Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    CC International Master Brian_Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,058

    What kind of rule is this?

    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 do not want to receive any PM (I prefer normal email).

    Therefore anybody that sends me a PM may have their PM rights revoked or any other action taken?
    Last edited by Brian_Jones; 26-10-2007 at 09:02 AM.

  2. #2
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian_Jones
    I do not want to receive any PM (I prefer normal email).

    Therefore anybody that sends me a PM may have their PM rights revoked or any other action taken?
    all you have to do is switch your PM option OFF inside your user control panel
    .

  3. #3
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,357
    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    all you have to do is switch your PM option OFF inside your user control panel
    Yes. If you don't want to receive PMs but no-one has reason to know it then there's nothing you can do if you should get one. So in that case just switch PMs off.

    The rule applies to situations where you have asked a particular poster not to PM you, or not to PM you about a particular subject.

  4. #4
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,167
    Of course, one could simply choose to "ignore" the poster one does not wish to receive PMs from. Apparently the drawback to this is that the posts of the person you are "ignoring" do not show up. However, these can be easily viewed by simply double clicking on them. (Or at least that's how it used to work).

    If it still works that way, then the new rule is most likely redundant... as such problems can simply be solved by people here learning to exercise their personal options in their control panel.

    In such cases, maybe a simple RTM and a pointer to a sticky thread would be sufficient... ? (Rather than unecessarily complicating things and increasing the mods workload).

    Just my two penneth worth.

    EDIT

    After posting this, I had another thought, which I think is best articulated with the following example:

    Poster A & Poster B are at loggerheads.

    (i) Poster A sends the following derogatory message to Poster B: "u stoopid!"

    (Zing! - Bronte eat your heart out!!!)

    (ii) Poster B takes umbrage, and retaliates via PM with the following witty rejoinder, "no u be da stoopid 1!" (Zing!) - Not wanting to receive any more PMs from his protagonist, Poster B takes the step of "ignoring" Poster A.

    (Incidentally, such hilarious and well thought out banter & reparte is not the exclusive domain of PM interchanges of this site. Indeed one may find many indicitave examples in some of the more public arguments on this site.)

    (iii) Poster A cracks it and sends Poster B a message: "I not wanna talk to you no more. You not send me PM anymore."

    (iv) Poster B doesn't receive this message as he (or she) has chosen to ignore Poster A. Therefore Poster B has no knowledge that Poster A no longer wishes to hear from him (or her).

    (v) Poster B now has a change of heart and sends another message to Poster A "I sorry, lets be frends".

    (vi) Poster A complains to the moderators that Poster B is PMing him/her against his/her request not to do so.

    Now my main question is this: How on Earth is the the poor moderator meant to evaluate such a situation, given that, (as we are regularly told), moderators can't read PMs?

    Are moderators now supposed to judge as to "who ingored who first"? I suspect that this may place an unfair and unsustainable burden upon them. Do they not already have enough to deal with considering the things that are posted in public? Or should we expect them to mediate every private PM squable as well?
    Last edited by ElevatorEscapee; 26-10-2007 at 09:57 PM.
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee
    (iii) Poster A cracks it and sends Poster B a message: "I not wanna talk to you no more. You not send me PM anymore."

    (iv) Poster B doesn't receive this message as he (or she) has chosen to ignore Poster A. Therefore Poster B has no knowledge that Poster A no longer wishes to hear from him (or her).
    I would have thought that the VBulletin software would inform Poster A at point (iii) above "Unable to deliver message". If it doesn't do something along those lines, IMO, the software is defective. All software should have some kind of confirmation of delivery, or notification of non-delivery, in its messaging protocols (even if custom-written).
    “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

  6. #6
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    I would have thought that the VBulletin software would inform Poster A at point (iii) above "Unable to deliver message". If it doesn't do something along those lines, IMO, the software is defective. All software should have some kind of confirmation of delivery, or notification of non-delivery, in its messaging protocols (even if custom-written).
    Also might be the case that if you have someone on ignore you cannot send them PMs.

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    40,357
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee
    After posting this, I had another thought, which I think is best articulated with the following example:

    Poster A & Poster B are at loggerheads.

    (i) Poster A sends the following derogatory message to Poster B: "u stoopid!"

    (Zing! - Bronte eat your heart out!!!)

    (ii) Poster B takes umbrage, and retaliates via PM with the following witty rejoinder, "no u be da stoopid 1!" (Zing!) - Not wanting to receive any more PMs from his protagonist, Poster B takes the step of "ignoring" Poster A.

    (Incidentally, such hilarious and well thought out banter & reparte is not the exclusive domain of PM interchanges of this site. Indeed one may find many indicitave examples in some of the more public arguments on this site.)

    (iii) Poster A cracks it and sends Poster B a message: "I not wanna talk to you no more. You not send me PM anymore."

    (iv) Poster B doesn't receive this message as he (or she) has chosen to ignore Poster A. Therefore Poster B has no knowledge that Poster A no longer wishes to hear from him (or her).

    (v) Poster B now has a change of heart and sends another message to Poster A "I sorry, lets be frends".

    (vi) Poster A complains to the moderators that Poster B is PMing him/her against his/her request not to do so.

    Now my main question is this: How on Earth is the the poor moderator meant to evaluate such a situation, given that, (as we are regularly told), moderators can't read PMs?
    Nice scenario. If we're in genuine doubt we'll let the suspect off.

    This rule actually just reflects something that's been standard practice on this forum for ages and has also been standard practice on another one that I run. Typically where there's an argument over PMs it's because one PMer finds the other one vexatious, not because both of them can't stand each other.

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. Jono V Rincewind sf. Soft titles
    By Rincewind in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 618
    Last Post: 13-05-2008, 01:13 AM
  3. Swiss pairing - Rule C.11
    By NeilH in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 23-11-2007, 07:34 PM
  4. Replies: 109
    Last Post: 08-11-2005, 08:19 PM
  5. 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

Posting Permissions

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