Ship of Fools: Quoting from other threads

Thread: Quoting from other threads Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028487

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Dear Admins/Hosts, On a Hell thread about saysay, I posted this:

Twilight, it's not just on this thread that saysay has said that she's "from academia" or adopted that ascription.

Qlib, I doubt it is a pond difference - if so, it's a pond that extends west as well as east. I suspect that it's something much more basic, and of which there were some hints from saysay not so long ago on the Prayers of the Faithful thread, a post I don't have time this morning to pick up. If I remember and have time this evening, I'll go through it.

In response, saysay posted this:

OK, seriously, I can’t stop you from taking something posted in All Saints and posting it on this thread, but that would be a complete douche-bag move. I don’t post personal stuff in Purgatory unless I’m willing to discuss it in an intellectual way or a ‘this was my experience, what was yours, are we dealing with a systemic problem or was that just a weird occurrence’ way. I don’t post personal stuff in Hell unless I can take hearing the most horrible thing I can imagine someone saying to or about me because of it.

From memory, the prayer request from saysay was pretty personal, but I thought it relevant to the Hell discussion. Is it appropriate/a breach of some commandment/improper for me to look for it and link to it in Hell?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Can and should are often different answers.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Yes, I accept that. At the moment, my thought is that if I can, then there is nothing why I should not. But SWMBO may think otherwise - as I suspect you do.

To Admins/Hosts - I have found the post, but hall not link it. To do so would pre-empt your reply.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

FWIW, whatever the actual rules are, I agree it's against the culture to use material posted on All Saints, especially the Prayer thread in Hell.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

GD--

I haven't read her prayer request. In some extreme circumstances, it **might** be appropriate to link to a Shipmate's prayer post--if the person is causing mayhem all over the Ship, nearing banning, but there are extenuating circumstances.

But it could also be a really mean thing to do, even if it's not meant to be. saysay made it very clear on the Hell thread that she's not ok with it. IMHO (sorry, saysay, for trying to read your feelings), she seems to be posting in a less angry and more understandable manner. Maybe not MOTR in style, but I find it easier to work through her posts.

Whatever you think of her opinions and truthfulness, she does seem (as others have observed) to have been hurt a lot. I suspect that involving her prayer request will probably hurt her more.

ISTM that's unnecessary--and, if you're trying to change her behavior, massively counter-productive.

FWIW, etc.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you both Qlib and Golden Key for your guidance. I shall certainly keep that in mind when making my final decision.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

One additional point: it wouldn't be fighting fair.

Would you want her to do that to you? Even in Hell, IMHO, there should be some limits, even if they're not in the rules.

If you're going to fight her, fight fair.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Wondering why you say "fight fair" when she has gone very public on the other thread. And I'm not fighting as much as trying to get her to set out her position clearly and to give decent evidence to support what might ultimately be a correct position.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

If it is the post I think it is, I fail to see how it will add anything of value to the hell thread.

Also, I think it would be on a par with publishing the content of a pm - that had no abusive content - i.e. extremely poor judgement.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

GD--

Is "the other thread" you just mentioned the Hell thread, or the prayer thread?

If you want to take her to task about what she said on the Hell thread, that's one thing.

But using someone's prayers against them is just wrong. The prayer thread is a place of trust and support.

And I responded to you on the Hell thread.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

(Actually the announcement of your intentions in hell and styx is pretty poor judgement, it would have been better to just pm an admin rather than cue everyone to go search for the post.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

There is nothing specifically in the Commandments that prohibits quoting the prayer thread in a Hell call.

There is, however, a Commandment that says "don't be a dick".

Personally, I think quoting the prayer thread in a Hell call would be a total dick move 99.9% of the time. And the 0.01% is only there because it allows for the possibility that someone might be acting like a fuckwit on the prayer thread itself.

It goes without saying (or should, anyway) that using something from the prayer thread to speculate in Hell about someone's state of mind or reasons for posting something would be REALLY dickish.

I'd also note that starting a thread to ask if quoting something is ok while providing more than enough clues to allow any interested observer to go and read the post in question anyway - thus effectively using the post in your argument without actually quoting it - is pretty fucking dickish in and of itself. Next time how about you just ask the question of principle rather than making it specific?

Marvin
Admin

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
(Actually the announcement of your intentions in hell and styx is pretty poor judgement, it would have been better to just pm an admin rather than cue everyone to go search for the post.)

Great minds would appear to think alike on this matter!

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

...and in extremely poor taste!

What Shipmates post on the Prayer Thread in All Saints is often posted under stressful circumstances and I can't see quoting it elsewhere, particularly Hell, being in the least bit helpful.

Of course, all material anybody posts here on a public board is accessible to the whole planet, we all know and understand that, but I think people posting on the Prayer Thread, unless they post something inflammatory, deserve to be treated with courtesy and consideration.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I think it's reasonably clear there's no rule against quoting material from the other boards in Hell, because that's pretty much what we ask people to do when making a Hellcall.

Of course, most of our source material comes from Purgatory, with a smattering of Dead Horses and I think we've managed Kerygmania as well.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Madame reminded me of the sermon we heard last night. I shan't proceed further.

I had not thought of a pm - shall do in the future

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Also, I think it would be on a par with publishing the content of a pm - that had no abusive content - i.e. extremely poor judgement.

I will again note my massive disagreement with the notion that private messages are inherently confidential.

Private messages on the Ship are private only in the sense that they are not on the public boards. If someone sends me a text, an email, or a letter, if they call me on the telephone, if they speak with me in a one-on-one conversation, those communications are not necessarily confidential. They are confidential only if someone asks me to keep confidentiality and I agree or if I could be reasonably expected to understand the confidential nature of the communication. Same with private messages here.

So for the record, I will feel free to publish any and all private messages sent to me on the Ship unless one of those conditions is met.

[ 04. March 2015, 16:02: Message edited by: RuthW ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So for the record, I will feel free to publish any and all private messages sent to me on the Ship unless one of those conditions is met.

I'm not quite sure how we got here from there, but...

I'm glad you clarified that, because it runs wholly counter to what I understand by "private".

I say this as someone who takes privacy very seriously across a wide range of settings.

In prison chaplaincy, not taking de facto assumed confidentiality seriously could get me a literal knife in the back.

In work, my top-paying contracts include leading multinationals and not infrequently highly sensitive commercial or political information; the vast majority of my clients have never asked me to sign an NDA (for most of the few that do, it's for complete trivia); the simple expectation is that by virtue of our professional relationship, I won't disclose what I learn.

I think much the same ethos applies here.

Granted, the FAQs say

quote:
There is nothing that prohibits the posting of private messages on the public boards

but they then go on to say

quote:
Nothing, that is, except for common courtesy, good judgment, and the hellish wrath of your shipmates.

If your declaration is a pre-emptive way of saying you refuse to be manipulated by PM, all well and good.

But the FAQs indicate that people should be able to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a PM, as does the name, without needing to reiterate that expectation each time.

I agree with Qlib that things like board culture - and not just the actual rules - come into play here, and that despite its failings, the board culture we have isn't that bad.

For all our unrest, there is a general expectation that some things are beyond the pale unless the circumstances are exceptional, and that's a healthy thing.

[ 04. March 2015, 16:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But the FAQs indicate that people should be able to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a PM, as does the name, without needing to reiterate that expectation each time.

They do say that. I disagree with the policy. They are private only in the sense of not being public.

There is a difference between privacy and confidentiality. And there is no reason why private messages should be different from texts or emails or conversations between two people. Just because I tell one person something when I am alone with them -- i.e., a private conversation -- doesn't mean I have necessarily bound that person to confidentiality. In the same way, you can't send me a private message and bind me to confidentiality, because I didn't agree to confidentiality in the first place.

You are bound to confidentiality in your job, but those conditions do not apply to other conversations. If you are alone in a shop with the proprietor and he says to you that he wishes the city would keep the streets cleaner, you would be free to tell others what he said. If he sent it in a PM, you would likewise be free to tell others what he said.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I doubt if PMs will be much used to exchange idle opinions about street-cleaning, though.

If my neighbour tells me he's going away on holiday for a week, I don't think I'm going to broadcast that to all and sundry unless he expressly asks me not to.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think we can't impose privacy, nor is it ever safe to assume it will be maintained. If we want a private exchange, then it's probably better to request that in advance, before getting on to the substance of the exchange.

One exception to that occurs to me. In the past, I've exchanged PMs with Shipmates over possible rules infringements, normally through them raising a query about someone else's post. I always treat those exchanges as a confidential request for an opinion, rather than go straight to the Styx. Often it seems quite straightforward just to clarify the guidelines - or simply say I'll look, or look again, at the queried post.

There are dangers of manipulation in that, but it seems safe to treat initial exchanges as confidential and draw the exchanges to a close only if they are becoming extended. Such extended arguments belong properly in the Styx, which is what I would say in bringing such exchanges to a close.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

As Gee D seems to have realised, this entire thread would have not existed if the "PMing a host/admin" option suggested by Doublethink had been used, and that would have been all the better for not being public.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
RuthW: Just because I tell one person something when I am alone with them -- i.e., a private conversation -- doesn't mean I have necessarily bound that person to confidentiality.

Suppose that I had a PM conversation with you as an Admin about something that is happening on the Ship. And suppose that during this conversation, I would say to you: "I won't be able to reply tomorrow, because I'll be having a prostate operation". Would it be right for you to tell everyone in Hell this little piece of information?

It's not a prostate operation, but I am more open in PMs than I am on the Ship boards. I tell people more personal stuff in PMs. It seems that I may have to revise this behaviour.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
If you are alone in a shop with the proprietor and he says to you that he wishes the city would keep the streets cleaner, you would be free to tell others what he said. If he sent it in a PM, you would likewise be free to tell others what he said.

If you are going to use the proprietor's opinions on street cleaning in any formal sense, though (such as, for example, complaining about street cleanliness to your local government, and saying "Johnny Shopkeeper agrees with me" it is at the very least courteous to seek Johnny Shopkeeper's consent first - perhaps his off-the-cuff comment in your conversation does not represent the fullness of his views on street hygiene.

If you're not using it in a formal sense, but just informally passing Johnny Shopkeeper's words around, how does this differ from gossip?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Laws differ from place to place & era to era, and IANAL, but it's my understanding that recipients of letters own those letters, and the owners are free to publish (whether or not that is wise or kind). I would expect the same might apply to similar forms of communication.

That said, another factor in this "ownership" mix is whether the letters in question represent the writer or some other entity that writer has joined and may be bound by, or on whose behalf that writer writes. In this case, I suspect the Ship has an interest in PMs exchanged under its "roof" in the same way it has (or so I understand) copyright ownership of posts made here.

While I think I agree in principle with RuthW, I also disagree with the notion that AllSaints posts are somehow "protected" in any sense. It may be part of Ship culture to treat them this way, & it may be "in good taste" to do so, but IMO, the safest thing to do for all concerned would be to add a rule that says "no posting of prayer requests on other threads," if that's what Shippies want and expect. We're from too many different cultures with too many different understandings of privacy, taste, confidentiality, etc. for this to work as a tacit expectation.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

This discussion of what private messages are is interesting. I've always understood "private" to mean something involving a particular person or group of people and not to be disclosed to others without permission.

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
There is a difference between privacy and confidentiality. And there is no reason why private messages should be different from texts or emails or conversations between two people. Just because I tell one person something when I am alone with them -- i.e., a private conversation -- doesn't mean I have necessarily bound that person to confidentiality.

But I wouldn't expect anyone to read my texts or emails without my permission, it's a matter of courtesy as much as anything else, nor would I expect the reader to tell a third party what they contain. For example, I give my real life name at the end of PMs. I wouldn't then expect to be addressed by that name on the public forum. It wouldn't be a particularly big deal, but I would regard it as a certain breach of trust. If I wanted my real life name to be known I'd have used it as my board name.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't know anyone on the Ship in real life. During my time on the Ship, sometimes I have received a PM that came down to "Hey LeRoc, I like some of your posts. Tell me something about you". In answer to those PMs, I have told more about myself than I want to on the public boards: about my work, about family ...

There are reasons I am reticent to discuss these things on the open boards: for example, I want to keep my work and the Ship separate. And I wouldn't want the people I love to be mentioned in a Hell call. You can call me anything you want, but not other people who are not reading the Ship.

For me it's ok to talk about these things when someone asks about it in a PM, because PMs are private. When I tell these things, I don't put a confidentiality clause in the PM, that would be rude. I very much expect that when I tell things like this in a PM, that they aren't put into the open on the boards. If that's the possibility, then what are PMs for?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

As Ruth has pointed out, it's much the same as any other kind of 'private' conversation. You don't actually have a cast-iron guarantee with any private letter or email or phone conversation that the contents will never, ever come out. I don't think we can have an absolute, cast-iron rule that it must not be done.

Besides, if that was the case, I'd have breached it recently.

No-one has mentioned yet the last time I can recall the contents of PMs being made public, which was in the course of my fight with Byron. I referred to the content of our conversation without directly quoting, and then Byron directly quoted some of it. No-one in Hell at the time seemed to think this was wrong, and I don't think it was wrong either, but I did it with a GREAT deal of caution and thought about it carefully.

The reason no-one reacted and said "hey, you're talking about PMs" was because of the context. The existence of the PM was directly relevant to that context, and Byron was perfectly justified in making use of the actual text to argue that in his view, I wasn't representing it accurately. I thought he was wrong in his view (seeing as I was arguing with him, duh) but the point is that the use of the material was justifiable in that context.

There won't be MANY contexts where use of a PM is justifiable, just as there won't be many contexts in real life where airing the contents of your 'private' conversations will be justifiable. So I don't see a sudden opening of the floodgates any time soon.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

As RuthW has said, PMs are private, but not necessarily confidential and normal Ship rules apply to PMs as to the public boards. A few years ago a member received a two week suspension due to an extremely offensive post sent to another Shipmate.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
orfeo: The reason no-one reacted and said "hey, you're talking about PMs" was because of the context.

To be honest, my eyebrow was raised a bit when I read those posts. But since both of you were doing it, it seemed that you were implicitly agreeing that this discussion could be brought out in the open.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
As RuthW has said, PMs are private, but not necessarily confidential and normal Ship rules apply to PMs as to the public boards. A few years ago a member received a two week suspension due to an extremely offensive post sent to another Shipmate.

The only thing that connects the two things - quoting from the prayer thread in Hell and quoting from PMs - is they're both seen by most Shipmates as a bad thing to do. There isn't an actual rule that forbids it. But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

Tubbs

[ 04. March 2015, 21:48: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I think it's easy to read the statement "PMs are not confidential" and imagine someone abusing that by revealing information more widely than you the sender had wanted. Such a person could rightly be called to Hell.

However there's another side to it, it can be abused by the sender too - and not just by insults or offensive language. If you've ever had someone manipulate you by using the fact you're unable to share what they've told you privately then you'll be glad that the option to shine a light on such behaviour exists.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0