Proposed Rule regarding PMs

[Jovial Monk]

Because it is of interest only to the two people concerned?

[Bobby]

Non personal stuff in a PM should be able to be posted. Not personal stuff.

All stuff in a PM is personal -
it includes the personal thoughts of a member.
It's a private message not a public message.

Agree it is a private personal message and should stay private.

Thanks Red,
I hope Aussie agrees.

[Aussie]

Try and think before engaging mouth.

Not everything in PM is personal—forum details etc can be communicated via PM and are hardly personal.

PMs prior to the date of the rule must absolutely be protected.

Try and get stuffed,

if someone sends a PM that they want distributed to all and sundry why bother PMing it twit!

Ya know....I flick of a button and I can disable PMs altogether.

How about that?

[Redneck]

Try and think before engaging mouth.

Not everything in PM is personal—forum details etc can be communicated via PM and are hardly personal.

PMs prior to the date of the rule must absolutely be protected.

Try and get stuffed,

if someone sends a PM that they want distributed to all and sundry why bother PMing it twit!

Ya know....I flick of a button and I can disable PMs altogether.

How about that?

Wow that would be really intelligent wouldnt it!

[Super Nova]

My view is:

1. PMs sent here shouldn't be posted in other forums
2. PMs are like emails, therefore should be treated like emails, just because they are called Personal Messages does not mean they are private and protected.
3. A PM sent to another person is no longer the exclusive property of the sender as they have been sent to 1 or more recipients.

Therefore, any PM should be allowed to be posted. Full stop.

It is the judgement of any sender or receiver of a PM if they want to post it, share it to a wider audience.

You should not write a PM if you are not prepared for it to be published in the Age or Sydney Morning Herald.

I have always followed this approach. I will post PMs if I feel, at my discretion, if it serves my or the common interest for it to be posted.

This keeps it simple. The sender of a PM has to take responsibility and always be prepared for it to be published and understand that no electronic communications is secret, and they do not own it or have control over it, once it is sent.

[Aussie]

My view is:

1. PMs sent here shouldn't be posted in other forums
2. PMs are like emails, therefore should be treated like emails, just because they are called Personal Messages does not mean they are private and protected.
3. A PM sent to another person is no longer the exclusive property of the sender as they have been sent to 1 or more recipients.

Therefore, any PM should be allowed to be posted. Full stop.

It is the judgement of any sender or receiver of a PM if they want to post it, share it to a wider audience.

You should not write a PM if you are not prepared for it to be published in the Age or Sydney Morning Herald.

I have always followed this approach. I will post PMs if I feel, at my discretion, if it serves my or the common interest for it to be posted.

This keeps it simple. The sender of a PM has to take responsibility and always be prepared for it to be published and understand that no electronic communications is secret, and they do not own it or have control over it, once it is sent.

I lean heavily towards exactly that position. Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced. Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.

[Bobby]

I lean heavily towards exactly that position.
Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced.
Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.

So that would give you a license to post any PMs from the last 10 years or more?

[Aussie]

I lean heavily towards exactly that position.
Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced.
Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.

So that would give you a license to post any PMs from the last 10 years or more?

There is no Rule stopping that happening. You could have introduced one but you didn't and neithe did those who came before you as EL.

But, having said that, I propose, as part of the Rule I will introduce, to put a blanket ban on posting PMs which date prior to the introduction of my Rule subject to one exception I can think of, and that is...if a poster makes a claim of fact on Forum which contradicts something that poster has said in a PM say to 'me,' 'I' am at liberty to post the PM.

I am totally over one Member saying one thing in public which totally contradicts what they have said in a PM. Liars like that may be outed, I propose.

Your thoughts?

[Super Nova]

I lean heavily towards exactly that position.
Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced.
Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.

So that would give you a license to post any PMs from the last 10 years or more?

I think aussie is saying 2 things.

1. Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced.
Meaning it will be effective from when he introduces this rule/clarification.

2.Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.
Meaning, he has decided what to do with the past as there was no explicit rule.
However, i am aware that various ELs did state this was a rule and there were many dramas over posting PMs.
So this could be seen as previous rules, although not formalized after every new EL is elected.

Aussie will need to decide if past PMs should be considered not postable, not to be posted without all parties agreeing to post it even though, they are not really considered privileged or private in any way.

That would protect all past PMs as they were sent with the understanding they would not be posted.

I think this point should be the subject of discussion here.

[Super Nova]

I lean heavily towards exactly that position.
Any Rule I impose on this will only have effect from when it is introduced.
Earlier PMs are....well.....not covered by any Rule as no prior EL addressed the issue.

So that would give you a license to post any PMs from the last 10 years or more?

There is no Rule stopping that happening. You could have introduced one but you didn't and neithe did those who came before you as EL.

But, having said that, I propose, as part of the Rule I will introduce, to put a blanket ban on posting PMs which date prior to the introduction of my Rule subject to one exception I can think of, and that is...if a poster makes a claim of fact on Forum which contradicts something that poster has said in a PM say to 'me,' 'I' am at liberty to post the PM.

I am totally over one Member saying one thing in public which totally contradicts what they have said in a PM. Liars like that may be outed, I propose.

Your thoughts?

I think that is fair. protect past PMs except for the exception of the type you outlined.