Forum policy on private messages

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Depends what was said, in the private messages. I've seen people share private messages to prove that the other person was lying about what they had said publicly.

Hence “almost”

 

[Esprit]

In the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation is a very important privacy and human rights law of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which also governs the transfer of personal data outside the EU.

Use Google Translate:

Postare la schermata di una chat è un reato? Risponde Guido Scorza, membro del Collegio del Garante della privacy - Gente

www.garanteprivacy.it

 

[wwenze]

Depends what was said, in the private messages. I've seen people share private messages to prove that the other person was lying about what they had said publicly.

 

[BeeKay]

I don't have a Private Message option, just "Conversations". So my assumption would be anything exchanged there may not stay private.

Plus I've been on enough forums to know that direct messages get publicized occasionally, particularly when there are disputes.

Exactly. And maybe assuming this being a 'PM' isn’t helpful.

 

[Sokel]

View attachment 444251

Not really.
We are now at the fifth picture, the mule riding them.
Laughing.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Depends what was said, in the private messages. I've seen people share private messages to prove that the other person was lying about what they had said publicly.

In terms of the sociology of deviance, that would be a case of "appealing to higher loyalties". In other words, violating one norm is often seen as acceptable if it is done with the goal of supporting what is seen as a more important norm.

In this example, "protection of others" would come into play as a justification for the privacy violation, most likely.

 

[Sokel]

Conversations are public. The sole "report" button option is a great tell about it.

 

[wwenze]

Who reads the report... oh wait

 

[Jimbob54]

I don't believe the forum defines rules about the conversation /DM/ pm function .

Suspect it's based on an implicit /explicit understanding between the participants or customs and practice .

Fwiw https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/behringer-studio-xl.61663/post-2261169

 

[whereisbrian]

I'm gonna tell you a secret please don't disclose this message

 

[thewas]

Conversations are public. The sole "report" button option is a great tell about it.

The "report" button exists in many forums and doesn't make it public but sends it to the moderation to check if their is a rule or law break.

 

[wwenze]

The "report" button exists in many forums and doesn't make it public but sends it to the moderation to check if their is a rule or law break.

I frequent one particular forum, the moderation is so tight, that is the only forum I have ever used the report button because I keep getting reported by angry people who have weaponized the report button. It has become who can out-report the other.

 

[Jimbob54]

Another thing that is worth considering is the value of selective quoting of a pm thread Vs releasing the whole .

Once one participant releases part into public there may be legitimate interest to that public in seeing it in entirety .

Or maybe there is is a certain dignity in keeping clean hands in a bath of bullshit

 

[amper42]

When someone sends a note of that caliber to the person they report to, they understand there may be consequences. If I were the owner of a site and the guys I trusted to treat my customers with respect sent me such a note, I would be re-evaluating my configuration. If they treat the owner that way, they were likely callous with visitors too. Not an optimal situation. In this case, expecting privacy of the note is beyond reasonable.

 

[Jimbob54]

When someone sends a note of that caliber to the person they report to, they understand there may be consequences. If I were the owner of a site and the guys I trusted to treat my customers with respect sent me such a note, I would be re-evaluating my configuration. If they treat the owner that way, they were likely callous with visitors too. Not an optimal situation. In this case, expecting privacy of the note is beyond reasonable.

You haven't read the whole of that one post , nevermind the thread as a whole . There is only 1 person from a 4 person thread creating a public narrative here . Fwiw that part quoted post was in response to amirs rebuttal of our joint ultimatum /resignation (also quoted in part previously) technically we were no longer staff by that point either .

 

[Old_School_Brad]

When someone sends a note of that caliber to the person they report to, they understand there may be consequences. If I were the owner of a site and the guys I trusted to treat my customers with respect sent me such a note, I would be re-evaluating my configuration. If they treat the owner that way, they were likely callous with visitors too. Not an optimal situation. In this case, expecting privacy of the note is beyond reasonable.

You're making assumptions here.
We can't draw clear conclusions because the full context of the conversation hasn’t been shared.

 

[mglobe]

Legal or not legal, it is horrible form to release part or all of what should be considered a private conversation. I’m quite disappointed in how this has unfolded.

 

[Mark617]

Whatever the context, there was an ad hominem attack in the quoted text. An attack like that, disqualifies the validity of any argument as it moves the discussion away from an rational one to a purely emotional one. I am surprised that some seem not see that point.

 

[kyuu]

You're making assumptions here.
We can't draw clear conclusions because the full context of the conversation hasn’t been shared.

That paragraph was pretty self-explanatory. Difficult to see how any context will make it read differently. Seems to me a case where the people at issue are simply sore at their laundry being aired, rather than there actually being some context that's missing.

I don't get the consternation here. Do people really talk to other people in real life and just assume that the other person will keep everything that was said in complete confidence, particularly on a subject that's being publicly discussed like this? Absent some kind of explicit agreement, just assume that whatever you say can and will be repeated. Don't assume others share your cultural or personal norms, and it's certainly not a "betrayal" when they don't.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

Whatever the context, there was an ad hominem attack in the quoted text. An attack like that, disqualifies the validity of any argument as it moves the discussion away from an rational one to a purely emotional one. I am surprised that some seem not see that point.

That out-of-context snippet doesn't really prove anything. You can't draw conclusions without knowing what was said beforehand and by whom. Without the full picture, there's no way to judge whether the reaction we've seen was appropriate or not.