The Schism of October 2008

[Don't Panic]

Paddy, before you go asking members to divulge the contents of Private Messages, might I suggest you read the forum rules here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449 before you inadvertently break some of them and land yourself in trouble.

I've already read the rules, and I'm in no danger of breaking them, as far as I can tell. It would, in fact, be impossible for me to do so in this case.

And why is that?

[klr]

Paddy, before you go asking members to divulge the contents of Private Messages, might I suggest you read the forum rules here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449 before you inadvertently break some of them and land yourself in trouble.

I've already read the rules, and I'm in no danger of breaking them, as far as I can tell. It would, in fact, be impossible for me to do so in this case.

And why is that?

Because he's yet to actually send/receive any PMs here?

Being Jesuitical: It seems it might be OK to ask someone else to divulge a PM, as long you don't actually do it yourself ...

[FBM]

Not enough pirates in this thread.

This one has a great chest.

I'd treasure it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Paddy, before you go asking members to divulge the contents of Private Messages, might I suggest you read the forum rules here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449 before you inadvertently break some of them and land yourself in trouble.

I've already read the rules, and I'm in no danger of breaking them, as far as I can tell. It would, in fact, be impossible for me to do so in this case.

No rule against releasing your own PMs, is there?

[paddy_rice]

Because he's yet to actually send/receive any PMs here?

Indeed. And what's more, I haven't revealed anything that hasn't already been talked about on other threads.

Being Jesuitical: It seems it might be OK to ask someone else to divulge a PM, as long you don't actually do it yourself ...

Quite. Think of it as a philosophical exercise, if nothing else. Anyway, I can but ask! DD seemed quite keen on this thread (although I'd have to ask her to be sure), CJ not so much.

No rule against releasing your own PMs, is there?

I'd still have to get permission from the other person(s), unless it was a message to myself! But as klr rightly says, I have not sent or received any.

[Thinking Aloud]

Fortunately we have the wonderfully nebulous "play nice" rule. I wonder whether asking someone to divulge contents of a PM while spinning the request in a knowing and slightly insinuating way, or baiting other members into getting annoyed might just be falling foul of that rule.

[paddy_rice]

Fortunately we have the wonderfully nebulous "play nice" rule. I wonder whether asking someone to divulge contents of a PM while spinning the request in a knowing and slightly insinuating way, or baiting other members into getting annoyed might just be falling foul of that rule.

Uh-oh, sounds like I'm in trouble!

[Bella Fortuna]

Or more pertinently: "Those who intentionally harass other members will be penalised. Intentional malicious trolling and use of offensive language, images or jokes, with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member, or in the knowledge that such posts are likely to cause widespread general offense, will not be tolerated."

[Don't Panic]

Since we're posting sections of the rules, this bit has always been my favourite:

# Sock puppets are ostensibly against the rules. The penalty for sock puppetry is banning of the puppet. However, puppetry should be regarded as 'decriminalised', and the staff will usually allow it to continue while it's funny (or adds something worthwhile to the forum). Puppeteers are not required to inform the staff of their intentions.
# Sock puppets created with malicious intent; to skew the results of polls or attack other forum members (for example) will be banned immediately and the puppeteer dealt with in a way appropriate to any further rules they may have broken. However, the puppeteer's account will not be banned.

[Bella Fortuna]

Fortunately we have the wonderfully nebulous "play nice" rule. I wonder whether asking someone to divulge contents of a PM while spinning the request in a knowing and slightly insinuating way, or baiting other members into getting annoyed might just be falling foul of that rule.

Uh-oh, sounds like I'm in trouble!

Case in point.

[paddy_rice]

Or more pertinently: "Those who intentionally harass other members will be penalised. Intentional malicious trolling and use of offensive language, images or jokes, with the intention of harassing, intimidating, tormenting or persecuting another member, or in the knowledge that such posts are likely to cause widespread general offense, will not be tolerated."

I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that.

Since we're posting sections of the rules, this bit has always been my favourite:

# Sock puppets are ostensibly against the rules. The penalty for sock puppetry is banning of the puppet. However, puppetry should be regarded as 'decriminalised', and the staff will usually allow it to continue while it's funny (or adds something worthwhile to the forum). Puppeteers are not required to inform the staff of their intentions.
# Sock puppets created with malicious intent; to skew the results of polls or attack other forum members (for example) will be banned immediately and the puppeteer dealt with in a way appropriate to any further rules they may have broken. However, the puppeteer's account will not be banned.

Here we go... I am interested in other subjects, you know! This was just the first I happened to post about, and considering the response, I'm glad I did.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Paddy, "I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that." is unproven by your own admission and an attack on another member. You're about one post from a vacation.

[Bella Fortuna]

I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that.

Odd choice of a forum to join, then. One would think you'd join RS if that were the case. Makes one wonder why you're here.

[paddy_rice]

Paddy, "I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that." is unproven by your own admission and an attack on another member. You're about one post from a vacation.

So hold on, am I at the reminder or warning stage? The reminder stage kind of passed me by, to be honest!

I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that.

Odd choice of a forum to join, then. One would think you'd join RS if that were the case. Makes one wonder why you're here.

Heh heh, so plenty of sleaze and lechery here, then? I joined for the same reason I joined RD.net: to talk about stuff. Thanks for the warm welcome, though!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't like sleaze or lechery, which is what I suspect was contained in those PMs. Simple as that.

Odd choice of a forum to join, then. One would think you'd join RS if that were the case. Makes one wonder why you're here.

Besides, very few of us use the whole chicken.