Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437

    Suggestion: wording change to new rule

    Hi Bill, et al,

    I noted one of the new rules introduced (presumably largely in relation to the recent sig-file changing kerfuffle) reads as follows:

    If a member sends another member any PM that that member has indicated is not wanted, then the offending member may have their PM rights revoked or other action taken.
    I'd like to suggest a change, namely, that the italicised component above be replaced and the concept of "previously" being advised be inserted, so that it reads something like:

    If a member sends another member any PM where the recipient has previously indicated to the sender that communication from the sender is not wanted, then the sender may have their PM rights revoked or other action taken.
    Last edited by Spiny Norman; 26-10-2007 at 07:21 AM.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  2. #2
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    there are vbulletin versions (most likely later ones than this ... upgrade hint?) which allow you to choose only to receive PM's from those on your buddy list (admins and mods might naturally be considered to be the same!).
    .

  3. #3
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,357
    This rule actually has nothing to do with the sig-file business but was coincidentally introduced at the same time.

    The reason for the difference in wording between what we have and what Spiny has suggested is that in some cases people are happy to receive PMs from specific other posters but only if they avoid the discussion of specific topics. This is particularly relevant if one of the posters is a moderator - a mod might want to ask a poster to stop wasting time hassling them about a particular issue as a poster, but might not want to cut off all PM communication with that poster in case that poster has valid moderation concerns to raise at some point.

    However I think adding "previously" is a good idea so I will do that just for clarity as that was what we always intended.

    I'll also change "that member" to "the recipient" as it is probably a bit confusing as it currently reads.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 26-10-2007 at 01:30 PM.

  4. #4
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Thanks Kevin.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is the mobile phone rule draconian?
    By firegoat7 in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 208
    Last Post: 29-04-2009, 07:23 PM
  2. Taking the King - Blitz Chess Rule Change
    By Arrogant-One in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 16-06-2006, 01:17 PM
  3. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 08:19 PM
  4. Unfair rule re recording when under 5 minutes.
    By FM_Bill in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 23-10-2005, 03:54 PM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •