BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

PM Policy

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
—| x |—
07:35 / 23.07.03
After our most recent PM debacle, grant said that he felt that "the moral of the story is that the board might work better with a 'block PM from...' function, like an email filter."

Now, perhaps this might be a good idea; however, perhaps much like anything else, it could be open for potential abuse. I mean, it might be easy for some people, when they find themselves in certain situations, to write a rather unfriendly PM to someone and then simply block that person from PMing back. Now, on the one hand this might not be so bad--at least the person who might be inclined to respond to the initial PM isn't going to be able to stir up more trouble since the PM would not get through. On the other hand, it seems to me a little more than dishonest to be able to write a PM with negative content and then also have the ability to prevent the person to whom the PM has been sent from responding. It seems rather like giving people the potential to hit someone with a stick and not have to suffer any consequences in return.

Of course, it would simply be better if people didn't PM one and other with the intent to start trouble (although, being one who has been involved in a few PM disputes now I can say that it isn't necessarily the case that an exchange of PMs that becomes nasty was nasty and trouble from the start).

So I suppose that what I am saying is that we seem to be in a position where it might be good to develop some kind of general policy about PM related disputes and PM harassment. We have seen that it can and does happen; as such, it appears that some sort of policy is required so people either thinking of starting trouble via PM or people not meaning to cause trouble by PM but finding themselves caught up in a bitter dispute via PM can know what to expect and what their options are with respect to how we as a community will respond to such situations.
 
 
sleazenation
08:39 / 23.07.03
actually I don't think mod3, 0 or whatever hir is calling hirself these days has done much at all except in persisting in continuing to PM someone who made it quite clear they did not wish to recieve more PMs - and as such mod3/0 seems supremely unsuitable to suggest the framing of PM ettiquette or policy.
 
 
—| x |—
08:45 / 23.07.03
Well, thanks for the input chimp, but as far as I am concerned, the dispute between Haus and I is yesterday's news. If I lived in the same city as him I'd likely feel inclined to invite him over for tea!

Seriously, I think there is some work that needs to be done as a community in order to establish some sort of general guidelines for what can be expected as a general community response regarding people either locked in a v. negative dispute via PM or on the receiving end of a nasty PM that can't be ignored but also is thought better not responded to.

I mean, do we want to have no policy about this and simply take it as it comes? Do we want some sort of written policy that can be referred to, or are we merely going to rely on that abstract and highly relative thing some people call "common sense"? Whatever people feel is best is ultimately what the community will go with; however do we not even want to make the attempt to establish something (even if that is that there is nothing to establish?). It seems that some PM related matters are currently quite vague: do we wish to not even try to move towards semi-transparency?
 
 
Tom Coates
09:40 / 23.07.03
I'm of the opinion that there is little or no need for an explicit policy on private messages on the board at the moment.
 
 
w1rebaby
19:42 / 23.07.03
There is quite a simple way of avoiding being bothered by unwanted PMs. Delete them without reading them.

Unless someone's bombing someone else's box with PMs I don't see that there's any problem at all.

I mean, really, >0< - it might be easy for some people, when they find themselves in certain situations, to write a rather unfriendly PM to someone and then simply block that person from PMing back - my reaction to someone complaining about that would be "boo fucking hoo".
 
 
Linus Dunce
20:36 / 23.07.03
Oh, for fuck's sake.

O, you got put down by a snide, public-schoolboy type. Painful, I know, but worse things happen. You're not the first. However, you could join the queue for being the last by just ignoring it. Outrage is where they get their power, see?

Can we go home now?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:46 / 23.07.03
Don't think it has anything to do with the repsective personalities and perceived characters of >0< and Haus. As far as I can see, the only thing which is of real importance is Tom's statement that he sees no need for a policy on private messages. It's therefore a matter for individuals to sort out between themselves, or with the assistance of the moderators and administrators, with the possible exception of spats which spill over onto the board. Private messages are private and nothing to do with the community on the board per se, only with individual members of that community in their private capacity. If people can't be polite in PMs, that's their look-out - I don't see why such PM content has to be regurgitated in the Policy (or indeed anywhere else), where its only function seems to be to irritate and depress people.

I am, by the way, talking about normal PM spats, not sustained use of the PM function to harass members.
 
 
Linus Dunce
21:09 / 23.07.03
I think it's solely to do with personalities and perceived characters. Which means it's entirely personal, and not really a policy issue.

Like I said, can we go home now?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
21:19 / 23.07.03
Well, yeah, obviously this particular spat does, but I was talking more about general PM usage and quarrels.
Off home now, like a good girl.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
09:59 / 24.07.03
As the former King of Barbelith I feel the least I could do is help out a bit. Simply deleting pm's from people you don't want pm's from seems like the best thing to do, and I really don't think there's a huge pm problem around here. But the people call for action, and if nothing else, I am a man of the people.

Starting at 8pm Jack Denfeld time, today, I will be replacing the old pm system with a new one. The new PM will stand for Peanut Butter and Mustard sandwich, and when someone sends you one, you MUST eat it. But no multiple sandwiches will be allowed to be sent from one member to another more than once a month.

I hope this solution appeases all parties involved.
 
 
—| x |—
19:34 / 24.07.03
“Don't think it has anything to do with the respective personalities and perceived characters of >0< and Haus.”

Ah, someone who can think. Thanks for the on topic response, KCC.

As far as Tom’s statement goes, well, if that is our consensus, then that’s what we’ll do, ya?

“There is quite a simple way of avoiding being bothered by unwanted PMs. Delete them without reading them.”

Yes, good common sense here; however, not able to cover all occurrences, no? I mean, out of the blue you receive a PM from so-and-so, you think, “Hmm, I wonder what s/he has to say for hirself,” and BOOM the pleasant and gratifying experience of “hate mail.”

“I mean, really, >0< - ‘it might be easy for some people, when they find themselves in certain situations, to write a rather unfriendly PM to someone and then simply block that person from PMing back’ - my reaction to someone complaining about that would be ‘boo fucking hoo’.”

Fair enough Fridge, fair enough. Myself, I simply find that a cowardly and low action to take, and while yes, it is “boo-hoo,” I don’t feel comfortable with providing people ways to fight dirty. And some will fight dirty if they can.

Peanut butter & mustard!? Sounds absolutely dreadful.
 
 
sleazenation
22:37 / 24.07.03

… >0< … I've said it once and i'll say it again... you have persisting in continuing to PM someone who made it quite clear they did not wish to recieve more PMs - and as such you seem supremely unsuitable to suggest the framing of PM ettiquette or policy. let alone that fact that the person who created this forum and thanks to whom it continues to run at all has twice told you that you suggestions are not needed (once here and once here). What does it take for you to pick up on the hint?
 
 
w1rebaby
23:22 / 24.07.03
Yes, good common sense here; however, not able to cover all occurrences, no? I mean, out of the blue you receive a PM from so-and-so, you think, “Hmm, I wonder what s/he has to say for hirself,” and BOOM the pleasant and gratifying experience of “hate mail.”

Well, y'know, people can be mean. They can be mean on threads, too. If you open yourself up for public communication, someone at some point will be rude to you. Unless it's persistent and vicious I don't think it's a matter for the moderators, and I think PMs are even less significant than posts, since after the first one you probably know what to expect.
 
 
—| x |—
00:44 / 25.07.03
Yeah sure Fridge, people can be mean, and some people really, really mean. Sigh. All types I suppose, eh? Yes, we post, we message, we open ourselves: it's a risk to make ourselves vulnerable in the hopes of communicating a thought, belief, opinion, & what have ya'.

See this whole thing with PMs is that, from my experience, things can go horribly askew from original intent and end up in a fiasco that wasn't necessary. To me, PMs can be used to message someone something related to a thread (or hir comments in a thread) that do not really need to be in the public space. Of course, this can backfire--easier with some than others. On the other hand, PMing someone with a criticism can prevent threadrot and off topic bitchfights.

So, are PMs less significant than posts in threads? I would agree.

Are some things better said in PMs than in threads? I think the answer to this is yes, but maybe many people do not use the PM function in this manner?
 
 
gotham island fae
04:47 / 25.07.03
But, (hem-ahem, amen), can't Zz realize that ALL is ONE? Every Action is an = and Opposite Re Action.

Or some shit.

Wot E'vur.

Going home now, also, like a good li'l FAE.
 
 
Tom Coates
10:01 / 25.07.03
Right. First and foremost, I've on regular occasions over the last few years tried to get people to define the purpose of the site and that's never been a particular success. It turns out that people here much prefer it when purpose and structure emerges rather than is enforced... What i'm saying basically is that you're not going to find this debate a particularly easy one...

Basically I think you should step back a minute and bear in mind that mdoerators here have a fairly difficult line to tread. Authority figures of any kind on this board are treated with suspicion (apart from me, perhaps , which isn't always a good thing and is probably mostly because I don't normally get involved in these issues too much any more). The moderator has a job to do and they get respect for that, but they're also an anxiety figure and as such they have to be careful about how they behave... Fundamentally this board comes down to a group of people talking to each other about stuff. Sometimes they have massive fights and don't get on. If I can find ways of invisibly structuring the board so that the conversation is as free as before but these fights don't occur, then I will. I think it's the equivalent of repainting an office to make it a place people feel more comfortable in, or putting in door-stops so that when people push the doors they don't slam loudly against the wall. But that's not the same as building in punishments for opening the door too hard... The latter is not something people on Barbelith respond well too...

Basically I'd suggest backing off a bit for the moment - this communities been here a long time now (over four years I believe) and has gone through a lot. There are still problems, but the one area that people are really resistant to is the enforcing of rules of any kind unless they're really necessary. For the MOST part, the problems you outline are problems that should really be resolved between the people concerned (although of course). It's only continued harrassment that would really register on our alarms as something we need to work at. I know we don't really have a definition of what that is as yet, and I can see that would be a useful thing to have, but I also think the general sense of Barbelith - that we should not have rules until its demonstrated that we can't work without them - is the best approach...
 
 
Tom Coates
10:02 / 25.07.03
PS. Bear in mind that we went through several different versions of the site before we found a style of moderation that people could even stomach - and we had to make that one up ourselves! This is not a rule-friendly crowd!
 
 
—| x |—
06:02 / 26.07.03
Hmm, I don’t really think that I am trying to establish rules and punishments to be enforced to the letter if such and such an event happens. I think I am trying to get at more of how people feel regarding such events, and how we as a community are likely to respond. Put differently, I am v. much a person who likes to see structures morph and change to suit the present need. That said, from my POV, here is some sort of need regarding which we can decide whether or not the community wants its structure to change around the need, how it will change, and etc.. I mean, we can do nothing at all about potential difficulties with PMs (difficulties that have already come to our attention) and in this manner the community doesn’t change—no new substructure emerges if we don’t do anything! Or we can try to talk a little about PM use and abuse, potential solutions for possible problems, and etc.—not in the hopes of writing Law to Enforce via Police—but with the intent to be a little more clear and a little less vague, a little more proactive instead of reactive at best or hesitant and undecided at worst.

But, I mean, if no one cares, then that’s pretty much that.
 
 
Ganesh
09:09 / 26.07.03
I don't care to establish a set-in-stone Barbelith policy on the subject, no - and that's despite recently having my own parameters of what is and isn't a "nasty PM" redefined.

With Tom on this one. Again.
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:02 / 26.07.03
But, I mean, if no one cares, then that?s pretty much that.

I don't think it's that no one cares, more that no one sees a case for a PM policy in this instance. I think the issue of sending an e-mail and ending it with "and no returns" is very trivial and in no way connected with "real-life" harrassment. For me, the inevitable disadvantages of an imperative on this would far outweigh the advantages. The law, after all, is an ass, and we should keep our four-legged friend in the stable as much as possible.
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:04 / 26.07.03
I wrote "e-mail" above and meant "PM".
 
 
angel
11:44 / 26.07.03
One thing that seems to be being forgotten is that this is essentially "Tom's House" and he very very kindly lets us all play here. It's Tom's House so we play by Tom's Rules.

We are very lucky in that Tom is magnanimous (?sp) and generous and so long as we don't trash the place, lets us decide how we want to play (hence the devolved moderator system). But essentially Tom is the one who puts in huge amounts of life energy and literally hard cash to keep this playground alive. Tom rarely intervenes but when he does it is imperitive that we lift our heads up and listen. His word carries a lot of weight because without him, Barbelith would have never existed in this form.
 
 
—| x |—
17:49 / 26.07.03
Um—hello? I’m with Tom here too: I don’t want to establish “set in stone” rules. Please read my last post again esp. “…from my POV, here is some sort of need regarding which we can decide whether or not the community wants its structure to change around the need, how it will change, and etc..”

Let me restate for the hard of reading. There are potential difficulties with PMs that have come to light qua some members interaction with other members; as such, we can discuss the issue a little with the idea that we want to have some direction regarding future occurrences of difficulties, or we can let the issue lie and not change anything about the way our community responds to these instances (which currently seems like some combination of hesitation, vague indignation, opinionated response, and other such more or less unhelpful—to those feeling “harassed”—reactions).

Ignatius J please keep your eyes on the ball here: I am not talking about someone closing a PM (of any sort) with “no returns.” I am talking about: 1) the potential misuse of a possible ‘block PM’ function, 2) the potential ins and outs regarding the occurrence of a PM dispute becoming public, and 3) the reception of a single nasty PM from someone with whom we’ve had no previous engagement—other than an in-thread debate or such.

Again: not seeking to establish LAW, but seeking to gauge potential community interaction and likely response to the above three issues.
 
 
Ganesh
22:14 / 26.07.03
Let me restate for the hard of understanding: I personally don't have any need for 'direction' here, and am finding it rather difficult to see why someone faced with a "nasty PM" and a request to stop PMing can't just lick their psychological wounds and stop PMing. Perhaps the "community" will prove me wrong here, but I'm guessing this isn't really a huge issue for anyone other than you, >0<...
 
 
Andrew C*** passing himself of as Jack Fear
23:13 / 26.07.03
Why are you all being so nasty to each other? And has Haus gone for good? He annoyed me anyway....you should all stop chopsing and just get on with it.
 
 
Ganesh
23:17 / 26.07.03
Yes, Haus is gone for good. He took exception to people criticising Neil Gaiman's '1602', and has consequently left the board.
 
 
—| x |—
09:40 / 27.07.03
"[I] am finding it rather difficult to see why someone faced with a "nasty PM" and a request to stop PMing..."

Holy Jumping Jesus On a Pogo Stick! I'm not fucking talking about "someone faced with a 'nasty PM' and a request to stop PMing." Are you paying any attention or merely holding onto something that isn't even part of this thread?

ONE MORE DAMN TIME:

1) Some member gets a PM that sucks ass and makes them feel like shit; however, s/he doesn't want to reply and become engaged in a bullshit pissing match. BUT s/he doesn't want to merely ignore such stupidity. How would we respond?

2) A bitter dispute between members via PM becomes public for some reason or other. What is the best way to handle this--should we encourage a proactive mod or admin assisted path or should we encourage people to continue to expect vague and unhelpful responses of "We don't really want rules and we don't really see the point of being proactive towards potential PM misuse."

Man.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
10:55 / 27.07.03
1) We would hopefully grow the fuck up.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
11:07 / 27.07.03
Given that Tom has indicated that he's "of the opinion that there is little or no need for an explicit policy on private messages on the board at the moment", and given the increasingly scratchy vibe in this thread (which would seem to militate against constructive discussion regardless of the rights and wrongs of the whole business), I'm moving to lock this thread. I don't think it's taking us anywhere good.

If the motion to lock the thread is not passed, I'd still encourage everyone concerned to go and have a nice cup of tea. Possibly even a sticky bun too.
 
 
Ganesh
11:13 / 27.07.03
ONE MORE DAMN TIME

You're not failing to get your point across, >0<; I am (as are, I think, most of the others who've posted here, I think) understanding you loud and clear. I'm merely disagreeing with your own conclusion(s).

1) Ignore such stupidity, and keep ignoring it.

2) We should continue as we have done thus far ie. expecting posters to resolve such issues between themselves and, in cases of sustained harrassment (such as the continued, ongoing PMing of someone who has requested not to be PMed), bringing it to the attention of a Moderator.

It's not the answer you want, >0<, but that doesn't mean anyone here is stupid, or failing to pay attention. It merely means they do not see the urgent problem that you, evidently, do.

Man.

Is this gonna have to be another 'locked for snarkiness' thread?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:45 / 27.07.03
I'm generally suspicious of locking threads - I feel it should be a matter of last rather than first resort.

However, we do seem to be getting not very far at all here. It strikes me that we *do* have a policy on PMs - that essentially being that people should in general be able to sort out their own problems. A "block PMs" button might add an extra functionality to that sorting out of their own problems, but might interfere with e.g moderator business. That, I think, is a specific question of functionality that in a perfect world should be discussable without rude or abusive comments being aimed at anyone who disagrees with the opinion of anyone else involved. If the situation becomes such that one of the persons involved believes that the broader board should be made aware of the problem, then they have the freedom to raise the question on the wider board. The board will then decide whether they were justified in doing so, and respond subsequently accordingly. So, for example, in the most recent case, the board decided that both of those involved were overreacting and should grow the fuck up - that is, the situation had not justified the attention of the wider board. If the pursuit of the last word had extended beyond a single post, or extended into those ever-popular threats of legal action by which another discussion about PMs has been inspired, that would have been considered more suitable a case for the attention of the board, and so on.

As has been said before, one of the good things about a community as small as Barbelith is that most things can be judged on a case-by-case basis.
 
 
Tom Coates
11:57 / 27.07.03
>0< - the main problem we have here is that people for one reason or another do not seem comfortable with making the distinction between the abstract, "What would happen under these circumstances" with the particular fact that you and Haus have recently been in the middle of a debate around these issues.

I'm afraid my position would be at the moment that because of this collision your advocacy around this issue is probably damaging your position more than it is helping it. I think the best option for all concerned would be for us to agree that - however we are planning on dealing with them - harrassment and irritations between members on the basis of private messages do happen, and that - either on a case by case basis (common law?) or via an explicit policy - these things do need some form of resolution.

What I suggest we do next - as a way to resolve this current fight and not to get embroiled too heavily in an ongoing fight - is to say that with this in mind (the fact that problems do emerge and that they will have to be resolved by the community at large), we are clearly not able to have this discussion at this point in time in a civilised way. That being the case - noting that Haus, Ganesh, myself and >0< (among others) all have opinions around this subject, I move that we should agree that this debate would be better had when the next situation emerges in which there are no perceived or actual conflicts of interest that might make the debate untenable.

I think this is a fair approach - when such a situation emerges again, we should be prepared to investigate the subject more thoroughly and see if we can come to a useful understanding about the various options between case-by-case approaches / case-law / policy / board infrastructure. But now is not the time.

Can I get agreement from people on this? That there is no value in continuing this discussion at this time because we are not getting anywhere with it, but that it is an IMPORTANT discussion that would be better had with cooler heads?
 
 
Ganesh
11:59 / 27.07.03
Sounds fair. Let's do that.
 
 
Tom Coates
12:03 / 27.07.03
Also - note to Angel - there is definitely an extent to which I have to be finally responsible for the board, legally and otherwise, and clearly that does give my voice an undue weight, but I would rather that it was understood that this was something that we spent all our times trying to minimise. It's sweet of you to recognise that I do have a different relationship to the board, but I think that it's my job to - as much as possible - stop that being an issue. People should not feel that when I say something that it is gospel, or necessarily right, or that they'll get banned if we disagree or any of that stuff, and what I think shouldn't be left unchallenged by anyone.

The only place this is not the case is probably in regard to building the board, where I have to work with Cal to do what I think is best, with as much input as I can get from the board. But in the end, the decision there is up to me and always will be. I'd be more comfortable - in a way - if people could think of ways in which we could mediate interactions to make problems with private messaging less of an issue, because then I can start modelling various different positions with regard to building things and UI that I think could be really helpful...
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
15:19 / 27.07.03
Just want to agree with Tom on the 'let's drop it until it becomes an important issue' idea. With that in mind it might be an idea to lock this thread so that no-one can add to it (although I know they can start a new topic, hoom)
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply