"Do Forum Rules Apply ALSO To TMP Private Messages?" Topic

Last night I found the following note among in my TMP Private Message Inbox

(After he provides a Link to a topic where he thinks I am making a remark about him)
"Touch a nerve? Rather than a snide, sideways attempted insult, be a man & write something directly to me."

It's from a TMP member I haven't had any contact with since last October, despite several of his attempts since then to bait me openly or via PM. This is just the latest example. So, despite providing me a link to a discussion topic, I have no clue what remark he is referring to. I wast replying to him or talking about him.

Anyway, the real point is this … if I expressed myself like that to another member on a thread, I would certainly get in a lot of trouble.

QUESTIONS
A) Do the same forum rules apply to PMs?
B) And, if not, should they?

Dan
PS. I sent Bill an email about it last night, in case you are wondering.

A. No they should not.

Operating on the assumption that Dear Editor cannot read a PM, I would say that trying to get someone in the DH for bad behavior would lack proof.

In fact, several years ago, I recall people getting the DH for violating the confidentiality of a PM.

To one of your points, I too find it rather frustrating to get a PM without a TMP link. But a link where I've said quite a few things is almost as bad.

Rest assured. I'll answer on the thread.

Last time I took the PM bait and replied to him on a thread, I ended up locked out for a month in October, and Gwen said that it was, of all things, because by replying I was harassing HIM!

Dan

Then it appears that two people, naming no names, violated the PM policy. And not you.

I think that if I felt I were being attacked in a PM, I would respond to the sender that I feel their PM is a personal attack and that I would consider any further contact to be harassment, which would be reported to the eds.

It seems that we have been experiencing some uneven punishment dealt out in the last 6 to 8 months. On some occasions what seem like minor infractions have gotten members dawghoused or blocked and is has been difficult to get an explanation. It is very hard for most members to understand how any of this punishment is decided on and who has the authority to assign it to the offenders – perceived or real. I have seen members be slighted, insulted and or baited but no harm to the offender. At the same time I have seen members punished over what appears to be a minor point and then languish in TMP purgatory long after their sentence is over. I know that for the most part my questions about these occurrences have gone unanswered – to the point of seriously considering ending my membership here. I know many will say ' well if you are not happy then go' but I think it would be better to have a more open understanding of the system and how it should work as we have a wonderful site in TMP to spread knowledge and information through and about our hobby.
Bill, although I feel that you have much on your plate it falls to you to provide an explanation and clear guidelines for the members. I would be glad to have a private conversation with you about this. Perhaps I would be able to assist you since I have a bit of time on my hands after retiring. Thanks for providing us with this medium to share our hobby and get together.
Greg

He has sent me other PMs like this in the past, and is always trying to bait me into talking to him on threads, which is then used against me.

And I have reported each instance too. This is just the first time I go "public" to the rest of you guys.

Winston: "In fact, several years ago, I recall people getting the DH for violating the confidentiality of a PM."

At this point I don't care. That's just a cowardly way of attacking someone, if they're going to hide behind a confidentiality rule afterwards.

And if he's doing that to me, then he must be doing that to others too!

Dan
PS. My wife calls it CyberBalls or eBalls, because that type often feels overly brave when separated by anonymity and distance. :)

You should've hit the delete button and been done with the person in question. No more time/thought should be expended.

You can put the alleged perpetrator on IGNORE.
Then you won't get any PMs from him.

Dan – your wife is right about 'cyberballs' in that most people are really brave when it comes to making comments on line but will wuss out in person. I would hit ignore on the wussy-puke and move on. There are more important battles to fight.

I am curious about whether people, especially Bill, think the rules should apply in PMs. If they do, we should call them something other than "private".

As for the rest of this topic, I can only say that you won't survive long on the internet if you're not able to ignore things. Sometimes you just gotta say "well, now I know what that person thinks" and move on. It affects you as much as you let it, and that amount should be very close to zero, unless that person is one of the very carefully selected few in your life.

Andrew: "It affects you as much as you let it, and that amount should be very close to zero, unless that person is one of the very carefully selected few in your life."

Lol. No he's not on that list. He's barely a blip.

The only time it affects me is when I get punished for things others do. And then the other party feels free to keep doing their thing to me and perhaps others.

Dan

Dan – your wife is right about 'cyberballs' in that most people are really brave when it comes to making comments on line but will wuss out in person.

+1 to this.

I had someone a couple of years ago here on TMP, slander my family during a heated discussion. He was making an a** of himself, and went over the top and brought my wife and my kids into it. I told him that I frequently travel to his city for work, and that if he would like to meet me face to face and tell me the same thing that he was brave enough to do from the safety of the keyboard and his basement, then I can easily make arrangements for that to happen.

Oddly enough..he never took me up on it…go figure….

Murph: "Oddly enough..he never took me up on it…go figure…."

Sounds like you know the type very well then. :)

Dan

Has not it been almost common knowledge, especially recently, that once something in on the net … It's pretty much assured it's no longer "private" …

that if he would like to meet me face to face and tell me the same thing that he was brave enough to do from the safety of the keyboard and his basement,

I have made that paradigm often with a number of "persons" here and on another "satellite" site. My contention continues … they/he/she/it would not say that to my face. It's easy to hide behind the veil of the net …

Murph: "Oddly enough..he never took me up on it…go figure…."
Sounds like you know the type very well then.

Indeed … very much so …

Winston: "Operating on the assumption that Dear Editor cannot read a PM …"

As Legion 4 expressed above, it might be best to start living on the assumption that, regardless of firewalls and other measures, a determined third party could at any point potentially read anything we post online anywhere. Privacy is dead.

Dan

Can you 'mute' or 'ignore' people on TMP? Some ability to simple not see their messages at all?

Everything written on the computer is in there somewhere and can be used against you in the future if there is a problem.

We have been told that a PM is secure, but is it? And how difficult would it be to change that without our knowledge or consent? I just assume the PM can be read by the editors and even posted by the recipient on line or in another PM.

I am here for the army men, just like on Facebook. I have blocked about 20 people out of 4,000+ friends and I don't miss any of them. If they are not fun, they go.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

Privacy is dead.

Yes … and with current IT, pics can not only be photoshopped to look completely "true" … But even do the same for videos, etc. So no one is really safe, so to speak …

Now if anyone sees those pics of me with Sophia Vergara … I will neither confirm nor deny the veracity of those images …

Those I've gotta see!

Dan

(So do I) …

In fact, several years ago, I recall people getting the DH for violating the confidentiality of a PM.

Which is a violation of Forum rules, notably, quoting someone without their permission:

Can I quote from a PM here on the forums, or anywhere else?
Please don't without permission of the original author.

But it's really important.
You can ask Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP to make an exception in your case.

And the rules do address this specific issue …

Someone sent me a mean PM. Can I file a complaint?
Generally, the best thing to do with a "nastygram" is to simply delete it.

But it's a really mean PM.
If you really insist, I'll take a look at it. If someone is making a habit of sending obscene or threatening Personal Messages, their PM privileges may be revoked.

Someone keeps sending me unwanted PMs.
Send them a polite PM asking them to stop.

Someone told me to stop PMing them, but I really want to talk to them.
Sorry – if they've asked you not to contact them, then leave them alone.

But of course, rules are made to be perverted (a fact of which wargamers should be acutely aware), thus we get more rules to clarify the intent …

Can I send someone a provocative, insulting PM, and end by telling them never to reply?
No, that is just dumb. If you do that, as far as we are concerned, they can ignore your request and reply anyway.

CC is in the DH for quoting a PM?
If he doesn't identify the source, why is that an issue?

All he is saying is that some arseclown (a word allowed on TMP from many years ago) said such and such to him.
He never said who it was who said it.
No harm, no foul.
Free him!

We have been told that a PM is secure,

I'm not sure when we've been told this, nor what "secure" means in this context.

Has not it been almost common knowledge, especially recently, that once something in on the net … It's pretty much assured it's no longer "private"

True? Yes. Common knowledge? No. I routinely encounter people (including here on TMP) who do not understand that information on the Internet is public. The absolute lack of protection, validation, or repudiation of information was a fundamental, intentional design decision of ARPANet.

Interestingly, those properties of the Internet derive from basically the same root cause as the security issues with "Internet of Things" devices (horrible name since all of those category of devices do not actually use the Internet -- yet more misunderstanding and mysticism about what the Internet is).

Putting CC in the dawghouse for this is totally absurd.

True? Yes. Common knowledge? No. I routinely encounter people (including here on TMP) who do not understand that information on the Internet is public. The absolute lack of protection, validation, or repudiation of information was a fundamental, intentional design decision of ARPANet.

Well I still think electricity is pretty much just magic and the most of net is still very much a mystery to me.

If I was around when they discovered fire … I would have voted NO …

Funny, I don't see anyone else in the dawg house in regards to this. I was pretty sure I remember someone getting dawghoused for bullying in a PM before……

CC is in the DH for quoting a PM?

And for 7 days too. Seems harsh considering no names were given out.

I guess some of us are above the law

Putting CC in the dawghouse for this is totally absurd.

I have spoken with Cacique Caribe and explained the forum rules to him, and have let him out of the Dawghouse.

I was pretty sure I remember someone getting dawghoused for bullying in a PM before……

Read the FAQ.

To the Members,

Thanks for your kind and understanding support.

Dan
PS. And yes, The Captain Of the Gate, there was at least one person who was disciplined once for "harassment" via PM. I'm talking about what happened to me in October, when I made the mistake of replying to a near identical PM attack. I ended up being the one called the harasser and got locked out for a month.

He is Free !!!!!

I just love a happy ending.