Sam: PMs are pretty well impossible to police ... Unless there is something in the TOS that says ‘you can’t PM offensive or threatening messages’ so that if someone does, then there’s a hook to hang them on, then it’s open slather. (Email is caught by law, in some jurisdictions…I’m not sure about the US.)
Sam, while composing the Member Rights draft that we'll be looking at next in committee, I thought about this because PM harrassment was something the committee wanted to guard against. But the issue is difficult because the Admins can't look inside PMs (correct me if I'm wrong) and harrassment by PM becomes a he said/she said kind of issue. And it opens people to frivolous and/or vindictive accusations.
Does it help us, legally, to put a statement in the Charter that harrassment or stalking by PM is forbidden even if we can't prove it and penalize it?
Btw, regarding the policing of email, yes they can do it in the US. A friend of mine's son got a visit from the FBI because of an obscene email.
Frelga: One question I have - can/should we put somewhere in there a warning that the board is not to be used for illegal activity, etc?
It is in the Charter - in the Article that's up for ratification now, and in the Article we are presently working on.
Berhael: 3 months OR 100 posts, whatever came first - not both conditions
Berhael, we had this discussion in committee and decided that requirements like this should go with whichever is longer, not whichever is shorter. The reason being that a person can log 100 posts in 1 day, or be registered for 3 months without posting anything or knowing anyone here. The dual requirement guarantees that they are actually on the board contributing long enough to be known.
Another point for reference, 3 months and 100 posts is the requirement we decided upon for elibigility in the Jury Pool. I like to remain consistent with provisions like this ... when the same requirement is applied to several different priveleges, it becomes a de facto acknowledgement of full membership in the community.
Finally, if Imp's text is approved (are you going to vote on this?), I think it would make an excellent addition to the Charter as an article all by itself. We could paste it right it. So ... perhaps you could make sure that this vote meets the requirements for ratification and then we've killed two birds with one stone.
Ratification requirements:
• discussion for ten days (check the start date of this thread)
• vote for ten days, two weekends inclusive
• 39 people must vote for the vote to be valid
• 67% of those who vote must approve
Thank you!!
Jn
_________________
"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.