Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hidden Rules

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Flint Fredstone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭Flint Fredstone


    The clue is in the name. Private message.

    I would assume anything I send as private message would be kept just that.

    I've had someone from this site screenshot private messages of mine and sent them on to his mate who tweeted them as part of some deluded rant.

    If I had given his username I was assured he would be sitebanned.


  • Options
    #33
    rex-x
    Registered Users Posts: 1,893 ✭✭✭rex-x


    Flint Fredstone wrote: »
    The clue is in the name. Private message.

    I would assume anything I send as private message would be kept just that.

    I've had someone from this site screenshot private messages of mine and sent them on to his mate who tweeted them as part of some deluded rant.

    If I had given his username I was assured he would be sitebanned.
    The name private message is just a legacy from v bulletin, the more modern term is direct message and you have no right to expect them be kept private. I'm actually amazed anyone ever thought they should be...it's madness


  • Options
    #34
    Flint Fredstone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,519 ✭✭✭Flint Fredstone


    rex-x wrote: »
    The name private message is just a legacy from v bulletin, the more modern term is direct message and you have no right to expect them be kept private. I'm actually amazed anyone ever thought they should be...it's madness

    They're called private messages here. This isn't Twitter.


  • Options
    #35
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #36
    Chorus_suck
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 487 ✭✭Chorus_suck


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Satriale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    I wouldnt consider any electronic message I'd send to a virtual stranger on a forum private. You'd have to be mad. Bit harsh for that dude.


  • Options
    #38
    kronnn
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭kronnn


    Actually, unless the terms and conditions of the forums say otherwise, the person who writes a pm is the legal owner of the copywrite (this also goes for emails, texts, forum posts, images, videos etc) so it's more than just a moral grey area, it's against copyright law to share them without the express consent of the copyright holder. It's unlikely that someone would sue for publishing messages that were not yours to publish like this, but if they were in someway valuable or caused someone enough trouble is a possibility.


  • Options
    #39
    KyussBeeshop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 234 ✭✭KyussBeeshop


    Lovely Bloke wrote: »
    That whole prison thread is a nonsense.

    It's basically Admins tying themselves in knots to justify a pretty flimsy ban.

    The user has been royally screwed over, and in true Boards.ie style it's do your best to not admit doing anything wrong, and use spurious back-reasoning to justify pretty shítty behaviour.

    It's not the first time it's happened, and it won't be the last.
    Yea to be honest, the accusation of 'rules lawyering' in that Prison thread is really awful.

    Can we please have a ban on mods/admins being able to just bloody make up self-serving rules-of-thumb like this?

    It's particularly rich that one, seeing as it's usually mods/admins twisting the rules and insisting on the strictest most-pedantic interpretation of them (particularly when they have the discretion to ignore an unintentional breach, yet decide to be pedantic about it), in order to fúck over posters - nearly all 'rules lawyering' is done by mods/admins.

    If something is not in the rules, or if a rule is being applied inconsistently, then no mod/admin should ever be allowed get away with throwing the 'rules lawyering' statement at someone - whenever I see that, it's almost always used as a way of undermining a legitimate argument - used as a kind of mod/admin trump card.

    There are a few phrases like that which get trotted out by mods/admins, which really must stop - including e.g. threatening to punish/ban someone for being a 'timesink', when it's often not the fault of a poster that their interaction with mods has turned into a timewasting clusterfúck.


    In addition to all this, mods/admins really need to take a step back and examine their tendency to 'circle the wagons' in the face of criticism, without respect to the validity of the criticism - not just in Prison/DRP, but here as well - it's very obvious to see sometimes, and it really makes mod/admin action look inconsistent and bureaucratic/petty sometimes.

    It's not all mods/admins that are like this obviously, I speak in generalizations here for convenience. The ones that do stuff like this should probably be culled from mod/admin duty though, as it seems there's some level of 'groupthink' going on sometimes, which would protect/perpetuate this among mods/admins.


  • Options
    #40
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,506 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    kronnn wrote: »
    Actually, unless the terms and conditions of the forums say otherwise, the person who writes a pm is the legal owner of the copywrite (this also goes for emails, texts, forum posts, images, videos etc) so it's more than just a moral grey area, it's against copyright law to share them without the express consent of the copyright holder..
    boards owns the copyright of everything on the site, presumably this must include PMs


  • Options
    #41
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    If memory serves, the poster was abused in an unsolicited pm and chose to go public about it.

    It's no different to a sex abuse case held in private where details are not made known. The injured party has a right to go public without the permission of the offender.

    I know my example is extreme but it serves the point.
    If it's not allowed, make it clear. But making the rules up as we go along and back dating them doesn't work in the real world.


  • Options
    #43
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    Not going to comment on the specific case here. I do think it should be made clear somewhere that PMs can only be shared with the consent of the sender. That's always been my understanding and it is something that is mentioned in the DRP rules.

    I would just add though that the same applies to "Private" forums and I suspect many users would be up in arms if they saw posts from such forums being shared across the site. Again though I am not aware of any explicit site rules stating that they can't be shared. Some things are implicit although this case perhaps highlights the problems with that.

    Having said all of that adding more to site rules will encourage even fewer users to actually read them potentially creating further problems.


  • Options
    #44
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,950 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    boards owns the copyright of everything on the site, presumably this must include PMs

    Link please ...


  • Options
    #45
    g2020
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20 ✭g2020


    Beasty wrote: »
    Not going to comment on the specific case here. I do think it should be made clear somewhere that PMs can only be shared with the consent of the sender. That's always been my understanding and it is something that is mentioned in the DRP rules.

    I would just add though that the same applies to "Private" forums and I suspect many users would be up in arms if they saw posts from such forums being shared across the site. Again though I am not aware of any explicit site rules stating that they can't be shared. Some things are implicit although this case perhaps highlights the problems with that.

    Having said all of that adding more to site rules will encourage even fewer users to actually read them potentially creating further problems.
    Why not comment on the specific case here?

    Can't be seen to challenge or even question other mods/admins I guess...


  • Options
    #46
    Beasty
    Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 76,290 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Beasty


    g2020 wrote: »
    Why not comment on the specific case here?

    Can't be seen to challenge or even question other mods/admins I guess...

    I don't have all the facts here. Even if I did I would respect the privacy of those who had provided me with them.

    I was making generic comments which is what this forum is supposed to be about.


  • Options
    #47
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    I'd just like to refer to a thread in the Prison Forum.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057696375

    The poster appears to have been banned for a rule that is not actually stated anywhere. The admin stated



    Seems like the admin is saying that there are rules that people are just expected to know without them being told. Is this correct? Is there any other rules like this? Is there any reason they aren't stated?

    A couple of points on this.

    First of all, there is more to the banning than meets the eye. What you are seeing in that thread is one aspect of the story, not the full story.

    Secondly, would you go outside with no clothes on? No, most likely you would not. How do you know that it is socially unacceptable to go outside with no clothes on? Is it written down somewhere? Did somebody tell you? Most likely not.

    It's the same on Boards.ie, we can't legislate for everything. We can't write every different permutation of every different potential scenario down. Some things are just learned, assumed, part of the culture of the site.


  • Options
    #48
    Drexel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,500 ✭✭✭Drexel


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    A couple of points on this.

    First of all, there is more to the banning than meets the eye. What you are seeing in that thread is one aspect of the story, not the full story.

    Secondly, would you go outside with no clothes on? No, most likely you would not. How do you know that it is socially unacceptable to go outside with no clothes on? Is it written down somewhere? Did somebody tell you? Most likely not.

    It's the same on Boards.ie, we can't legislate for everything. We can't write every different permutation of every different potential scenario down. Some things are just learned, assumed, part of the culture of the site.

    This is a complete cop out.

    I agree you cant legislate for everything but posting the contents of a Pm is hardly a situation that would never have been thought of when writing the charter or not have occurred to someone to add


  • Options
    #49
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Freya Thoughtless Marsh wrote: »
    If memory serves, the poster was abused in an unsolicited pm and chose to go public about it.

    It's no different to a sex abuse case held in private where details are not made known. The injured party has a right to go public without the permission of the offender.

    I know my example is extreme but it serves the point.
    If it's not allowed, make it clear. But making the rules up as we go along and back dating them doesn't work in the real world.

    I guess its the same as somebody receiving unsolicited electronic messages of an abusive or explicit nature ... they would not be allowed to report it as the perpetrator owns the copyright? And didn't want the messages seen by anyone but the victim?

    Boards.ie just took the group double think to a whole new level. There's is literally nothing the true believers here won't defend or believe against all common sense.


  • Options
    #50
    D0NNELLY
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭D0NNELLY


    dudara wrote: »
    It's literally impossible to write everything into the Terms of Use, or the forum charters.

    there cant be that many things that will warrant a straight site ban.


  • Options
    #51
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    Beasty wrote: »
    Not going to comment on the specific case here. I do think it should be made clear somewhere that PMs can only be shared with the consent of the sender. That's always been my understanding and it is something that is mentioned in the DRP rules.

    I would just add though that the same applies to "Private" forums and I suspect many users would be up in arms if they saw posts from such forums being shared across the site. Again though I am not aware of any explicit site rules stating that they can't be shared. Some things are implicit although this case perhaps highlights the problems with that.

    Having said all of that adding more to site rules will encourage even fewer users to actually read them potentially creating further problems.

    So put it on the private message page. Right under where you enter the names. "Note: Private messages can only be shared with consent of both parties." Could probably be done in two minutes.
    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    A couple of points on this.

    First of all, there is more to the banning than meets the eye. What you are seeing in that thread is one aspect of the story, not the full story.

    Yeah, I'm more interested in the fact there are undisclosed rules.
    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    Secondly, would you go outside with no clothes on? No, most likely you would not. How do you know that it is socially unacceptable to go outside with no clothes on? Is it written down somewhere? Did somebody tell you? Most likely not.

    Yes, I was told when i was very young by my parents. There are also laws against it.
    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    It's the same on Boards.ie, we can't legislate for everything. We can't write every different permutation of every different potential scenario down. Some things are just learned, assumed, part of the culture of the site.

    It seems a very simple and short rule. And as there doesn't seem to be an issue publishing any other forms of correspondence it should probably be highlighted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    D0NNELLY wrote: »
    there cant be that many things that will warrant a straight site ban.

    Well it seems we could all choose a mod right now and bombard them with unwelcome PMs and there isn't a damn thing they could do or say to anyone else?

    That doesn't seem likely though does it.


    As Tom Dunne says in a roundabout way, this victim was asking for it.


  • Options
    #53
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    So put it on the private message page. Right under where you enter the names. "Note: Private messages can only be shared with consent of both parties." Could probably be done in two minutes.



    .

    That wouldnt be feasible specifically for DRP where cmods ask posters to send them pms from mods or to post them. Youd need to add that as a disclaimer


  • Options
    #54
    Chorus_suck
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 487 ✭✭Chorus_suck


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #55
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    Well it seems we could all choose a mod right now and bombard them with unwelcome PMs and there isn't a damn thing they could do or say to anyone else?

    That doesn't seem likely though does it.

    .

    Theres a report function for pms that you can use


  • Options
    #56
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Special Circumstances wrote: »
    Well it seems we could all choose a mod right now and bombard them with unwelcome PMs and there isn't a damn thing they could do or say to anyone else?

    Reading your recent post in the other thread, I think you've misinterpreted the story. The PM that lies at the heart of this discussion was a PM between two regular Boards members. It was not a PM to/from a mod.

    To go back to your post above, spamming ANY Boards user with PMs in order to annoy them would be unacceptable and frankly childish. It's the very essence of "Don't be a d*ck".


  • Options
    #57
    Chorus_suck
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 487 ✭✭Chorus_suck


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #58
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    @Chorus_suck - please make an actual contribution to the discussion. Any further digs like the above are not acceptable.

    dudara


  • Options
    #59
    Mr Whom
    Site Banned Posts: 72 ✭✭Mr Whom


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    A couple of points on this.

    First of all, there is more to the banning than meets the eye. What you are seeing in that thread is one aspect of the story, not the full story.

    Secondly, would you go outside with no clothes on? No, most likely you would not. How do you know that it is socially unacceptable to go outside with no clothes on? Is it written down somewhere? Did somebody tell you? Most likely not.

    It's the same on Boards.ie, we can't legislate for everything. We can't write every different permutation of every different potential scenario down. Some things are just learned, assumed, part of the culture of the site.

    Wow ! So you're admitting consensus thought should rule? If it's obvious that most posters agree that PMs could be shared and realise they shouldn't prance about naked then you're making the opposite argument to the banning ! Looks like mods/admins are out of step here


  • Options
    #60
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    dudara wrote: »
    Reading your recent post in the other thread, I think you've misinterpreted the story. The PM that lies at the heart of this discussion was a PM between two regular Boards members. It was not a PM to/from a mod.

    To go back to your post above, spamming ANY Boards user with PMs in order to annoy them would be unacceptable and frankly childish. It's the very essence of "Don't be a d*ck".

    I'll assume you're dragging irrelevant things in for the sake of muddying the waters.
    My contrib4tto the other thread has nothing to do with this poster in question here. ZERO.

    So you're saying the character that was banned here was the victim of somebody being a Dickleburgh. But the victim was punished / blamed? Shows a certain doublethink at work around here...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Special Circumstances
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,569 ✭✭✭Special Circumstances


    Stheno wrote: »
    Theres a report function for pms that you can use

    How would anyone but the sender and receiver know what is in them if the sender or boards.ie own the copyright to them?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement