status-monitor Direct Messages Question

[JB Lions]

I reported one post that took a direct message and posted it in public. This was the response:

"Direct messages belong to each member in the conversation and at this time there is no rule against posting them publicly. Thank you for understanding."

It says Direct Messages are this -
Direct messages are similar to emails: they allow you to have conversations with other members directly.

Direct messages are basically private messages between 2 people usually. When is that ever ok to post in public?

 

[JB Lions]

So because one doesn't agree with you, that makes us unprofessional and needed to be weeded?
Good grief!!

Yes, if you take a private message somebody sends you and post it in public, you're unprofessional. Do you do that? Are you ok with people posting private messages?

I actually can't believe this is even a debate. Are private messages ok to post in public. As if there is some struggle with the English language. As I said before, default rules for forum software even say that.

 

[Eric Lyon]

Yes, if you take a private message somebody sends you and post it in public, you're unprofessional. Do you do that? Are you ok with people posting private messages?

As with most things in life, it comes down to intent. If it's shared in malice, then it could be considered unprofessional. If it's not shared with bad intentions, then there are many instances where I can see it being perfectly professional and not bothersome to either party.

 

[JB Lions]

As with most things in life, it comes down to intent. If it's shared in malice, then it could be considered unprofessional. If it's not shared with bad intentions, then there are many instances where I can see it being perfectly professional and not bothersome to either party.

If they both agree, that would be one thing. What if one posted a private message and the other person had an issue with it, would you handle it?

 

[Eric Lyon]

If they both agree, that would be one thing. What if one posted a private message and the other person had an issue with it, would you handle it?

We would only get involved if there was a rule violation, such as private personal information being shared:

One example of a time we would get involved is if sharing a DM violated one of our rules, such as sharing someone's home address publicly, because we don't allow that without explicit consent/permission from the home owner.

TOS:

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content that is abusive, unlawfully defamatory, hateful, threatening, ..., contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.

 

[MapleDots]

It always boils down to ethics!

Emails between two people should technically be private but we all know better. The way they are routed makes them easy to intercept. So we consider them not private and adjust our behaviour assuming they can be intercepted or even forwarded to another person by the intended recipient.

PM is really no different. We assume and hope they are private but what the recipient does with the message is really (and never will be) in our control. Trying to legislate that away by means of a forum rule is doomed to failure. In the end people will be people and if you tick someone off there is a risk they could seek retribution by posting or sharing the contents of the PM.

Use the feedback system and form your opinion on the intended recipient. I converse with a few members and trust them implicitly. I tell them about domains I am going after or seeking to register with no fear that they will betray my trust. It is because I have formed a relationship with them. Anyone sending me a first PM will get a pretty generic response back from me until they have shown me they are trustworthy.

So unfortunately no black or white on this one, just shades of grey.

 

[DNWon]

That may have been what you meant but that is not what you said! You said anybody that "Voted" against your position should be deemed as unprofessional and weeded out. I agree with you that sharing a DM in most cases could be and should be seen as unprofessional but you have had many industry professionals here already state it's a fallacy to believe this is something (complete privacy) that can be maintained and it's their corporate policy, that it isn't. Voting that it's ok to post a DM in "certain situations" doesn't make us unprofessional at all, as pointed out here by industry professionals!

 

[frank-germany]

So Frank, if you message me about something, gave me information just meant for me, you would be ok with me taking that and posting it publicly?

NO

but you can't produce PRIVATE in a public medium
impossible

 

[Eric Lyon]

I just want to add that we don't have rules for a lot of behaviors/conducts/etiquettes/techniques, and some members avoid others who don't share their opinions/beliefs in what is acceptable vs. unacceptable. That's their choice/right. An example is that some members will not bid on auctions of sellers who use BIN prices. It's the seller's right to offer a BIN price in an auction and it is the buyer's right to not participate in that auction because of it. We've been asked many times to add a rule disallowing BIN prices in auctions, but the community can handle that themselves as I explained. Everyone is able to choose what they feel is right/wrong, fair/unfair, and whether they want to interact with members who don't share their views.

We try to reserve the rules for as few things as possible (we remove and loosen rules often) to keep things running reasonably well, and then we give the community the freedom to decide on the rest for themselves, individually. It's similar to the real world: if you tell Joey a secret and he tells the whole office, then you know not to tell Joey your secrets anymore and maybe you stop talking to Joey. However, your employer isn't going to create a company policy that dictates, "If a coworker tells you a secret, you must never share that secret with the office."


I hope that helps explain it,

 

[DNWon]

if you tell Joey a secret and he tells the whole office, then you know not to tell Joey your secrets anymore and maybe you stop talking to Joey.

The bottom line is: Joey's a rat, and we all know what happens to a rat!

 

[karmaco]

Remind me not to PM anybody.

 

[johnn]

I gave up!

Simple rules and even a fifth grader can understand it:

Direct messages mean private information between members and are not allowed to disclose to the public.

Why do we make such a big deal and create poll and wait for the Congress to approve?

I am done here.

 

[DNWon]

As a side note to all of this great debate, for those that may have missed it, this was brought to the forefront because a few days ago, someone thoughtlessly, did in fact post a screenshot of a DM and was promptly and rightfully so, jumped on by many members. The poster subsequently, and unsuccessfully tried to get the post removed and also profusely apologized about a half dozen times to the other member and the community at large for their lack of professionalism by doing so. So, in retrospect, the community policed itself properly, like Eric is claiming NamePros likes it to do. And finally, in my first 5 months as an active member on NamePros it was the very first time I have seen a DM publicly shared, so I don't think anyone should be worried about using the DM system if it works for you!

 

[shorterwinters]

if you tell Joey a secret and he tells the whole office, then you know not to tell Joey your secrets anymore and maybe you stop talking to Joey. However, your employer isn't going to create a company policy that dictates, "If a coworker tells you a secret, you must never share that secret with the office." I hope that helps explain it,

I love it and yeah, Joey is a rat BUT damn if there aren't places (and people) out there that would try to make it a rule/policy/etc AND that is happening more and more and part of what is so screwed up with the world we are making for ourselves.

We try to reserve the rules for as few things as possible (we remove and loosen rules often) to keep things running reasonably well, and then we give the community the freedom to decide on the rest for themselves, individually.

Yes, thank you for that. Let common sense rule at times. For rules to be made they must be made in black and white but that makes gray and life is full of gray areas that needs common sense to dictate.

 

[MapleDots]

It's similar to the real world: if you tell Joey a secret and he tells the whole office, then you know not to tell Joey your secrets anymore and maybe you stop talking to Joey. However, your employer isn't going to create a company policy that dictates, "If a coworker tells you a secret, you must never share that secret with the office."
I hope that helps explain it,

Yes..... absolutely bang on

 

[MapleDots]

Ok, just wanted to clarify. So you can post private business dealings/discussions in public. Even if one the participants doesn't want it and tells you, doesn't matter, it stays.

You make a good point except in this case the second party has not stepped forward and asked for the topic to be deleted. It was only the OP and members that mentioned that. I cannot speak for Eric but I think he would give it a second look if the second party asked for the topic to be deleted.

 

[Dave]

This shouldn't even be a debate. Private messages should remain private, anyone posting private messages publicly, without explicit permission from the other party involved, they should get a warning and if they do it again a permanent ban.

I won't be making any private offers or acquisitions anymore until this is sorted out.

 

[Silentptnr]

That's why they are now called "Direct Messages" and not "Private Messages".

I think it is not sensible to think that these Direct Messages are in some vault or something. I don't think a person sharing a message that they are a party to, could be labeled a violation or infraction.

For example, lets say one party in a conversation invites an admin into the conversation or someone else into the conversation. One person alone can invite another into a conversation too.

 

[Kenny]

I was guilty of this one time many years ago during a heated flame war with a member.
I was never given a warning because there was no rule against it, but I was admonished by people I respected.
I was wrong to do it then, and IMO it's pretty simple, legal or not, it's bad form.

It's about the community standard. Admin sets the rules, the community sets the standard.
That's all.

Peace,
Cy

 

[JB Lions]

That's why they are now called "Direct Messages" and not "Private Messages".

I think it is not sensible to think that these Direct Messages are in some vault or something. I don't think a person sharing a message that they are a party to, could be labeled a violation or infraction.

For example, lets say one party in a conversation invites an admin into the conversation or someone else into the conversation. One person alone can invite another into a conversation too.

As was pointed out earlier, it's the same thing, just different terminology.

So if you have a domain you're taking offers on and I message you to get some idea. Let's say you're looking for $500 and I can get a range from you. You would be ok with me posting that in public, when maybe somebody would have offered you $1000?

Or maybe you make me an offer on a domain thru PM. I don't take it but maybe post about in public, use it somehow for marketing or maybe give other members an idea of how/what you offer.

 

[Dave]

Shocking that 29% of voters have opted for yes! Are you all smoking the fairy dust or something?

Edit: The third option on the poll is useless. If people feel indifferent, which is just as bad as selecting yes, they shouldn't vote at all.

 

[johname]

If one believes an OP has the right to share messages that were sent to them directly, do they also have the right to change their mind and later edit out the message past the edit allow time?

 

[Internet.Domains]

Email privacy is derived from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and is governed by the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard....It's fair to say that NamePros should have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard of it's own.....Sure emails can be hacked and the internet is really not private, but Google does not publicly share gmail conversations, because there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"....A gmail account can be hacked online and posted throughout the internet, but Google does not wittingly make it public....At the same time NamePros should not wittingly display Direct Messages (same as Private Messages) to the public..... I am still trying to grasp the argument that this issue has anything to do with cyber-security and hacking as mentioned in prior comments..

 

[Silentptnr]

As was pointed out earlier, it's the same thing, just different terminology.

So if you have a domain you're taking offers on and I message you to get some idea. Let's say you're looking for $500 and I can get a range from you. You would be ok with me posting that in public, when maybe somebody would have offered you $1000?

Or maybe you make me an offer on a domain thru PM. I don't take it but maybe post about in public, use it somehow for marketing or maybe give other members an idea of how/what you offer.

Yes, it would be not the greatest form, but it would be okay.

I think that professionalism is key. I don't agree with sharing Direct Messages generally. As mentioned, its just bad form and could lead to others not wanting to converse. But as for a hard line rule, I don't know that it would be a good idea.

I really don't even think it's a common thing. I know the post that was made revealing a conversation, that caused this thread more than likely, but I was able to read it, giggle and move on. I never thought it was so bad as to deserve a penalty or infraction.

 

[Kenny]

At the same time NamePros should not wittingly display Direct Messages (same as Private Messages) to the public....

Bro, NamePros.com did not display the conversations, one of the participants did.
Does there have to be a rule about everything? You know, JBL knows, Dave knows, most of the OG members know it's just not kosher.

If someone does it, the recourse is to hit dislike and without flaming remind the poster how unprofessional it is. They will get the message, and everyone seeing the thread will get the message (hopefully).

That's what I meant by Community Standard.

Peace,
Cy

 

[Silentptnr]

I will only add this....

In my personal opinion, I find it much more abusive of the messaging system to put a domain up for auction as Make Offer and require offers via pm only. Then, in the thread post that offers are being received.

In those cases, I firmly believe that those pm'd offers should be available upon request. It's nonsense to claim receipt of offers via pm and could hurt newer members or anyone who is not familiar with that kind of sales tactic.