Labeled as status-monitor in NamePros Community Help, started by JB Lions, May 23, 2017
That does not make that decision right....Freedom is always worth fighting for...
So you support a system that enables a person to claim a message exists that doesnt? That doesn't sound right.
Next thing you know, people will want to take away the ability to have two NP accounts.
Then I won't be able to share conversations I have with myself.
I agree that those tactics are shady and unfavourable but even if people are OK with allowing private messages to be shared publicly someone could still claim that message exists. They don't have to prove anything to anyone. Think about how or why for a moment.
.........Make sure you don't post the Direct Messages, because NamePros allows you too. In the event you post the DM we may have lots more to talk about.
I really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, believe that most people here are professional and look out for each other.
I have yet to see a situation where good people couldn't work it out. Private messages should be kept private. No argument. I just don't think if a person slips and reveals one, that they should be warned unless they break an existing rule.
Why is it that none of you "privacy patrons" answered my simple question?
Household names are Google+, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Apple's iMessage, Skype, YouTube, etc. Even SnapChat, the world's predominant social media company built on privacy features won't do a damn thing if you share a private message from their service without the sender's permission.
So again, I ask:
Why are you asking for a rule on here that doesn't exist on a single analogous website that is a household name? Only smaller websites should have unnecessary, mindless rules? Yes, that makes sense (sarcasm).
Your attempts to deflect and your incapacity to answer this question epitomizes the weakness in your arguments.
We agree. The sad reality is that privacy doesn't exist online unless everyone involved has agreed to it in a legally-binding manner. I am a privacy patron too, but until it becomes an internet protocol that is imposed by household names or the legal system, then there is no justification in trying to impose it on smaller websites.
Are we looking at the same poll results?
* Yes, it's their right to share messages that were sent to them directly
No, they shouldn't be allowed even though they could still share those messages on other websites
Indifferent, it doesn't matter to me either way
Both in the 40% range. How about we settle on "small majority" and call it a day?
Are you serious? What in the world do those other sites have to do with this one? Pretty much all forums had direct/private messages. This is the only one I know that struggles with what that means. And the people that own/run it, control it. None of this outside stuff. Maybe will add a Hooked on Phonics link to my sig.
Everything. The majority of the world uses those household names, and consequently, they set the standards of expectations on the internet (not tiny, no-name forums like you insist on using as examples).
Where did you post that response? What site?
I understand your point. Do you understand mine?
No, you didn't make one. Why didn't you compare NamePros, which is a .........forum. With other forums?
"Because forums are tiny and irrelevant"
But this a forum. And most forums on the internet have Captain Obvious type rules like private messages are.........private. And if somebody posts such a thing, they usually get a warning, followed up by something more if they do it again. Can't understand why this is so complicated for a lot of people.
I've made several. Where have you been?
I won't disrespect you by linking to them; I'm trustful you can find them in this thread.
Because forums are tiny and inconsequential. Give me the name of one forum that is a household name. If you're wise, the closest thing you will come up with is Reddit. Guess what? A rule about this doesn't exist there either.
Modeling your arguments based on tiny, no-name services is preposterous. They're tiny and unknown for a reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if mindless rules is one of those reasons.
It's not so complicated. It's a disagreement.
My point of view is that you're ignoring my logical arguments or refusing (or incapable) of providing a counter point to them. I'd really enjoy reading a counter argument.
I did in my previous post. Your arguments make no sense. You don't want to compare forums with forums. You want to compare a forum with video sites, email, messenger services etc. You still fail to grasp none of that matters, the owner of this site makes the rules. It's already been decided anyway. You can share private messages here. And it even looks like they'll leave it up, even when the person who does it, request it gets taken down. Poll was probably a waste too. That's that.
All of those services are analogous to forums. I thought I made that clear?
I grasp that the rules can be anything. You're not grasping that what you're asking to be done is illogical. You're asking this website to be modeled after tiny, no-name websites and not follow the proven standards of the world's predominant social companies, which all have direct messages under various names.
Simple question. You own a forum. Who makes the rules for it?
The forum makes the rules. We've already established that; I'm losing hope for the sensibility of this debate. That doesn't mean that the forum should make mindless rules. IMO, I would model the rules after the predominant social companies and ignore all other websites' best practices and rules.
Yes, someone can share a private message anywhere on the internet with people you don't want to see it. That's why we should be careful who we send things to and what we send to anyone, no matter how much we trust them.
But that doesn't mean you can't have a simple rule here that says "There will be consequences when you share private conversations on this forum without permission, because we believe that is unprofessional and violates someone's privacy." Just as it is unprofessional / undesirable when people troll, spam, and flame.
And then you can simply add exceptions to the rule, like if there's a proven scammer involved, and you want to show the proof or their personal details and tactics, then you can do it.
The problem is NP not just a social site. They put the marketplace very much in the forefront. And asking DM about 'whats the lowest you will take' and having that answer become permanent NP content, is a problem if we want NP to be a place where true premium domains are sold.
The reality is this problem doesn't happen very often because people innately know it is wrong, which is the only reason the status quo works.
I was hoping this discussion would shift directions toward my suggestion but since this a healthy discussion to have as well, I'll create a new thread that will hopefully help us all move toward amicable solutions. I'll create the new thread tonight. I'm hopeful that everyone involved in this discussion can come together to participate in the new thread that I create.
Do any of the major marketplaces have a policy about not sharing a direct offer publicly? I haven't been able to find anything but there's a lot of small print on those marketplaces.
Thanks for your help,
We invite everyone to participate in these threads:
Under which circumstances should NamePros delete/edit content?
Under which circumstances should members be allowed to request their content be deleted/edited?
The option to share a message is there when you send the message right or does the feature not work properly?
Separate names with a comma.