Now that it's over...

[steve(thelil)]

I accidentally sent this as a PM to Scott. It was always intended as a public response. Sorry. I'm a bonehead about this.


Subject: Now that it's over...

I'd like to make it perfectly clear that private messages shared between posters, whether it is here, or anywhere else have no place on the public forums here.

And if they are posted, they will be removed for pretty obvious reasons.

It's your call, but I don't think it's quite so obvious. If someone who is clearly not my friend sends me a PM, especially one that insults me, I don't know why there's any expectation of confidentiality.

On the other hand, I understand you wanting people to have a way to correspond with one another in which they know it will be kept private.

But this still creates problems. Are you saying that someone can't even summarize or discuss what was sent to him/her in a private message? What if the person feels threatened or harassed. Are they required to keep it a secret?

Also, if you are allowed to discuss a private message you received but not repost it, it opens the possibility that you can distort it badly or totally make stuff up. Like that PM you sent me in which you said my wife must be fucking blind and masochistic to hang out with me. (The fact that you were right is no defense, IMO)

I think it is a better idea to let parties decide between themselves whether a message is private and confidential. It's easy enough to send a preliminary message saying "I want to discuss something privately if you agree."

[steve(thelil)]

So, are you even allowed to summarize or even mention a PM someone sends you? I hope so.

I think there's a real potential problem if people can write whatever they want so someone else with the knowledge that nobody except you and Ron can ever find out about it.

I just can't understand why there should be an expectation of confidentiality. I should be free to let people know what someone else says to me unless we have agreed it's to be kept private.

In 99% of cases, if someone sends a PM and asks me to keep some or all of it a secret, I would. And so would all of us.

And if I would want others to know, there's probably a damned good reason. I think you may not have thought this through thoroughly from a free expression perspective. We should be allowed to discuss whatever we want unless there's an agreement not to.

Please rethink this.

[steve(thelil)]

The definition of the term in the abstract is at worst irrelevant, and at best far less important than the implications on free expression.


But since you asked, the availability of "private messages" means that the sender desires for it to be private. And, as I stated, in most cases the recipient will oblige - unless he or she feels there's a valid reason not to. Private messages are ordinarily exchanged with people who have a positive relationship, which carries with it the implicit understanding that if I ask for you to keep a secret you will. No such understanding exists when people who clearly don't have such a relationship correspond, especially if the message is hostile to the recipient.

The mere term "private message" doesn't mean the recipient is obligated in any sense to keep what was said a secret,any more than there's an obligation to not disclose the contents of a private phone call, letter or in person conversation, absent an agreement between the parties.

It's your board and if you prohibit the public posting of private messages, I won't.

But I can't agree that I won't ever bring up or discuss a message I've received (unless I've agreed not to with the sender), since I consider that an unjustifiable restriction on my rights of expression. If you want to delete something I've posted, that's your prerogative.

[steve(thelil)]

You're oversimplifying this. I'm not a boob. I have a background in First Amendment Law. (My semi-famous Pops was a well known First Amendment lawyer and long time Counsel to the American Bookseller's Association and appeared before the US Supreme Court in a prominent First Amendment case. While the first amendment wasn't my specialty, I was an attorney and always interested in it and have written on the subject)

You can't dispose of legitimate issues with a simplistic example or citing a definition. IMO, you've totally avoided even addressing the substantive points I've made.

Here's what I believe is the response to your simplistic example.

If in fact I sent you a PM where I said something negative about someone , it was sent with an implicit understanding between us that since we were on friendly terms, something was intended to be private it will be kept private. That is the reason you would be ethically incorrect to repost it. Not because the term definition of the "private message" creates an immutable rule of law, any more than the traditional definition of "marriage" precludes a government from allowing same sex marriages.

If I sent you an insulting, nasty message, I would not have the expectation of confidentiality, unless we had agreed to it.

Also, the fact that you didn't take the same position yesterday suggests it isn't as simple as you'd now like to make it. It's clearly your right to disagree. It's counterproductive to be dismissive.

[moldyfigg]

Jimmy, please show the note you sent Betty to the class.

[steve(thelil)]

Rather than seriously addressing the real issues of expectation of privacy and whether and how much one is a allowed discuss or summarize a PM he's received, you've chosen instead to merely say you can't believe I made an argument that you in your wisdom dismiss as foolish.

If the rule is that one can't ever discuss a PM received (you've totally avoided that issue), there are serious questions of right to expression that any lawyer dealing in free expression issues would recognize.

I've been entirely civil and not at all dismissive about our areas of disagreement. I'm slightly bummed that you chose to insult me for my position rather than seriously address it. But I understand that often happens when people are frustrated that there aren't simple answers to a question they want resolved and they get tired of discussing it.

BTW, I've admired your recent diplomatic approach and avoidance of being dismissive or insulting on the whole. I just think you've slipped a little, probably out of understandable frustration.

[Mike Schwartz]

There may be a point missed, so far as you can completely ignore (or whatever the term is here) the person offending you including all PM's and be done with them, which I think is ultimately the point when all goes wrong.

[Gentle Giant]

Nobody ever sends me a pm.

[John L]

I've been coming to jazz boards where thelil has been participating for more than 15 years now (A scary thought). I tried to recall another time when he got so agitated on line. I couldn't. But I did end up recalling the time that he made Bob Brookmeyer shit a brick at Jazz Corner with a comment about Pee Wee Herman's woody on a Woody Herman thread. Now THAT was entertaining!

[moldyfigg]

I always look forward to (thelil)'s off center ideas. Actually a lot of them make sense to me.

[Monte Smith]

Boring legal asides aside, keeping private messages private is not a matter of law but of courtesy, which is something you can extend even to those persons you don't have a positive relationship with.

[sozamora]

Boring legal asides aside, keeping private messages private is not a matter of law but of courtesy, which is something you can extend even to those persons you don't have a positive relationship with.

This. This is common sense stuff. It's the way civil discussion forums have always worked. No one should need a primer on it, but here it is:

1. Don't post private messages.

[sozamora]

As for the other thing, Scott locking the thread tells me he wants to put it behind, so I'll be brief.

I like BT and appreciate many of his contributions. I like thelil too. Both can be grating at times, but that's the way people are. It's too bad BT decided to split, but that's done.

Having lived through the Mnytime incident, I've developed a fake-dar, but I opt to treat people online as they present themselves. If I'm wrong, no skin off of my bones. I understand Jimmy's point, and that's valid - I would prefer to know who I'm talking to is real, but it's not required.

[Ron Thorne]

I'm active online finally, and just finished getting up to speed with some things that have occurred since I locked a thread before going to bed last night.

The primary problem Scott & I have been dealing with on the board for the past few days (especially) is not about legalities, it's about behavior. Bad behavior. Juvenile crap. Lack of common sense.

From now on, if you think it would be wise to place someone on your Foe (Ignore) list, please do so right away. If not, think before you post or your post may disappear.

We're working on a simple, easy-to-follow Code of Conduct which will be posted soon.

In the meantime, please let common sense be your guide.

Thank you.

[mjb]

I think that steve(thelil) is (edited for time)

[uli]

I just would like people to know that when I pm them pictures of my wiener I consider this a very private and intimate act and expect them to treat it accordingly.

[steve(thelil)]

I said from the start that it's up to you. I agree that on a private message board the First Amendment is not applicable.


While the First Amend doesn't apply, its underlying principle that people should be able to say that they want to is still important and there should be an overriding reason to prevent people from doing so. I think that is especially applicable on a message board that is basically about the free exchange of ideas and information.

My point was that a rule that says one is not allowed to discuss anything sent to them in a private message, regardless who sends and its contents i restricts what we're allowed to discuss, and I don't feel there is sufficient reason for such a broad rule.

I believe that the purpose of having private messages is that it allows a sender to direct a message to a single individual or a few individuals. It doesn't necessarily follow that a sender is relying on the fact that the recipient will never disclose the contents. As I pointed out, phone calls and emails are inherently private, but that doesn't mean that one is never permitted to disclose any of the information.

A message board certainly MAY have a non-disclosure rule, but that doesn't mean that the private message function is worthless without it. For example, many of my PMs over the years have involved making plans to get together with other posters, not to exchange secrets.


I agree that it most cases, if someone sends a private message and the recipient knows the sender doesn't want anyone to know the content, the recipient should not disclose it. However, there are situations that i think warrant disclosure. For instance, iI someone who I don't know sends me a PM calling someone else here a bad racial slur, I don't think that person should have the expectation of privacy and I don't think it makes sense to prohibit the recipient from revealing what was said.

'That said, I was overly involved in something that basically is not a big deal. You have a lot on your plate here, and I'm sorry to have gotten you involved if it's turned into a big deal.

[steve(thelil)]

I think that's very reasonable.

I'm sorry if you said that earlier. I needed a break from the internet and I think I didn't see most of what had gone on since my last post yesterday at about noon.

I was gonna stay away today too, but suddenly I found myself posting again. Kind of like when you find yourself snacking in front of the fridge even though you don't remember changing your mind after you had resolved not to.


Thanks

[Tom Storer]

Personally, even with the ban, I think clearly consensual, cheerful, humorous or joshing citations of private messages are unlikely to be noticed much. It's when there is conflict or the possibility of conflict that the problem arises. Steve(thelil), it seems like you are talking about instances where a poster is seeking to make a public case to try to demonstrate another poster's duplicity or objectionable behavior.

But IMHO, the board membership can't be the arbiter of such personal conflicts. Sides will be taken, others will be drawn into the fight, and the flames go on and on. If they feel the forum rules have been violated, they should take it to the owner or a moderator to make the call. If it's merely bad feelings between them, they should just stop answering each other. It is impossible to have the last word on the Internet, so there's no point trying.

[Mr. Met]

What about referring to a PM but not explicitly saying the content of it?

[steve(thelil)]

What about referring to a PM but not explicitly saying the content of it?

Earlier in this thread, Scott said that's it's OK to refer to the content, but NOT to repost a PM.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

For the record, I just want to say that I regret posting on that train wreck of a thread. Believing it was an exercise in futility I always steered clear of those types of threads. In this particular case I felt compelled to make some comments. I'm not sure if anyone actually read my comments since that thread is lost in cyberspace. My frustration lies in the fact that I had more to say regarding that thread. Knowing how mercurial and fleeting the internet is I should have trusted my initial instincts. Lesson learned.

[Ron Thorne]

I read and appreciated your comments, Jimmy. You were a voice of reason and fairness in the chaos, in my opinion. I also understand your frustration.

As promised, we have published the "House Rules" for jazztalk. They can be found in the upper right of the Index page, between the FAQ and Search Icons. Click on the icon to read them.

House Rules

Thanks.

[Jimmy Cantiello]

Ron, being a Jazz lover I resist rules, however, what you and, and I'm assuming, Scott, propose is sensible and necessary. However, I reserve the right, as a Jazz lover to improvise. But seriously, I appreciate your comments both privately and online, my friend.

[Ron Thorne]

You're welcome, of course. Your need to improvise occasionally is duly noted.

Improvisation has played a huge role in my life too, Jimmy. Yes, despite that, Scott & I both agreed that some boundaries were necessary. We weren't alone in that thinking, either. And, Justin was helpful on the technical end, as usual.