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?

 

[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.

 

[DaveX]

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..

 

[DaveX]

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

 

[DaveX]

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.

 

[Internet.Domains]

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

The subject of this conversation was a Direct Message that was posted by a participant, but it is publicly displayed on NamePros....I get the "Community Standard" thing and agree. However NamePros should have something in place for a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in relation to Direct Messages. Again I will use the Gmail analogy. The subject of this post is like Google displaying gmail content publicly......

 

[MapleDots]

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.

If I could give you 10 likes I would

If you're going to take bids they should be public, I stopped responding to all auctions with private bids.
I thought exactly the same thing you did.

 

[deez007]

So if DM's are supposed to private and so are emails. Why do we often share spammers and scammers emails addresses here on the forum?

According to some of you, email is also supposed to be private, right? So we shouldn't be sharing it? Yet we still do... why is that? Well, purely based on the fact that sharing such information is for the betterment of the community. If information is important to the community then that would trump the senders right of privacy.

That same sort of attitude should be adopted for DM's. It's not rocket science... is basic common sense. Obviously, if the information is not important to the community and the person sending the DM is not being malicious then you should respect their privacy.

 

[JB Lions]

So if DM's are supposed to private and so are emails. Why do we often share spammers and scammers emails addresses here on the forum?

According to some of you, email is also supposed to be private, right? So we shouldn't be sharing it? Yet we still do... why is that? Well, purely based on the fact that sharing such information is for the betterment of the community. If information is important to the community then that would trump the senders right of privacy.

That same sort of attitude should be adopted for DM's. It's not rocket science... is basic common sense. Obviously, if the information is not important to the community and the person sending the DM is not being malicious then you should respect their privacy.

haha, wow.

Yes, DM/Private messages are supposed to be private. Again, we're not talking about emails. And are you seriously comparing spammers and scammers to people conducting legit business thru private message? And sharing private messages better the community? That makes no sense.

I find it amazing how many people don't understand what private or direct means, especially if English is your native language.

I also find it amazing seeing people go out of their way to make sharing of direct/private messages ok. Like I said, the only forum I've ever been on where this is ok.

 

[MapleDots]

haha, wow.

Yes, DM/Private messages are supposed to be private. Again, we're not talking about emails. And are you seriously comparing spammers and scammers to people conducting legit business thru private message? And sharing private messages better the community? That makes no sense.

Yes but remember in a Direct Message there can be up to 4 participants and the person that started the discussion should be able to post some of it if needed. Here is a legitimate example......

I direct message you and ask you what you think the value of my domain sampledomain.com is. You respond by saying reg fee. I invite two other members and one says 1k and the other says 2k.

Now I might want to post the contents of that conversation and ask for community support. No malice intended and not really breaking any privacy rules. I initiated the conversation and now I want others to help me come to a decision.

Again, not cut and dry but it is really no different from an oral conversation. I can go on the forum and say this and this member said that... what is your opinion. No different from posting the content.

 

[JB Lions]

Yes but remember in a Direct Message there can be up to 4 participants and the person that started the discussion should be able to post some of it if needed. Here is a legitimate example......

I direct message you and ask you what you think the value of my domain sampledomain.com is. You respond by saying reg fee. I invite two other members and one says 1k and the other says 2k.

Now I might want to post the contents of that conversation and ask for community support. No malice intended and not really breaking any privacy rules. I initiated the conversation and now I want others to help me come to a decision.

Again, not cut and dry but it is really no different from an oral conversation. I can go on the forum and say this and this member said that... what is your opinion. No different from posting the content.

So you're asking if it's ok to post private messages without the other participants consent? Seriously.

Again, define direct and private for me.

"Again, not cut and dry but it is really no different from an oral conversation"

If you started the oral conversation with, this is just between you and me. That's pretty much a direct/private message.

 

[deez007]

haha, wow.

Yes, DM/Private messages are supposed to be private. Again, we're not talking about emails. And are you seriously comparing spammers and scammers to people conducting legit business thru private message? And sharing private messages better the community? That makes no sense.

What are are you waffling on about, read my message again... slowly, if you have too..

I clearly said "According to some of you" - now go back on the thread and you will see that some people were comparing emails to DM's - That statement was addressed to them - hence the "some of you" part.

Nobody was comparing scammers and spammers to legit business dealings, I was illustrating the point about common sense.....

If someone is talking trash via PM or being malicious then share the DM if you want too and if you feel it will benefit the community. If not, you should respect the sender's privacy.

Sharing DM's for silly/stupid reasons will just show people how unprofessional the person sharing the DM is.

 

[JB Lions]

What are are you waffling on about, read my message again... slowly, if you have too..

I clearly said "According to some of you" - now go back on the thread and you will see that some people were comparing emails to DM's - That statement was addressed to them - hence the "some of you" part.

Nobody was comparing scammers and spammers to legit business dealings, I was illustrating the point about common sense.....

If someone is talking trash via PM or being malicious then share the DM if you want too and if you feel it will benefit the community. If not, you should respect the sender's privacy.

Sharing DM's for silly/stupid reasons will just show people how unprofessional the person sharing the DM is.

I read it again, read it wrong. We actually agree - "if the information is not important to the community and the person sending the DM is not being malicious then you should respect their privacy. "

 

[MapleDots]

So you're asking if it's ok to post private messages without the other participants consent? Seriously.

Just saying that as long as no private information is given out and no malice is intended there should be no rule saying iron clad that a message cannot be shared on the forum. What is the difference in my scenario above if we had the same conversation via telephone or direct message.

Either way it is an ethics issue and unless you breach ethics a conversation is just that... a conversation. In my example above there is no difference between cut and paste or me posting the entire content of the conversation from memory.

I can say member 1 said this, member 2 said this, member 3 said this.... what is everyone else's opinion.

If I want to make fun of member number 1 it is also my prerogative. If I think his price is way out of range. That is why we are a discussion forum., we look for topics to discuss.

I agree with you JB, it is a fine line and maybe we should have a message system similar to snapchat that self destructs after a said period of time.

All that said, I would never post any part of a direct message but do we really need more rules when the members are making it clear the majority is against disclosure. I myself am with you and the scenario above is hypothetical, but I posted it just to toss in the other side of the coin.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Apparently some members (NamePros included) feel that publicly displaying a Direct Message should be allowed...That is until one of their Direct Messages is displayed publicly......I really can't believe some members are complaining about another "rule", when this forum has pages of rules and is the most moderated forum I have witnessed..... Pages of rules and nothing to protect members within a "reasonable expectation of privacy"?