Is it okay to post private messages?

Steven Ruiz said:Actually, sending private messages isn't against the rules here (except on a few specific sub-forums), though sharing someone's private info like their full name or anything like that is definitely a no-go...
The DM mentioned above didn't actually contain any private details at all, unless you count the sender being a bit rude...

@observer, the sender hasn't been penalized, and the administrator hasn't been asked to take any action against them either...
That said, we have definitely handed out punishments before for people sending weird or offensive DMs on the forum...

If I recall correctly, there was a time when posting PMs themselves was banned, not just the disclosure of private info. Those two things aren't necessarily linked.

You aren't an infallible moderator (which, frankly, is a condition most moderators on any forum suffer from), nor is anyone else in this world. So, regardless of how hard you try to justify it, it simply doesn't hold up. You made a mistake, but what can you do? Move forward, and everything will be fine. 🙂 Don't dwell on it too much, but please don't try to convince anyone that posting PMs is acceptable when others clearly disagree. 🙂

Steven Ruiz said:Actually, sending private messages isn't against the rules here (except on a few specific sub-forums), though sharing someone's private info like their full name or anything like that is definitely a no-go...
The DM mentioned above didn't actually contain any private details at all, unless you count the sender being a bit rude...

@observer, the sender hasn't been penalized, and the administrator hasn't been asked to take any action against them either...
That said, we have definitely handed out punishments before for people sending weird or offensive DMs on the forum...

Actually, it’s not banned; you might just get a ban for doing it, but it has never strictly been against the rules.🤣
What if someone decided to leak one of your DMs? 🙂

To me, this is even more ridiculous than that classic excuse: "It's not an insult if it's true!" 😁

No, you've got it all wrong. I wasn't saying it was okay, it's just that it isn't strictly forbidden... 😉
The President's post actually had a specific goal, which was to stop certain people on my PDF from constantly lobbying for Toco to be added back to the PDF list again...
Personally, offensive messages from the President don't really get under my skin, since I spent so much time as a moderator and have dealt with plenty of them before, so generally speaking, I just ignore those kinds of messages from the President and delete them...
As far as I'm concerned, I've already told the administrators that I am more than willing to take a warning or even a ban if this turns out to be something punishable... 🤷

On the other hand, it's honestly absurd that someone who abuses the President's messaging system just to harass someone over nothing—especially since they were banned months ago—and clearly shows such contempt for the rules by acting like they're above them, is also so incredibly ready to weaponize that exact same system and set of rules the moment they feel like they've been wronged in some way...

There’s way too much chatter going on again with hardly any actual substance... but hey, I guess that’s basically what this forum is for, right? 😉

A quick snippet from the rules:

Desiree said:CUT

• interfering with the Forum staff (ignoring warnings, restoring deleted posts, etc.)
• insulting other users, intentionally provoking personal arguments, or starting unconstructive nationalistic, religious, or similar conflicts (basically trolling)
• doxing or posting other members' private info

/CUT

So... looking at it this way, Megan White4 is guilty of two points, while Steven Ruiz isn't even in the running (unless you count DMs as private data 🤔).

Personally, I think we should totally implement a rule about sharing DMs—you know, making it illegal to post them without the original author's permission... or at least making the policy crystal clear.

As for this whole mess with Megan White4, about two weeks ago (actually, even before that!), I was practically cheering via DM for her to get a permanent ban on Photography. But now? Looking back, I see there's really no point in all that drama, and honestly, things are better just left like this 😢

Steven Ruiz said:No, you've got it all wrong. I wasn't saying it was okay, it's just that it isn't strictly forbidden... 😉
The President's post actually had a specific goal, which was to stop certain people on my PDF from constantly lobbying for Toco to be added back to the PDF list again...
Personally, offensive messages from the President don't really get under my skin, since I spent so much time as a moderator and have dealt with plenty of them before, so generally speaking, I just ignore those kinds of messages from the President and delete them...
As far as I'm concerned, I've already told the administrators that I am more than willing to take a warning or even a ban if this turns out to be something punishable... 🤷

On the other hand, it's honestly absurd that someone who abuses the President's messaging system just to harass someone over nothing—especially since they were banned months ago—and clearly shows such contempt for the rules by acting like they're above them, is also so incredibly ready to weaponize that exact same system and set of rules the moment they feel like they've been wronged in some way...

Does that mean it's allowed? 🙂

As far as I am concerned, I told the administrators that I am prepared to accept a warning and/or a ban for this if it turns out to be punishable. 🤷

You are being far too harsh on yourself. 🙂 There is absolutely no need for you to face a permanent ban, or even a warning, just because of a single mistake you made. 🙂

Justin Walker24 - are you aware that there used to be a rule stating that PP could not be posted publicly? At least, that is how I understood it; I just don't know when exactly that rule "disappeared" from the guidelines. Please, someone correct me if I have misremembered anything.

It might not technically violate any rules, but it’s incredibly tacky—truly pathetic behavior from both the users and the moderators alike. This isn't the kind of standard an American forum should strive for; frankly, it's the sort of conduct that deserves a sanction. I know plenty of online communities where posting a PP gets you a permanent ban, and honestly, I think that's fair play. Similarly, harassment via private message should be penalized—especially when you don't even have the option to hit the ignore button.
The one thing I am absolutely certain of is that I will never, ever send a PM to Steven Ruiz. 🤣

Steven Ruiz said:Actually, sending private messages isn't against the rules here (except on a few specific sub-forums), though sharing someone's private info like their full name or anything like that is definitely a no-go...
The DM mentioned above didn't actually contain any private details at all, unless you count the sender being a bit rude...

@observer, the sender hasn't been penalized, and the administrator hasn't been asked to take any action against them either...
That said, we have definitely handed out punishments before for people sending weird or offensive DMs on the forum...

Beyond the official bans and the rulebook, there are these other... unwritten norms that we all generally follow.

I mean, if George spends a wild night with Marina, there isn't some legal statute preventing him from giving the guys at the bar a play-by-play of everything they did—but somehow, it just feels wrong, doesn't it? 🙂

Generally speaking, sharing something private—something said or done "off the record"—just isn't right (regardless of whether there was a formal rule against it or not). In this specific case, the post was pretty much unnecessary, and the real mess is that because of your position, you're sending a message to everyone else here that says, "Watch out, we can leak any message we feel like."

It’s honestly a shame that you reduce your own responsibility to some bureaucratic "ban card" checkbox instead of just looking at the situation from a human perspective. As far as I know, it’s still free, and it shouldn't hurt too much to say, "Damn, I messed up, I got provoked, I'm sorry." I don't quite understand why you aren't able to write that simple sentence. Here, you can just copy and paste mine; you don't even have to type it. 🙂

Megan White4 said:Those were the good old days... ☕

Of course. What’s permitted for Jupiter isn't necessarily permitted for an ox... or, to put it more plainly: what's acceptable for a moderator doesn't always apply to the average forum user.

It’s hard to argue that a single DM counts as spamming—certainly not compared to someone flooding the boards with endless posts. If you don't start following the Golden Rule, I'm going to have to take matters into my own hands.There are certain points that keep popping up in the photography threads. They’re mostly just facts mixed with a little sarcasm and some lighthearted ribbing—hardly what anyone would call heavy insults. If someone finds themselves unable to take a joke, honestly, that's their own problem. ☕

Sure. Let's see who actually holds the moderator titles then... ☕

The good old days. ☕

I have my doubts. ☕

I assume this is directed my way, but what’s the deal with moderators like Kiki? They can be such a pain in the ass, constantly nitpicking over every tiny rule violation and cluttering the forum with posts like "The Golden Rule must be respected." Is it just me, or does that whole vibe feel a bit too much like "Big Brother is watching you"?

Unless they enjoy the privilege of being a forum moderator... It’s a known truth that in certain situations, there’s a clear distinction: What’s the difference between God and a forum moderator? God doesn't walk around thinking he's a forum moderator. ☕

By the way, I know this is off-topic, but I’m genuinely curious about how that works. On the Diaspora subforum, you're allowed to include up to six images per post.That’s the rule, with a few possible exceptions. Meanwhile, over on the photography forum—where there's actually a legitimate reason to include more than a few shots per post—you're strictly capped at four. If you go over, they just wipe the extras regardless of the context. Honestly, that's exactly what triggered this whole mess between me and Kiki.

That is my rule, and it was in place long before Steven Ruiz arrived. It makes sense because on the Diaspora forum, posts with images are rare—they barely show up in two specific threads—whereas on the Photography forum, they make up about 90% of the content. The total number of images posted by my fellow Americans across the entire Diaspora section is practically zero compared to the massive amount in Photography; you simply can't compare the two sections.

Honestly, you all really stepped in it together this time.
Look, we all know people say some pretty wild stuff during a heated argument just to get a reaction, but once the momentum starts, there’s no stopping it.
If high-ranking politicians can smirk and say, "Maybe it isn't fair, but it's legal," then we shouldn't be shocked when moderators cling to the letter of the law—even when those rules are ridiculous or things they basically made up themselves. This whole mess started over one single image (the fifth one in a row), and let's be real, it feels incredibly unfair to play stickler for the rules when that rule wouldn't even have been broken if things were handled differently on another sub-forum.
Speaking of photography, it’s pretty pathetic that in a place where visuals are everything—and honestly should be hosted in its own dedicated photo section—this specific shot was completely nuked.
It also felt totally shady how they aggressively enforced the rule against a fifth image, especially since the same moderator defending it would go write on a different part of the site that multiple images are perfectly fine. It's the same story with the resolution limits; they used to claim nothing could be larger than 640x480, only for us to find out certain sections allow 800x600, and even then, getting that rule updated in the photo guidelines was an uphill battle.
And honestly, leaking private messages is just tacky. It's bad taste, plain and simple, especially when that content was meant for one person only.
Since everyone involved has gone overboard here, the best move would be to bury the hatchet, make up after the PM drama 😁 and just lift the ban.
Why? Because Megan White4 actually wrote quality stuff that added real value to the site.

@Steven Ruiz, you’d really show what you're made of if you just stepped up in this thread, said "lift the ban," and settled this once and for all.

Douglas Cook9 said:Honestly, you all really stepped in it together this time.
Look, we all know people say some pretty wild stuff during a heated argument just to get a reaction, but once the momentum starts, there’s no stopping it.
If high-ranking politicians can smirk and say, "Maybe it isn't fair, but it's legal," then we shouldn't be shocked when moderators cling to the letter of the law—even when those rules are ridiculous or things they basically made up themselves. This whole mess started over one single image (the fifth one in a row), and let's be real, it feels incredibly unfair to play stickler for the rules when that rule wouldn't even have been broken if things were handled differently on another sub-forum.
Speaking of photography, it’s pretty pathetic that in a place where visuals are everything—and honestly should be hosted in its own dedicated photo section—this specific shot was completely nuked.
It also felt totally shady how they aggressively enforced the rule against a fifth image, especially since the same moderator defending it would go write on a different part of the site that multiple images are perfectly fine. It's the same story with the resolution limits; they used to claim nothing could be larger than 640x480, only for us to find out certain sections allow 800x600, and even then, getting that rule updated in the photo guidelines was an uphill battle.
And honestly, leaking private messages is just tacky. It's bad taste, plain and simple, especially when that content was meant for one person only.
Since everyone involved has gone overboard here, the best move would be to bury the hatchet, make up after the PM drama 😁 and just lift the ban.
Why? Because Megan White4 actually wrote quality stuff that added real value to the site.

@Steven Ruiz, you’d really show what you're made of if you just stepped up in this thread, said "lift the ban," and settled this once and for all.

Well, I suppose that President would—quite frankly—be absolutely obligated to make a public announcement about it. 🤣

Douglas Cook9 said:Honestly, you all really stepped in it together this time.
Look, we all know people say some pretty wild stuff during a heated argument just to get a reaction, but once the momentum starts, there’s no stopping it.
If high-ranking politicians can smirk and say, "Maybe it isn't fair, but it's legal," then we shouldn't be shocked when moderators cling to the letter of the law—even when those rules are ridiculous or things they basically made up themselves. This whole mess started over one single image (the fifth one in a row), and let's be real, it feels incredibly unfair to play stickler for the rules when that rule wouldn't even have been broken if things were handled differently on another sub-forum.
Speaking of photography, it’s pretty pathetic that in a place where visuals are everything—and honestly should be hosted in its own dedicated photo section—this specific shot was completely nuked.
It also felt totally shady how they aggressively enforced the rule against a fifth image, especially since the same moderator defending it would go write on a different part of the site that multiple images are perfectly fine. It's the same story with the resolution limits; they used to claim nothing could be larger than 640x480, only for us to find out certain sections allow 800x600, and even then, getting that rule updated in the photo guidelines was an uphill battle.
And honestly, leaking private messages is just tacky. It's bad taste, plain and simple, especially when that content was meant for one person only.
Since everyone involved has gone overboard here, the best move would be to bury the hatchet, make up after the PM drama 😁 and just lift the ban.
Why? Because Megan White4 actually wrote quality stuff that added real value to the site.

@Steven Ruiz, you’d really show what you're made of if you just stepped up in this thread, said "lift the ban," and settled this once and for all.

Secondly, I am the one who established the rule for the diaspora community (not a colleague), and Steven Ruiz simply agreed to it when he accepted his moderator role. I don't see any reason for Steven Ruiz to be crucified for a decision that was entirely mine.

You can't really compare two PDFs that have such vastly different image policies; calling them "opposites" is a massive stretch.
The topic at hand is "publishing the President's info," not "images in the diaspora group." I stand firmly by my specific rule regarding images in the diaspora section, and so far, nobody there has complained. Why? Because there's no need to—uploading photos there is quite rare. On one hand, you can easily count how many forum members actually post photos regularly; it's limited to two specific threads, and everyone stays happy (at least, that's what I've been told).

Nicholas King said:Beyond the official bans and the rulebook, there are these other... unwritten norms that we all generally follow.

I mean, if George spends a wild night with Marina, there isn't some legal statute preventing him from giving the guys at the bar a play-by-play of everything they did—but somehow, it just feels wrong, doesn't it? 🙂

Generally speaking, sharing something private—something said or done "off the record"—just isn't right (regardless of whether there was a formal rule against it or not). In this specific case, the post was pretty much unnecessary, and the real mess is that because of your position, you're sending a message to everyone else here that says, "Watch out, we can leak any message we feel like."

It’s honestly a shame that you reduce your own responsibility to some bureaucratic "ban card" checkbox instead of just looking at the situation from a human perspective. As far as I know, it’s still free, and it shouldn't hurt too much to say, "Damn, I messed up, I got provoked, I'm sorry." I don't quite understand why you aren't able to write that simple sentence. Here, you can just copy and paste mine; you don't even have to type it. 🙂

That is such a perfect example.
But what if Marina didn't agree to that wild night in the first place?
What do we call that then?
Oh, right... rape.
And is Marina allowed to tell anyone about that night?

Honestly, I get a good laugh out of people who hide behind these arbitrary rules of "internet etiquette."
If someone goes out of their way to send insults via email or a DM, they've already tossed any claim to politeness out the window.
In my book, it's actually the responsibility of whoever receives those messages to make them public.
It's just like with rape; you have to help prevent it from happening again.
Still, I totally get why some people might feel too uncomfortable to go that route.

Sam Green73 said:That is such a perfect example.
But what if Marina didn't agree to that wild night in the first place?
What do we call that then?
Oh, right... rape.
And is Marina allowed to tell anyone about that night?

Honestly, I get a good laugh out of people who hide behind these arbitrary rules of "internet etiquette."
If someone goes out of their way to send insults via email or a DM, they've already tossed any claim to politeness out the window.
In my book, it's actually the responsibility of whoever receives those messages to make them public.
It's just like with rape; you have to help prevent it from happening again.
Still, I totally get why some people might feel too uncomfortable to go that route.

No. I disagree. The responsibility of the recipient is to sanction those messages—that is, to ensure they are actually penalized.

Someone sending insults via email or direct message has essentially forfeited any claim to being polite in advance.

The problem is, when you react at that same level, "in the end, you can't tell who's the pig and who's the human." 🙂

BTW, your attempt at paraphrasing the example was a complete disaster—from the role reversal onwards, it just didn't work.

Nicholas King said:No. I disagree. The responsibility of the recipient is to sanction those messages—that is, to ensure they are actually penalized.

Someone sending insults via email or direct message has essentially forfeited any claim to being polite in advance.

The problem is, when you react at that same level, "in the end, you can't tell who's the pig and who's the human." 🙂

BTW, your attempt at paraphrasing the example was a complete disaster—from the role reversal onwards, it just didn't work.

Same level?
I think we're missing each other here.

Sam Green73 said:Same level?
I think we're missing each other here.

Look, let's set the nuances aside for a second—that whole logic of "he sent insults, so I have a right to be rude too" just isn't my cup of tea.

We could sit here counting angels on the head of a pin until tomorrow, but the reality remains: Steven Ruiz missed a colossal opportunity to effectively bury "the other side"—sometimes, I suppose, a simple, plain admission of a mistake is actually the deadliest weapon you can wield. If you do that, the opponent is left standing alone on the "battlefield," looking pretty damn pathetic.

Aaron Garcia36 said:Secondly, I am the one who established the rule for the diaspora community (not a colleague), and Steven Ruiz simply agreed to it when he accepted his moderator role. I don't see any reason for Steven Ruiz to be crucified for a decision that was entirely mine.

You can't really compare two PDFs that have such vastly different image policies; calling them "opposites" is a massive stretch.
The topic at hand is "publishing the President's info," not "images in the diaspora group." I stand firmly by my specific rule regarding images in the diaspora section, and so far, nobody there has complained. Why? Because there's no need to—uploading photos there is quite rare. On one hand, you can easily count how many forum members actually post photos regularly; it's limited to two specific threads, and everyone stays happy (at least, that's what I've been told).

When I typed that out, your post hadn't even hit yet. And look, once people start nitpicking every little thing, they lose track of who actually wrote what since the last person to edit a post technically owns the final word. For all we know, she might have been the one who actually wrote it—if not, then my bad, huge apologies.
Besides, it doesn't really matter who made the call; what matters is this blind adherence to rules that clearly aren't applied equally to everyone.

Nicholas King said:Look, let's set the nuances aside for a second—that whole logic of "he sent insults, so I have a right to be rude too" just isn't my cup of tea.

We could sit here counting angels on the head of a pin until tomorrow, but the reality remains: Steven Ruiz missed a colossal opportunity to effectively bury "the other side"—sometimes, I suppose, a simple, plain admission of a mistake is actually the deadliest weapon you can wield. If you do that, the opponent is left standing alone on the "battlefield," looking pretty damn pathetic.

Exactly. The smart people just back down, and then we wonder why idiots are running the country.

🤦
I’m still struggling to see what exactly Steven Ruiz did wrong here.

Douglas Cook9 said:When I typed that out, your post hadn't even hit yet. And look, once people start nitpicking every little thing, they lose track of who actually wrote what since the last person to edit a post technically owns the final word. For all we know, she might have been the one who actually wrote it—if not, then my bad, huge apologies.
Besides, it doesn't really matter who made the call; what matters is this blind adherence to rules that clearly aren't applied equally to everyone.

It’s not about being embarrassed; I know she was the last one to touch that post because we had to add some info, and otherwise, outsiders wouldn't realize who is responsible for enforcing our guidelines.

Look, regarding this "blindly following the rules" thing... here is how I see it: I want to participate in a discussion or an online community. I check the threads, I read the rules, and if they suit me, I join in; if not, I move on. I don't consider myself special, nor am I above the rules. I would certainly face consequences if I uploaded five photos when only allowed one, because as a long-time member (just like Megan White4), I know exactly what the boundaries are. There is simply no reason to break them.
Why should 99% of users follow the rules while he gets a free pass? If you are a user who follows the regulations, why shouldn't Megan White4 be held to the same standard? Is he somehow better than you? Above you?
Everyone deserves equal treatment, and I believe the rest of the community would want to be treated that way too.
Of course, we moderators aren't perfect (speaking strictly about myself here). I've made mistakes, misjudged situations, or handled things through private messages instead of public posts. BUT, that only happens when a user is being reasonable and the situation can be resolved normally. When I receive a message similar to his, my experience tells me that those confrontations can spiral indefinitely.
There is absolutely no need to communicate like that with anyone. Situations can always be settled civilly without someone stooping to the level that Megan White4 has chosen to take.

Sam Green73 said:That is such a perfect example.
But what if Marina didn't agree to that wild night in the first place?
What do we call that then?
Oh, right... rape.
And is Marina allowed to tell anyone about that night?

Honestly, I get a good laugh out of people who hide behind these arbitrary rules of "internet etiquette."
If someone goes out of their way to send insults via email or a DM, they've already tossed any claim to politeness out the window.
In my book, it's actually the responsibility of whoever receives those messages to make them public.
It's just like with rape; you have to help prevent it from happening again.
Still, I totally get why some people might feel too uncomfortable to go that route.

Prika, don't give me that spinach! If posting private messages is against the rules, then it applies to all private messages, period. It's that simple. If we start making exceptions here, we’ll end up making them for everyone.
Rape gets reported to the police, and insults get sent to the administrator or whoever is in charge. Look, if a regular user did that, they'd be banned instantly.
Besides, even if there was never an explicit rule about private messages, it doesn't matter because bad behavior was always punished anyway. Let's show a little consistency, shall we?
Some forum members are treated as being "more equal" than others, apparently—just like how the rules over there seem to change overnight.

Michelle Palmer6 said:Prika, don't give me that spinach! If posting private messages is against the rules, then it applies to all private messages, period. It's that simple. If we start making exceptions here, we’ll end up making them for everyone.
Rape gets reported to the police, and insults get sent to the administrator or whoever is in charge. Look, if a regular user did that, they'd be banned instantly.
Besides, even if there was never an explicit rule about private messages, it doesn't matter because bad behavior was always punished anyway. Let's show a little consistency, shall we?
Some forum members are treated as being "more equal" than others, apparently—just like how the rules over there seem to change overnight.

But right now, that isn't actually banned.
I see some people here acting like they remember this being forbidden, but honestly, I have never once seen a rule like that written down anywhere.
I totally get that sharing private messages isn't exactly considered good netiquette—everyone is responsible for their own level of politeness—but let's be real about the rules. 😉

In my humble opinion, punishing someone just for sharing a DM is pretty pointless.
Now, if you post a DM that leaks someone's private, sensitive information? Yeah, that should be an immediate permanent ban.
But a regular message without any personal data shouldn't need special protection.

p.s. Personally, I never, ever write anything in a private message that I wouldn't be comfortable having out in the open. I wish more people would follow that lead!

p.p.s. No need to rush to reply to my post. I won't be checking this thread again until sometime this weekend. Feel free to take your time and maybe add a perspective we haven't already covered here.