Polts was flamebaiting in the thread that Grosse posted in his first post. That issue seems to have been settled.

Now we're on to a completely DIFFERENT issue of PM's and all that. (Never mind the fact I think a different topic should be opened for this; or in the very least, a split topic). I fail to see why we are discussing this SPECIFIC PM of Polts -- there's nothing in there that's a rabid revelation. Therefore, there shouldn't be any sort of mod action (after all, this is a mod forum) on that specific PM. This is true especially because Invision TOS (or at least the part Hers quoted) does not specify PM's.

Now, as to the question of whether PM's in general should be postable without sender's consent, that's another question entirely and the mods would need to be polled on whether or not it is a good idea to make that rule throughout the entire forum.
 
Yes, this has gone wildly off-topic. I'm going to split this out for the moment, and lock the original topic since there are apparently no further comments on that particular issue. If someone really wants to make a post in there, call up me and/or Flem and it'll be re-opened.

As to the PM thing, no mod action will be enforced on the posting of that, since there seems to be some discrepancy on the scope of the ToS, and since I already said it didn't matter very much in this case anyway, this not being a public forum. If you lot want to make a joint ruling on whether ToS included PM's as wizard mentioned or not, please carry on.

Now I'm out until Sunday Afternoon, so let's please not kill each other in the meantime. ;) (JOKE)
 
:blink:

Someone tell me how on earth this ever became an issue. Because this looks *really* stupid out of the context it came from.

And... I agree with the idea that PMs are mostly public. If someone specifically says keep it quiet, fine, but if they don't and it's relevant, then by all means post it. I posted a PM I got from PRHQ saying he was going to invade The Pacific, should that have been kept quiet?

If you trust the person you're sending the PM to, then by all means let loose. But if you're not sure, guard your tongue. We're playing politics here people. :P
 
I don't think the issue is about posting PMs exactly, more an issue with some people doing it!!

You are right, we are playing politics and I think Grosseschnauzer and GBM's indignance is exactly that..playing politics!! If it weren't, they'd be up in arms about the other PMs posted here from Tweedy and PRHQ to name a couple!! But they didn't see anythign wrong with that!!

As I said, at least I'm consistent!! ;)
 
Poltsamaa:
Actually, no!! If someone sends you a private letter it becomes the receivers property!! If I want to show someone a letter sent to me I can do so quite legally!! I can publish sections or the entire contents of a letter in the media if I choose to!!

Pleased to see the bleating followed as predicted!!
Click to expand...
Uh, no, not really.

There's a very RL issue concerning copyright (and please don't ask me to point out the exact regulations in international copyright aggreements or I will).

A private communication is owned by the person who creates it and it is implicit and clearly stated under all copyright laws of signators (and the nations theror) of the international copyright treaty(ies) that the right to copy (copyright) belongs to the creator of that writing/communication/etc. Since cutting, pasting or otherwise reproducing electronic communications is 'copying' by definition under copyright laws.

Hence, you can show someone the communication, but only if they are viewing it from your actual computer screne in your physical presence, but strictly speaking, cutting and pasting it to a forum, etc., that is public or can be viewed by more than one specific person can be construed as copyright infringement. This of course is modified by the 'fair use doctrine', but only if the document is originally intended for public viewing or for legitimate academic puposes.

Also, since a 'Private Message' is a message meant for private communication, there is essentially a 'warranty' implied that it is a personal message not for public consumption.

Ironically, posting chats to which more than two people are privy to, and 'chats' in general is not a violation of copyright law due to the transient nature of the communications.

In 30 words or less, private messages, intended and overtly implied to be private are required to remain private unless both parties consent to make them available to others privately or publicly.

/wonk



R
 
bs.gif
 
Romanoffia:
There's a very RL issue concerning copyright (and please don't ask me to point out the exact regulations in international copyright aggreements or I will).
Click to expand...
That may be true in real life -- but real life is just that. This discussion, whatever else it is, is not real life.

What we're here to decide is whether real life should be implemented here with regards to that very issue. Unfortunately, we're ruled here by our own rules and Invision TOS, not international copyright law.

I wouldn't be averse to making a mod ruling concerning the disallowability of people posting private PM's, as long as we do make a rule and enforce it fairly. However, the question of whether the specific act by Polts or anyone else was "against the rules" no longer gets us anywhere.

A related issue that I would like to raise is.. if we do make a rule about disallowability of private PM's, what do we do with PM's that are, for example, possible threats against regional security? Clearly the recipient might not want to ask the sender for permission; equally clear is the possibility that the sender posts the PM from his own judgment, and the PM turns out to not even be a sensitive subject.
 
Now don't you all think this is making something of a mountain out of a molehill?

Perhaps Polts was not aware, or perhaps he was not bothered, but in TNP it has generally been considered bad manners at best to openly post a private message without consent. As GMB said, it is just courtesy.

But context is everything. Sometimes there is no malicious intent, or the PM is so inncouous that it does not matter. On those occasions it has passed without comment, or a mild rebuke from the community.

On other occasions the intent might be to break a confidence, or to seriously embarass belittle someone. There might be Real Life things said in a PM that one would not post in the public domain, or expect to be shared widely. If things like this happen, then I am sure we would all expect the matter to be taken more seriously by the moderation team.

Frankly, I would put this PM in the former category, since it said nothing that was not in the public domain already. Had Polts not jumped on his high horse, and others joined him, GBM and Hersfold's comments would have been the end of the matter.
 
flemingovia:
Had Polts not jumped on his high horse, and others joined him, GBM and Hersfold's comments would have been the end of the matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes...silly me!! I should not have defended myself with fact and logic in the face of hypocrisy!! I forgot that kind of thing was frowned upon in TNP!! My humble apologies!!

If anyone was on their "high horse" it would be those making false accusations of TOS violations while condoning the same action by others and those who come in after a discussion has been had and moralise about it!!

If I fall into either category then you are correct in saying I was on my "high horse", if not then perhaps you were thinking of other people when making the comment!!
 
oooookay.... possible rules, if we're somehow concerned enough to worry about it.

You may not post personal messages in a public area of the forum without the author's permission.

Members of the government may post PMs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office.
Click to expand...
Two rules, basically covering the situations?
 
I have no problem with having the rule for IRC chats, but it is going to have to be clear that transcripts of chats intended for publication (such as the formal portions of Cabinet meetings) or intended for other forms of disclosure (such as Security Council proceedings or judicial proceedings) may be recorded and published.-
 
To take a tangent from Grosse's post -

Personally, I would like to see some form of Legal Code provision for Freedom of Information - e.g., the vast majority of Governmental discussions, regardless of format, (such as the aforementioned Cabinet transcripts and meeting logs) would, by law, be freely available, with specified exemptions for certain topics, such as regional security concerns. I know a fair share of questions in this election cycle have been on the basis of transparency - this would be an excellent way to demonstrate good faith in that particular regard.


EDIT - N, you are now my enemy.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I have no problem with having the rule for IRC chats, but it is going to have to be clear that transcripts of chats intended for publication (such as the formal portions of Cabinet meetings) or intended for other forms of disclosure (such as Security Council proceedings or judicial proceedings) may be recorded and published.-
Click to expand...
True.


Regarding what Eras said: that phrase about "in order to perform the duties of their office" makes me uncomfortable. I would think "in order to perform appropriate judicial and/or regional security functions" would be a little more specific. Maybe I'm missing other day-to-day situations where members of the government can (and possibly should) post PM's without permission BUT I can't help thinking "in order to perform the duties of their office" is vague.

To touch on Roman's theme.. old political scores could be "exposed" while using the words "performing the duties of their office".
 
Eras' proposal with Wiz's modification would be a sufficient set of guidelines to cover this issue!! Of course, common sense cannot be legislated and people do need to exercise common sense when deciding what to publish and what not to publish!!
 
Poltsamaa:
bs.gif
Click to expand...
And that is exactly the point of my entire post. Hyperbole is a wonder thing, especially if anyone takes it seriously.

But seriously, folks, isn't this a bit over-done and belaboring a point?
 
Fedele:
If someone sends you a pm, are they not giving it to you?
Click to expand...
yes, they are giving it to you!! You'll find that a letter is the recipient's property once the letter is posted or "given" to the intended recipient!!
 
Erastide:
oooookay.... possible rules, if we're somehow concerned enough to worry about it.

You may not post personal messages in a public area of the forum without the author's permission.

Members of the government may post PMs (without prior permission) in secure areas of the forum in order to perform the duties of their office.
Click to expand...
Two rules, basically covering the situations?
Click to expand...
ANYWAY, this looks fine to me. It prevents this from ever becoming an issue again, and this has been the general practice with the IRC transcripts anyway.

If you have comments on this, please post them, so that we can have some sort of vote on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top