Barbelith Underground > Policy & Help

Case 1.

Here we see that one member relates to a second member information about being involved in a discussion with a third member who has not been informed that such a remark was going to be made.

I don’t see anything wrong with this. It doesn’t relate specific details of the discussion, but only reports on the mood of the discussion. This seems much like in passing mentioning to a friend that we had been having a difficult time with another person: not a big deal.

Case 2.

Here one member relates to the community a more revealing message regarding the contents of a PM received from another member.

Now, this is a bit of a tough case to call one way or the other. Since I am involved in that particular instance I can say that I did not post a message with similar content to that thread because of other events that were occurring at the time. I specifically messaged the member who posted this to avoid having it public that “it was peculiar because I was obviously getting PMs from other people.” This bit about “obviously getting PMs needs to be looked at in two ways here:

First, given the context in which I wished that particular sentiment not to be expressed publicly to the board but only to the specific member in question, it does seem that there is some sort of minimal breach of trust or confidence here.

Secondly, however, it appears only a slightly more revealing case than our first case, and so, it doesn’t seem to be all that much of a breach of trust or confidence.

I myself am undecided.

Case 3a and Case 3b.

These two cases are very similar. One member relates to the community that s/he has stated such and such to another member by PM. The only difference is that in case 3a the member also reveals which other member s/he is exchanging PMs with. I also feel that I’ve seen other instances that display the same general content as one of these two cases, but a search with ‘PM’ + “ing’, ‘ed’, etc. and ‘Private Message’ + “ing’, ‘ed’, etc. didn’t turn up too much.

These seem pretty simple to call: no harm no foul. I don’t see anything wrong with letting the community know something that we ourselves have said in PM or anywhere else. The bit about who the PM is being exchanged with seems to be even less of an issue here than in the first case.

Case 4a, 4b, and 4c.

This class of case regards instances where members have publicly posted the contents of their own PMs. In 4a I see no clear reason how this practice is in anyway a violation of any trust or confidence. Similarly, case 4b presents no instance of a breach of trust or confidence that I can see.

4c seems a bit more difficult to judge. First, we can note that the member posting the PM does not identify it as a PM, but only a piece of writing; however, it is clear that it is likely a PM. But still, it is a PM that s/he hirself has written, so on the surface it is a case like 4a and 4b.

Now, we could say that the tone of the PM is obviously hostile and belligerent; however, simply because we write something hostile or angry does not mean we relinquish the right to place it into a public forum. Again, it still seems to me to be a case like the other two: no harm no foul.

We could also say that it is quite detailed as regards emotions, feelings, and information regarding events and people. However, it seems to me that these details which would name others specifically have be more than less omitted, and as such, it makes it difficult to identify anyone beyond the member who wrote the PM initially. But our analysis of this case isn’t over yet—there are some fine details here: the PM in question references other PMs and even appears to quote from part of the discussion. These details seem to point to this also being a case like 2. It is these details that seem to me to perhaps make it a boarder line case.

Since this particular case involves me, I admit that I have a bias in establishing it as “no harm no foul,” however, I cannot truthfully say that I feel that way—for me I must honestly be undecided.

I think the fact that the member who received the PM revealed hir identity might contain important issues to look at, but I personally feel too close to make any apparently objective comments on that angle.

Case 5.

Here we have a case where one member has posted, without prior consent of the authors, the contents of PMs that s/he had received. Clearly, this is a breach of trust and confidence issues as several people remark throughout the course of the thread. Tom’s thoughts on this are here. It pretty much seems like quoting the contents of PMs that we haven’t written ourselves is not acceptable PM behaviour. There could also be two instances of such use of PMs:

1) Where the writer of the message is clearly credited with the quoted content, or
2) Where there is no mention of the writer, only the assertion that it was written by someone else.

In the first instance, clearly it is a breach of trust on the part of the member who quotes the person without permission with respect to that person. In the second instance it is not only a breach of trust as in the former instance, but it also raises concerns mentioned by a member (?) here:

“We are in dangerous territory here. In order to protect your sources you are arguably dodging accountability, and this is a dangerous precedent to set…Who's to say you didn't slip a more offensive quote in your post that didn't really get sent [to] you? And how can you prove that the quote came from
a now deleted email or someone who will not give you permission to quote them?”

This seems to be an offense to not only the writers of those PMs, but in this instance also to the member those PMs (if they are indeed all PMs) are allegedly about. Clearly this is not reasonable PM use or practice.

However, one member has put forth here that, regarding the specific instance used in case 5, “… many of the people whose PMs were used seemed not to mind too much.” However, we can note in the specific case of Ierne’s Blind Date, none of the few people who identified themselves as being the writers of those PMs claimed which one was their own. Since there were several more PMs quoted than people claiming authorship to this still leaves the clear offense to the specific individual those alleged PMs are supposed to be about.

OK. Those are the examples that I’ve seen &/v been involved in and I have tried to present my arguments pertaining to them as general cases (except in the last bit about the specifics of Ierne’s Blind Date—that was arguing against a specific objection to an alleged offense). Now onto…

Harassment and PMs

First, I feel it is unwise, regardless of the following choice you might make, to under any circumstance delete a PM that feels harassing. Basically, I see the following three choices we have upon receiving a harassing PM:

1) We can reply and try to work out whatever the difficulty is on our own. Still, it is wise to keep a record of the conversation and the best way to show that it is legitimate (if one should have to come to show as such) is to have the original PMs in our message profiles. This way a moderator or administrator can verify their authenticity if the case need be.

2) We can ignore the PM in the hopes that it was a one shot affair and perhaps with the spirit of “there’s no need to dignify that with a response.” Again, save the PM in your message profile in case it is needed in the future to build a case of repeated harassment of several members by the same individual.

3) We can contact a moderator or administrator immediately with our concerns. While I agree with (was it Rizla or someone else?—sorry) the idea that mods and admin are not here to be police, I do feel that they are here to ensure a more or less pleasant and enjoyable Barbelith experience—such experience does not include being threatened or harassed via PM. I think it is reasonable to say that any mod or admin would be receptive to such difficulties or would put you in touch with another mod or admin who will address such problems.

So now it’s the rest of youZ fine peoples’ turn: stand up and be counted!

“Otherwise; on 3a and 3b I mean that the use of the PM function here is unhelpful, when what was said in the PMs could have been said in the thread and the use of Pms only confused the issue.”

Hmm, you are entitled to your opinion (and confusion) here, I suppose. I think you are missing the point somewhat; i.e., the examples are intended to stand in for general cases of discussing PM contents on the public board (see the topic abstract), so I don’t quite see how your concerns regarding the “particulars” of the case apply. I’ve seen you do the same thing in other cases (mention something you’ve said to someone in a PM in the context of a thread), and I am sure I’ve seen other people do it. The judgement regarding this being “no harm no foul” is with respect to the public announcement of PM contents. If we look at it from this (the intended) view, then it not only seems that these are harmless, but also, that 3a and 3b are related to the three cases in 4 since they are all about an member who has revealed information from a PM that s/he wrote on the public board.

“I stand by my belief that 4c is distinct from 4a and 4b on a number of levels, the most obvious being that it was published without any precedence or logic…”

I do think there is a difference between 4a,b and 4c—I say as much in my first analysis—4a and 4b seem easy calls—there doesn’t seem any harm nor offense in the first two instances for sure, and in 4c, I’ve said it seems a little more difficult to judge. I don’t think that the difference you find as “the most obvious”
adds or subtracts from whether or not it is acceptable for a member to post the contents of his or her PMs on the public board (again, please see the topic abstract): “without precedence or logic” does not seem to detract from the possibility that the publication of our own PMs is an acceptable practice.

“4c and 5 are both attempts to *instigate* based on a perceived lack of other options.”

I don’t think you can make this claim without support; i.e., it’s sort of dangling there by itself—asserted without justification. Put differently, this seems a personal judgement on your part. Again, both may be associated with respect to a felt “lack of options” on the part of the member in question; however, where 5 might be reasonably argued to be an attempt of one member to instigate a change of behaviour in another member, it seems unclear what 4c attempts to instigate—other than the requested critique.

“…especially if their intention appears to be to bait or infuriate in the hope of inspiring a disproportionate response in-thread.”

Again with your claims to know the intent of someone else—do you have a crystal ball for accomplishing these marvelous feats of intuition or something?! That aside this is a good point—so long as we can be mostly sure of the intent of the person in question and not simply mistaken due to our own blinders.

“I think the more interesting question raised by it is whether a tone so abusive had any real place in a PM…”

This certainly is a related issue, and yes, likely applies to what constitutes acceptable content in a PM. However, here it is being presented with respect to whether or not a member can acceptably post a PM that s/he has written. At least address this aspect of it, and then we can worry about further related issues.

“To be honest, since almost all of these examples in some way involve you, I'm not sure that your objectivity can be demonstrated without doubt (not, note, to say that you are not as objective as you can be, only that your closeness to the issues is likely to affect how your posts are perceived).”

While I agree that I am certainly close to these examples (and that is part of what prompted me to create this thread), I do feel that I am being sufficiently objective. I’ve made reference to my own potential bias with case 4c and also even pointed to issues which might be relevant with respect to 4c, but, due to my involvement with that aspect of the thread, I have also said I don’t feel it is appropriate for me to comment on those potential issues.

“2) How private is a private message?”

I think that this is the main purpose of the cases I cite; i.e., they are an attempt to look at situations in which the privacy of PMs might be in some respect violated. I think that bio k9’s feeling are sufficiently reflective of “good common sense,” but I don’t think we can assume that everyone shares the same “good common sense.” Thus, it seems reasonable to make the attempt to establish some guidelines for accepted PM practice and use here in Litherland.

“If you are going to reproduce elements of your own PMs from an ongoing discussion, you might want to check with the other person involved first that it's OK. If you fail to do so, expect to be looked at askance.”

I think that this is precisely one of the points that needs to be debated in the hope of reaching a consensus—it is not something that should be tacitly assumed. As a writer, I feel that anything I write is mine to do with as I desire. For instance, I write academic papers frequently and never feel the need to get the permission of the people I quote in order to transmit the essay in a public forum. Granted, PMs aren’t essays and so, different protocol might be in order. However, I don’t think we can assume that in every instance permission of someone else is needed to transmit publicly what we ourselves have written.

“3) So what are private messages for?”

I think the list you have given is reasonable, but obviously incomplete. Contrary to your feelings on the cases of category 3, I think PMs are a useful way to make remarks that are “of an aside” or particular to another member with respect to a discussion currently underway. It is also a useful way to raise concerns over another member’s behaviour within a thread without having to “chastise” a given individual in public—obviously a good way to avoid conflict or at least keep it from rotting a thread. However, like you say, “[p]rivacy allows people to escalate their rudeness…” unchecked. It seems to me that in such instances we have the same three choices that we have with respect to “Harassment and PMs”: deal with it ourselves, cease and desist from the exchange, or contact a mod/admin with our concerns. In the choosing the last option, however, if we have also played a role in escalating abuse, insults, or hostility previous to picking this option, then it is likely best to be up front about our role when we contact a mod/admin. That is, suppose we find ourselves in a futile exchange of PMs with another member and we have also become somewhat hot-headed in the engagement, but the exchange has become too much for us to bear, and has escalated to the point of clear harassment on the part of the other member we are engaged with and now we wish to contact a mod/admin: in contacting said mod/admin, it will be best for all parties involved if we are honest about our role in the situation.

With respect to cutting a pasting posts into PMs because someone is ignoring you or using an alternative or “false” fiction suit (can there be such a thing as a “false fictionsuit”?—seems redundant to me!—but I know what you mean), these both seem like inappropriate uses of PMs to me.

“In general, assuming a reasonable level of intelligence and sanity, I think most PM etiquette pretty much writes itself...”

Again, I tend to agree, but there have been questions about etiquette, and as I’ve already said, we can’t merely assume the same sort of intelligence and “sanity” from every member—that’s why there’s common sense things written in FAQs and on the Wiki: PM etiquette seems like these—people perhaps ought to know better, but not all people do.

PM Protocol