Are private messages

[bicker]

Sorry, left my 10 foot poll at home today.... You aren't trying to bait people into saying things that will get them banned are you? That wouldn't be nice.

Well, truly, no, but you raise a good point: If your private discussions aren't appropriate to discuss with the host of a party you go to, then discussing them off to the side is even more disrespectful to your host, and therefore even more inappropriate than discussing them publicly.

 

[bicker]

I kind of resent the fact that terms like paranoid and suspicious are being thrown around here... Especially in light of history and current events. Anyone's concerns in this regard are well founded.

No, that doesn't follow. If you're not doing anything wrong, then there is no basis for paranoia or suspicion.

It is unreasonable to think that ANYTHING on the net, especially privately owned forums, are somehow guaranteed as private. Anyone who thinks so is really kidding themselves.

Absolutely.

 

[Wishing on a star]

With all due respect, I actually would NOT be suprised if a very very long time member here, with a silver sponsorship, would indeed be 'fishing'...

 

[Wishing on a star]

No, that doesn't follow. If you're not doing anything wrong, then there is no basis for paranoia or suspicion.

Absolutely.

First, since when does one have to do anything wrong 'according to the TOS' to incur the wrath of the TPTB?????
Your response to that is completely irrelevant....

Second... when you say 'absolutely', are you then ADMITTING that there are those who COULD monitor any and all transmissions???

 

[mudnuri]

With all due respect, I actually would NOT be suprised if a very very long time member here, with a silver sponsorship, would indeed be 'fishing'...

wow

 

[Mackey Mouse]

Bicker... you have become the voice of reason here. Add me to the agreeing with Bicker list.

I think Alex answered, WMKathy answered, some mods weighed in here. I am not sure what else could be said to assure you that the pm's are not being read.....

 

[Loubon]

A poster who is requesting the information is the one who mentioned an atmosphere of paranoia, confusion and suspicion.

In this latest round perhaps, but it has been used before and even the tone of several here clearly suggest it.

No, that doesn't follow. If you're not doing anything wrong, then there is no basis for paranoia or suspicion.

Absolutely.

I guess that's really the issue....determining on any given day what is considered wrong.

 

[bicker]

I guess that's really the issue....determining on any given day what is considered wrong.

I think my message about how you behave at a party you're invited to reflects the best rule-of-thumb in that regard, if you want to avoid paranoia instead of pursuing it.

 

[Chipmunk89]

Well, truly, no, but you raise a good point: If your private discussions aren't appropriate to discuss with the host of a party you go to, then discussing them off to the side is even more disrespectful to your host, and therefore even more inappropriate than discussing them publicly.

Ahh...but here is where the water gets murky. What's appropriate in my eyes and what's in the TPTB's eyes can be totally different.


OT -
Honestly, I never knew of other sites til all the mess over here happened. I see nothing wrong with people visiting and posting on other sites. If I'm spending as much money on a WDW trip as I am, I want all the resources I can get. Okay, maybe you can't mention the other sites on the board, but pming a friend some information to help make a decision. I don't see how that hurts anyone. JMHO

 

[Mkrop]

No, that doesn't follow. If you're not doing anything wrong, then there is no basis for paranoia or suspicion.

Absolutely.

There were MANY who did nothing wrong, or have no clue what they did wrong, who are no longer here. So my paranoia lies in the fact that I could go into a thread and make what may be an innocent post and then poof I am gone like they are. I think I am following the rules, I try not to do anything wrong but could I risk the same fate as many just by posting. So I dont really care if people dont like the term paranoid but I certainly feel like that as of late.

 

[grlpwrd]

I personally don't know what to believe... and I am not just talking about these forums or PMs.

Nothing is really sacred anymore, is it?

 

[Wishing on a star]

Bicker, you are sounding more 'big brother' and orwellian with every post...

Respect for what big-brother 'thinks' or 'feels' or happens to approve of at any given moment is what matters????

Nobody has a right to question anything???


Okay..... I GET it....
If that is the game... I do GET it...
This is their 'turf'.
That is OKAY....
I can handle it...

Let's just admit that right away, for the millionth time, and get it overwith...

PS: Just an aside here... if we have been invited onto this turf... shouldn't we know the house rules???? Should the host offer some basic respect???

The OP, and others, are simply asking what the house rules are..... while we are here, can our liuggage be inspected without our express knowledge and consent???

 

[bicker]

Ahh...but here is where the water gets murky. What's appropriate in my eyes and what's in the TPTB's eyes can be totally different.

That's a no-brainer in my mind: Their house; their rules. What is appropriate on any website, anywhere, is what the operators of the website determine to be appropriate there. Always has been; always will be.

 

[Loubon]

I think my message about how you behave at a party you're invited to reflects the best rule-of-thumb in that regard, if you want to avoid paranoia instead of pursuing it.

I'm not paranoid at all. Personally, I could care less if they read them or not. My point is the possibility exists so therefore those who think it may occur have just as much right to their opinion as those who uphold that it doesn't occur.

And I don't agree with your party analogy. There are many reasons people choose not to say things out in the open and not all have such inappropriate overtones. If I'm at that same party and the food is lousy and I want to say that to my wife, that doesn't mean I hate the host. It just means the food is lousy.

 

[bicker]

Bicker, you are sounding more 'big brother' and orwellian with every post...

Big Brother refers to the government. Werner Technologies is a private company. I think though you've hit on perhaps why you're uncomfortable; it very likely stems from the confusion between thinking of online discussion forums as community resources instead of private enterprises.

 

[Chipmunk89]

That's a no-brainer in my mind: Their house; their rules. What is appropriate on any website, anywhere, is what the operators of the website determine to be appropriate there. Always has been; always will be.

OT-
I get the "its their house" thing. If a poster is pming a friend (not advertising or solicitating other web sites), just purely mentioning another option. Why is that a problem?

 

[bicker]

Chip: The moderators have repeated mentioned that specific questions regarding "their rules" be emailed to them directly. Please let me know if you need assistance identifying which email address to use.

 

[ExPirateShopGirl]

Each online server or service we use requires us to agree to its Terms of Service, or TOS. It's easy for people to forget (if they ever read it at all) those terms over time and frequent use. The term PM, or private message, does seem to promote an expectation of privacy, though we have learned, and agreed, to eliminate this expectation.

And because I'm too lazy to go back and cut and paste:

US mail, as well as other mail and package delivery, belongs to the addressee, even if the addressee has used a workplace address for delivery. Employees have legal recourse if adverse action is taken by an employer over contents of mail. That being said, you'd be an idiot to order pornographic videos and have them delivered to you at your place of employment.

Another interesting note: Personal emails sent to or from government employees do NOT constitute public records, even if they are stored on government owned mail servers, and are excluded from production for any FOIA or sunshine law request. Only business-related emails constitute public records. Obviously, the personal emails can still be subpoenaed, and limiting one's personal use is a good idea.

Private and secure are two different things. ANY transmission you make that is not secure (or encrypted) carries the possibility that it can be intercepted and read somewhere along the way. Not that anyone IS, just that it can. Private just means you're sending it to one or a few select individuals, rather than positing it publically. As above, it doesn't eliminate the possibility that it can be intercepted by someone to whom you've already agreed to allow access via terms of service.

Caveat Poster.

 

[Chipmunk89]

And I don't agree with your party analogy. There are many reasons people choose not to say things out in the open and not all have such inappropriate overtones. If I'm at that same party and the food is lousy and I want to say that to my wife, that doesn't mean I hate the host. It just means the food is lousy.

ITA- I'll tell DH if the food or music is lousy.

And if it's really lousy, I'll just vent here on the DIS!

 

[WebmasterKathy]

We've addressed the questions, and Bicker has made some sound and rational points for anyone who is really interested in the issue.

Now it seems that a couple of posters have some axe to grind and the thread is no longer productive. Thread closed.