They don't call Champagne Brown a Bad Bitch for nothing!

[canihitit]

Awww shit.

[Hot to Trot Daphne]

Admins can though if I'm not mistaken. But you ain't gotta worry about DeD doing shit.

[StinkyFingers]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

So you send the link to thirteen people, yet none of them is a mod? Why is that? You say it's not outing, so why are you excluding them from the fun?

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

Mods can't look into members private messages. Just an fyi....

So, if Mods cannot look into members private messages, how does anyone know the e-mails contained the link?

[SpiceItUp]

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

So, if Mods cannot look into members private messages, how does anyone know the e-mails contained the link?

We do not discuss the details of specific infractions.

However, for the record, the only way a moderator can read a member's Private Message is if they either forward it to us or RTM it. Admins also are unable to read PMs.

[Don T. Lukbak]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

We do not discuss the details of specific infractions.

However, for the record, the only way a moderator can read a member's Private Message is if they either forward it to us or RTM it. Admins also are unable to read PMs.

I'm guessing this is for the official record, sort of like the code of conduct Rick's published for its dancers back in the 80s. That made for some serious joviality.

[StinkyFingers]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

We do not discuss the details of specific infractions.

However, for the record, the only way a moderator can read a member's Private Message is if they either forward it to us or RTM it. Admins also are unable to read PMs.

So, to clarify:

If I am claiming that a Provider sent PM's to 13 members and that those PM's contained my RL info, unless either the Provider or one of the 13 members forwarded or RTM'ed the e-mail to a Mod or Admin, then no one has any way to verify the contents of those e-mails?

Is that correct?

And since infractions are not discussed with anyone other than the infringing party, I would have no way to know exactly why a member was Banned? I would only know that they were Banned, but no other details relating to the Ban? Correct?

[Jusanotherdude]

Answer to the first part is yes. We do not know contents of PMs unless RTMd or forwarded. Same with emails obviously.

Answer to the 2nd is not so cut and dry. Just because we, as staff, do not come out and publicly announce that member A was banned because of (fill in the blank).. does not mean that someone cannot deduce what other members get banned for. For example when a provider posts on open board details from PA areas, and shortly afterwards gets banned, it is not hard to ascertain why she received time off. So even though we don't explicitly announce it, it can be quite obvious as to why.

Hope that helps.

[StinkyFingers]

Originally Posted by Wakeup

So you send the link to thirteen people, yet none of them is a mod? Why is that? You say it's not outing, so why are you excluding them from the fun?

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

So, to clarify:

If I am claiming that a Provider sent PM's to 13 members and that those PM's contained my RL info, unless either the Provider or one of the 13 members forwarded or RTM'ed the e-mail to a Mod or Admin, then no one has any way to verify the contents of those e-mails?

Is that correct?

And since infractions are not discussed with anyone other than the infringing party, I would have no way to know exactly why a member was Banned? I would only know that they were Banned, but no other details relating to the Ban? Correct?

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

Answer to the first part is yes. We do not know contents of PMs unless RTMd or forwarded. Same with emails obviously.

Answer to the 2nd is not so cut and dry. Just because we, as staff, do not come out and publicly announce that member A was banned because of (fill in the blank).. does not mean that someone cannot deduce what other members get banned for. For example when a provider posts on open board details from PA areas, and shortly afterwards gets banned, it is not hard to ascertain why she received time off. So even though we don't explicitly announce it, it can be quite obvious as to why.

Hope that helps.

Yes, makes it perfectly clear. Thx.

[Wakeup]

Finally!!! He gets it!

Maybe he'll shut up now.

[JustMeCLTXGG]

Originally Posted by Don T. Lukbak

I'm guessing this is for the official record, sort of like the code of conduct Rick's published for its dancers back in the 80s. That made for some serious joviality.

I was soo thinking this before I got to this post. ha, ha! this I believe. this is a nugget of wisdom. + about 100 for you mister Don

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

Yes, makes it perfectly clear. Thx.

not that I care to back him up at all but

Originally Posted by Wakeup

.............................. .............................. .......forward the PM or email to a Houston moderator...................in fact, two of you have already done so............................ .............................. .............................. ........

read the thread people! especially when you're trying to make a point. I'm all for you making your point and adding to the collective information for the rest of us. you should debunk or acknowledge things that go against the point you're trying to make though. not that I wouldn't miss something myself but this was just obvious and I prefer to know the facts as close to concrete as possible.

granted that could be a fabrication but he posted it. as far as forwarding here goes, I don't know the mechanics but in a regular e-mail unless it is hidden most average users send the entire recipient list. a mod would have to answer to this or someone that's done it before.

I still wanna know how you out someone to themself. I mean they already know who they are so that isn't private information to them. that one has me stumped.

edit:
that nugget was dropped in the thread...by you. I can see a point though knowing the place the little I do. it can still be edited. my bad for thinking others actually read (or should read). that being said, is it really clear? are the ones who should read going to start now? I won't be holding my breath. ha! it was missed once so far.

[Wakeup]

Tebowdamnit...I was hoping that wouldn't be made clear to them...

Actually, it's three people now, nope, four...and complete with recipients. And wreckshop is STILL sending email to people outing my name...he's hilarious.

[StinkyFingers]

Originally Posted by SpiceItUp

The only way a moderator can read a member's Private Message is if they either forward it to us or RTM it. Admins also are unable to read PMs.[/I]

Is a mod and/or admin able to access a Provider's or members e-mail inbox/outbox to see who they are sending/receiving e-mails to/from?

[JustMeCLTXGG]

ok, I think traction is being lost

you're quote gives you their answer (whether it's true or not they aren't going to change their answer.............at least I don't think so).



told ya reading/clarity wouldn't change

[Jusanotherdude]

Originally Posted by StinkyFingers

Is a mod and/or admin able to access a Provider's or members e-mail inbox/outbox to see who they are sending/receiving e-mails to/from?

If they are given access by the provider and/or member in question, then of yes.

Originally Posted by JustMeCLTXGG

I still wanna know how you out someone to themself. I mean they already know who they are so that isn't private information to them. that one has me stumped.

Here is the answer to that... it falls under the "Threat of Outing" portion of the guideline... The acknowledgement of having someone else's personal information without the persons content is, in essence, flaunting the fact that they have said information. As a rule the staff will take it as intent to use someone else's information in an attempt to out them. There are no "levels" of outing information. It would be taken just as if someone were to PM you your full name, address, workplace info, etc... the inherent threat is always assumed as intent.

[JustMeCLTXGG]

Originally Posted by Jusanotherdude

.............................. .............
Here is the answer to that... it falls under the "Threat of Outing" portion of the guideline... The acknowledgement of having someone else's personal information without the persons content is, in essence, flaunting the fact that they have said information. As a rule the staff will take it as intent to use someone else's information in an attempt to out them. There are no "levels" of outing information. It would be taken just as if someone were to PM you your full name, address, workplace info, etc... the inherent threat is always assumed as intent.

gotcha. my default isn't to think with maliciousness so that didn't occur to me. makes sense. better safe than sorry.

thanks Jusanotherdude