1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The harassment rule

Discussion in 'General Questions' started by joseftu, Aug 31, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I would like some light shed on this policy. If a member requests you send him no PM's and then he PM's you nine months later is that harrassment on his part or just entrapment hoping you will answer so he can get you banned?
  2. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    From an adult's perspective, one could hardly hold a second party responsible for responding to a conversation one initiated.

    From a toddler's perspective, it'd be time for a meltdown ;)
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I agree and I would not like to see anybody banned for this type reason but it just happened to me and I almost answered before I decided to check past messages.
  4. ravital

    ravital Banned

    You are allowed to reply by PM if you wish. If it's pertinent, I'll reply. If it's harrassment, I'll ignore.
  5. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Ah, no, it doesn't work that way. If anyone asks anyone else to never PM them again, that's it, end of discussion. There's not going to be any of this shit about "oh, well, that[/] PM was OK so I'll let it slide".

    Those sorts of games ended in grade school, kiddies. If you've got the balls to tell someone to never PM you again, you'd better goddamn well stand by it. If you want to allow PM's again, then stand up like an adult and PM that person and admit you were wrong in the first place to bar that sort of communication and ask to let bygones be bygones. And don't be surprised if you get told exactly what to do with it, either.

    Addressing Shiny's specific question, I really can't imagine any action being taken, at all. But shame on the originator for PM'ing someone they've previously told not to PM them.
  6. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    When Jill gets a restraining order requiring Jack to stay 100 yards away from her and then Jill approaches Jack... what is the legal-schmeagle on that? Is the RO still in effect or is she in non-compliance and therefore the RO is at that point no longer in effect?

    Copz? BDD?

    Anyhow Shiny... I would not respond.

  7. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Ah... Steve... I'm saying in public, so there's no deniability later on my part, that I no longer object to any PM sent to me by anyone to whom I've previously said "don't PM me." I said, if it's pertinent, I'll respond, if it's harrassment/insulting and so on, I'll ignore. Clearly, I don't intend to report any future PMs from such sources as harrassment.

    And I'm putting it in public so you can call me on it if I ever change my mind. Can I make it any clearer?
  8. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    Do whatever you have to do, it's really none of my concern, unless someone reports it.

    To clarify, though, I meant "you" in the generic, third-person sense.
  9. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    Golly, that's not patronizing! :rolleyes:

    FTW. Want my bottle of Windex, Rav?

  10. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I had no idea we were bound to the rules that define legal restraining orders.

    This is a discussion board, not a courtroom.
  11. ravital

    ravital Banned

    That's how I understood it. Thanks though.
  12. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    There seems to be a real imbalance in this situation. Right now, "Jim" (no such person here, just using an arbitrary name) can tell me "do not ever PM me again" and it automatically means that any PM from me to Jim will cause me to be banned. But then Jim, down the road, can PM me at will.

    It's kind of a loophole, because I'm not allowed to issue the reciprocal warning to Jim, since once he makes that initial statement, I can't respond by PM in any way whatsoever. So Jim can just say "hey, nobody told me not to PM Joe, I'm within my rights."

    Seems to me that it would be more fair, equitable, and consistent if Jim, having issued the harrassment warning, is reciprocally forbidden to PM me, and is subject to banning if he does so, in the same way as I am.

    Issuing and then retracting (and then re-issuing? and re-retracting?) the harrassment warning becomes an opportunity for Jim to abuse the rule, attempt entrapment, confuse everybody, and generally game the system.

    On the other hand, I do think we should leave some room for changes of heart and personal growth. If Jim, upon mature reflection, realizes that he was wrong to issue the warning in the first place, and wishes to admit that publicly, clearly saying that he was wrong, that might be considered as something the rules should allow for.

    There are other alternatives, of course. The harassment warning could be seen as a one-way street, with no return for anyone.

    Or harassment could be judged based on content, rather than the simple fact of a PM's existence--in other words, a polite, civil PM, even after a warning, could be considered as not harassment, and not subject to banning--although that could become a major headache for the moderators, I'm sure.

    Or we could eliminate PM's altogether (the baby with the bathwater approach).

    And of course, if the rule is modified in any way, I would certainly recommend public announcement (with clear information), and I would certainly recommend that older cases be "grandfathered in"--nobody should be punished retroactively.

    I do think, though, that the way the rules stand now, if someone issues a harassment warning, any member who wants to stay a member would be well-advised to never PM the member who issued the warning.

    And I think that, the way the rules stand now, any member who has issued a harassment warning, but then PM's the member to whom he issued the warning, should be considered to be in violation of the harassment rule, and should probably be subject to the penalties prescribed by that rule. That would be fair--gooses and ganders, if you understand.
  13. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Why is this so friggin difficult to understand.

    If someone says they don't want any pm's from you that's what it means. As soon as mods are aware of that (and we do have a list) it's noted. Any further pm's will end up with disciplinary action.

    No means no, unless someone changes their mind and notifies the mods (or not and decides not reporting the harassment).

    See? Simple.

    THIS IS A FORUM, NOT some corporation where we have to have labor laws and cover every fucking loophole that fits your egos and your toeing the line.
  14. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    And to close the loophole, just ask a mod to notify "Jim" that the PM ban is now reciprocal.
  15. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Because this is a forum, it seems like a conversation about the rules, and input from the members in an attempt to clarify the rules (or even modify them, to better suit the needs of the members), is a good thing.

    This is not a corporation, it's a community. As a community, we need rules--and we also need the opportunity to discuss those rules. That seems healthy and productive to me. I would hope we could continue it (in a polite and civil way).
  16. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    OK. That's clear--but it's not something that was clear before! That's part of the benefit of the process of discussion, I think. We get to clarify things and debate them.
  17. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    A simple rule doesn't need to be beaten to death.
  18. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    I never said we were bound to the rules that define legal restraining orders, I was only pointing out the similarity between the rules of RO and Shinys question.

    I also never made any inference to the forum being a courtroom.

    Your post confuses me, Steve... but no biggie.

  19. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    Wow, I didn't even know you could send Prime Ministers. What a forum!
  20. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Thanks, we needed that.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page