Rules Clarification re PM's?

[MikeMcMann]

I don't want to litigate the reason I got dubbs but just want clarification on the rules.

I know there is a rule that says you cannot disclose contents of a PM

[*]No Disclosure of Personal Information: Do not disclose any other member's email, real name, address, phone number, IP address, or other personal information. This includes the posting contents of emails, private messages, warnings, infractions, and bans. Do not bring personal disputes into the forums.

But does simply referencing in the forum to another poster anything related to a PM equal an offense. I offer the following examples which we see in the forums often:

- Please send that to me via PM
- Please do not send me any more PM's. I do not want them from you.
- Thank you for the PM

Any of the above reference sending or receiving a PM but do not disclose any content. So how should someone take the rule around 'disclosing PM's?





In fairness to @Ruprecht who may want to add to this since he gave me dubbs after two other mods, reviewed the reports and said I did not disclose and thus 'no dubbs' I want to give him a chance to clarify if he thinks anything needs to be added here.


Clarification appreciated.

Spoiler: Context if desired

The context if desired was an ongoing argument in the WR between myself and Inga a few supporters of hers on the Trump side of debates.

INga and i had a few back and forths where our post counts where equal on a back and forth basis. Normal arguments. Inga sought to extent those arguments into my PM and I informed her I had no interest of that and did not want to converse via PM. She then, in frustration started calling me a stalker over and over in the form until others also started to refer to me as a stalker. This, again despite the fact I post no more to her than her to me. And she goes above that and tries to engage me in PM's.

So in retort to the accusation I was a stalker I posted 'our post counts are basically equal but you also PM me so if either of us is a stalker its you and not me. that discloses no content of the PM but references she has sent me undesired PM's.

Inga and the other Trump supporters started to report me furiously for posting PM's. The first two mods who got the complaint read the actual disputes and determined I did not and told me that. But we all know it just takes on mod who does not read it thru or who maybe has a different view of the rules for that to change. They found that mod in Ruprecht. I do not know if he did not read the exchanges and just read the Reports or if he has a different view of the rule.

If he or other mods have a different view of the rule that is what I want to know. As i often see people in the forums saying versions of these:

- Please send that to me via PM
- Please do not send me any more PM's. I do not want them from you.
- Thank you for the PM

And if the view is those are against the rules then a lot more Reports should be filed by posters.

 

[Lethal]

I don't want to litigate the reason I got dubbs but just want clarification on the rules.

I know there is a rule that says you cannot disclose contents of a PM

[*]No Disclosure of Personal Information: Do not disclose any other member's email, real name, address, phone number, IP address, or other personal information. This includes the posting contents of emails, private messages, warnings, infractions, and bans. Do not bring personal disputes into the forums.

But does simply referencing in the forum to another poster anything related to a PM equal an offense. I offer the following examples which we see in the forums often:

- Please send that to me via PM
- Please do not send me any more PM's. I do not want them from you.
- Thank you for the PM

Any of the above reference sending or receiving a PM but do not disclose any content. So how should someone take the rule around 'disclosing PM's?





In fairness to @Ruprecht who may want to add to this since he gave me dubbs after two other mods, reviewed the reports and said I did not disclose and thus 'no dubbs' I want to give him a chance to clarify if he thinks anything needs to be added here.


Clarification appreciated.

Spoiler: Context if desired

The context if desired was an ongoing argument in the WR between myself and Inga a few supporters of hers on the Trump side of debates.

INga and i had a few back and forths where our post counts where equal on a back and forth basis. Normal arguments. Inga sought to extent those arguments into my PM and I informed her I had no interest of that and did not want to converse via PM. She then, in frustration started calling me a stalker over and over in the form until others also started to refer to me as a stalker. This, again despite the fact I post no more to her than her to me. And she goes above that and tries to engage me in PM's.

So in retort to the accusation I was a stalker I posted 'our post counts are basically equal but you also PM me so if either of us is a stalker its you and not me. that discloses no content of the PM but references she has sent me undesired PM's.

Inga and the other Trump supporters started to report me furiously for posting PM's. The first two mods who got the complaint read the actual disputes and determined I did not and told me that. But we all know it just takes on mod who does not read it thru or who maybe has a different view of the rules for that to change. They found that mod in Ruprecht. I do not know if he did not read the exchanges and just read the Reports or if he has a different view of the rule.

If he or other mods have a different view of the rule that is what I want to know. As i often see people in the forums saying versions of these:

- Please send that to me via PM
- Please do not send me any more PM's. I do not want them from you.
- Thank you for the PM

And if the view is those are against the rules then a lot more Reports should be filed by posters.

From the examples you listed,

- Please send that to me via PM
- Please do not send me any more PM's. I do not want them from you.
- Thank you for the PM

These are all fine, in the case of the second example the poster can also report the PM instead if they feel another user is harassing them via PM.

When it comes to sharing the contents of a PM, direct quotes usually lead to dubs or bans depending on what was leaked from the conversation. Alluding to what happened in a PM is also problematic and is not permitted. In your case, the first time you alluded to it you had your posts deleted from the thread and received a PM warning as opposed to an Infraction. In this scenario where there's no direct quotes involved continuing to allude to the PM conversation after the PM warning would lead to harsher infractions.

 

[Lethal]

I cannot go into complete details of what went down on the public forums. If you want further details about what went on with your infraction we can discuss it via PM.