Community Feedback - Posting private messages (2 Viewers)

Posting private messages on the forum. Should this be allowed?

  • YES

    Votes: 137 54.6%

  • NO

    Votes: 114 45.4%
  • Total voters
    251
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would simply question the judgement of anyone that went around posting PM's. At the same time, I know that there have been times on this forum where the PM's ran like wildfire reposting he said/she saids.

If you think that blocking them from the public area of the forum would keep your PM's secret when someone wanted to repost them, you are sadly mistaken.
 
Poker Zombie said:
If you think that blocking them from the public area of the forum would keep your PM's secret when someone wanted to repost them, you are sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

I don’t have any delusions that the thread crapping rule keeps it from happening, but that doesn’t make it a bad rule.

(All told, I’m not too worried about this one way or the other though).
 
Taghkanic said:
The abuse of off-the-record privilege has gotten out of control, and is now considered formal, including (or even especially) by mainstream, major news organizations.
Click to expand...
There is a distinct difference between off the record and on background. Let’s not confuse the two.

On background is on the record. Period. Attribution to an agency official. The lack of by name attribution doesn’t make it off the record.

Off the record: “A source tells me that ... “

On background: “An agency official told me that ... “

We don’t do this as a normal course of practice, but there are times when it is merited. To act like using this is somehow an abuse is, in my opinion, a bit much.

And for the record, my preference is always to supply subject matter experts for interviews. It adds credibility and confidence to what we are saying when it is a scientist or engineer and not a federal government propaganda officer (me, job title tongue in cheek, of course) doing the interview.
 
Last edited:
I think private should remain private, as long as there is no obligation for the public to know or both sides decide to make it public for some reason. So it´s a No from my side though I think it just isn´t a Yes or No question without exceptions. Probably should be discussed with an admin before making it public or something like that.
 
JackDeRke said:
I think private should remain private, as long as there is no obligation for the public to know or both sides decide to make it public for some reason. So it´s a No from my side though I think it just isn´t a Yes or No question without exceptions. Probably should be discussed with an admin before making it public or something like that.
Click to expand...
Wait,,, You voted no but probably should be discussed with admins prior to making it public?

No offense, or personal but it kinda seems like some of the “no” votes want the cake in hand and they want to eat it too.

I think you should of voted yes personally.
 
SpaceMonkey420 said:
Wait,,, You voted no but probably should be discussed with admins prior to making it public?

No offense, or personal but it kinda seems like some of the “no” votes want the cake in hand and they want to eat it too.

I think you should of voted yes personally.
Click to expand...
No I think if you discuss an issue with an admin prior it's different from making it public. Might be a language barrier if my intention isn't clear there.
 
MatthewTreeTree said:
This account was created because I saw something worth taking the risk via PCF Classifieds. That being said I haven't had a problem in classifieds ever for the record. Everybody I have purchased from was professional and seemingly cared about the transactions just as much as I did.

I don't know why, or how long you are gonna preach getting rid of classifieds, but that doesn't seem to be an option either. That alone draws in LOTS of traffic.
Click to expand...
There is a solid argument to be made that drawing in lots of traffic doesn't necessarily produce positive end results.
 
Collectors v speculators -- an ages-old battle between opposite moral positions.

In general, speculators are not good for collectors (driving prices higher with no value-add), but speculators depend on collectors to make a buck.

Draw your own conclusions.
 
Chester Copperpot said:
We don’t do this as a normal course of practice, but there are times when it is merited. To act like using this is somehow an abuse is, in my opinion, a bit much.
Click to expand...

Continue to disagree, whether we are talking about off the record or on background. Both are now used excessively in situations where they used to be only very rarely used. The purpose is rarely as beneficial as suggested; it is usually used to frame and spin the discussion without accountability.

Many media critics (with longer pedigrees than mine) have made this point far more eloquently, and citing far more examples and statistics, than I have here.

Major outlets typically have in-house policies for both background and off-the-record sourcing which look good on paper... but which in practice they only partially follow, if at all. Here for example is The Washington Post’s policy. It says most of the right things, though I would prefer it to be stronger:

https://accountablejournalism.org/e...gton-post-note-on-use-of-confidential-sources

“Sources often insist that we agree not to name them in the newspaper before they agree to talk with us. We must be reluctant to grant their wish. When we use an unnamed source, we are asking our readers to take an extra step to trust the credibility of the information we are providing. We must be certain in our own minds that the benefit to readers is worth the cost in credibility... [G]ranting anonymity to a source should not be done casually or automatically.

“Named sources are vastly to be preferred to unnamed sources. Reporters should press to have sources go on the record. We have learned over the years that persistently pushing sources to identify themselves actually works – not always, of course, but more often than many reporters initially expect. If a particular source refuses to allow us to identify him or her, the reporter should consider seeking the information elsewhere.

...

We must strive to tell our readers as much as we can about why our unnamed sources deserve our confidence. Our obligation is to serve readers, not sources.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, right? But if one reads papers like the Post regularly, one finds its articles are littered with unattributed assertions, vaguely assigned to “sources close to” the White House/ Senator/ Pentagon/ whatever.

And then of course there are the off-the-record convos which color, slant, or suppress reporting but readers don’t even know are occurring. Example: The Bush White House convincing the Times to hold back a report about mass surveillance until long after the November 2004 election, based on secret claims related to national security.

Many of today’s conventions for these practices were developed around the old-fashioned idea that a free press serves to hold government accountable—and that to do so, whistleblowers need to be protected. Today the practice has been turned on its head, as those in power use background and OTR conventions to project official narratives.
 
Last edited:
@Taghkanic we will continue to disagree, and that’s fine. Healthy discussion is always good.

I will just say this and then leave it alone. Information that is on background and without a by name attribution, but with attribution to an agency official, is not the same as an anonymous source, nor is it the same as information without attribution. The attribution to an agency official is still the recorded source - that the information came from the agency itself and an official within the agency.

That is very distinct from “a person close to the agency said,” or some other indirect, anonymous attribution.

Maybe that is splitting hairs, but I don’t think so.

And I’ll just add that I have never gone off the record, or asked to go off the record with a single journalist. So I don’t think I’m one of those government press officers you need to worry about!
 
Poker Zombie said:
Here is how I see the difference between the two.
  • PCF came online in 2013.
  • It has been permitted to post anything that did not violate the Terms of Service.
  • To this day, there have been no known postings of "private messages", except in cases where a transaction has gone bad. Those PMs only revealed the terms of the agreement.
So the only reason I can see to vote no, is to maintain your reputation while you renege on a transaction. To renege on a deal is disrespectful to the other party.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I've never once seen anyone posting PMs of truly private messages. Never once seen anyone posting a screenshot that reads something along the lines of, "The only reason I sold those chips is because I lost my job last week and my wife left me, so I needed the money." Or "send those chips my way! My address is Mike Smith, 1234 Main Street, Portland, OR. Also, you can reach me at 1-800-867-5309. And if anyone tried to post something like that anyhow, it would already get taken down, as it should.

The type of PMs that actually get posted, which is extremely rare, is when someone is scamming people, or when a deal goes south because one party is doing something shady and they refuse to work it out with the other party, or when someone is defending their honor against false accusations.
 
MilouPilou1 said:
Out him !!!!

I'm obviously joking, I voted NO because I consider that there are only few cases - well identified by all - where the publication of PM would be justified. The YES/NO vote is a bit too binary in my opinion, neither is viable.

A firm NO would leave the possibility to say anything behind the scene, without the fear of being denounced, while an unconditional yes would leave the door open to this kind of childish but disrespectful game. A rare case, but it should not happen anymore.

A YES, under certain conditions would have my full vote.

My two cents.
Click to expand...

Got it. So another 'yes' vote that clicked the wrong button.
 
MilouPilou1 said:
It's all a matter of interpretation. I vote 'yes' for integrity, respect and transparency in life or on a forum.
Click to expand...
Integrity, respect and transparency all have certain meanings and different perspectives based on one’s personal life experiences.
The real question is, can you respect someone’s point of view that may not be the same as yours when ultimately you may have the same common goals, just different approaches on how to achieve them?
If you are incapable of allowing yourself to hear another point of view, the ultimate problem is ones close mindedness. IMO.
 
BGinGA said:
There is a solid argument to be made that drawing in lots of traffic doesn't necessarily produce positive end results.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s easy to say , “just push out the new people”. Some f enjoy growth, while others will stand being at a plateau.

More people, more opportunities, more options, etc. (Classifieds, trades, and overall the forward movement for poker accessories in general.)

What is the end goal for this forum anyways? Has it peaked already?
 
Lil Tuna said:
The real question is, can you respect someone’s point of view that may not be the same as yours when ultimately you may have the same common goals, just different approaches on how to achieve them?
If you are incapable of allowing yourself to hear another point of view, the ultimate problem is ones close mindedness. IMO.
Click to expand...
This is true, respect (as I define it) also includes being open-minded and accepting of others point of view...but...what does this have to do with the poll and posting (or not) private messages?

Was this a general reflection or are you implying something?
 
MatthewTreeTree said:
What is the end goal for this forum anyways? Has it peaked already?
Click to expand...
You new guys crack me up.

I have been reading the same thing about peaking, the "lost sence of community", the skyrocketing chip prices since I was new.

...back when we were still on ChipTalk. There was a tiny "honeymoon phase" here, but the "problems" always existed. It's simply impossible to get thousands of people together and then think you will all have the same goals, ideals, and perspectives - even about the one thing that brought us all together - chips.
 
MilouPilou1 said:
This is true, respect (as I define it) also includes being open-minded and accepting of others point of view...but...what does this have to do with the poll and posting (or not) private messages?

Was this a general reflection or are you implying something?
Click to expand...
More or less a general reflection. I believe most members ultimately have the same goal referring to this poll no matter how they answered.
 
MatthewTreeTree said:
Has it peaked already?
Click to expand...
It peaked when this guy joined :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

677BD49B-F598-4B2C-BBB9-9F9C0973E42B.jpeg
 
Hey you know what, good luck PCF. I’m out. :)

And you self-important “OG’s”, salesmen, and beyond, I wish you the best of luck. The day the forums has to ask the community “If posting DMs is okay” , that’s the day when the majority of us should ask ourselves, “Should I even fucking be here?”

Seriously.

I’m in my early twenties - and without us your game is dead.
 
MatthewTreeTree said:
Hey you know what, good luck PCF. I’m out. :)

And you self-important “OG’s”, salesmen, and beyond, I wish you the best of luck. The day the forums has to ask the community “If posting DMs is okay” , that’s the day when the majority of us should ask ourselves, “Should I even fucking be here?”

Seriously.

I’m in my early twenties - and without us your game is dead.
Click to expand...

I hear your frustration. But I want to reiterate once again, that my understanding is that Tommy was asking if posting DMs should be banned outright as a ToS and monitored by site admins. He wasn’t asking “is posting DMs is OK”. Much of the disagreement in this thread is among people who are actually in fundamental agreement with each other but based on this conflation of two very different questions are arguing different points right past each other and it is causing a lot of animosity unfortunately.
 
Eloe2000 said:
I hear your frustration. But I want to reiterate once again, that my understanding is that Tommy was asking if posting DMs should be banned outright as a ToS and monitored by site admins. He wasn’t asking “is posting DMs is OK”. Much of the disagreement in this thread is among people who are actually in fundamental agreement with each other but based on this conflation of two very different questions are arguing different points right past each other and it is causing a lot of animosity unfortunately.
Click to expand...
It’s saddening
 
I think for the sake of simplicity it should be against the ToS to post a DM.

Everyone saying yes seems to be arguing that it would only be ok for a sales deal gone bad.

Given the disclaimer in the classified, this is a problem outside of the responsibility of PCF to moderate. Know the potential risks of using the classified and take whatever precautions needed but don't rely on Tommy and mods to police things for you.

Screenshot_20210428-204808.png
 
MatthewTreeTree said:
Hey you know what, good luck PCF. I’m out. :)

And you self-important “OG’s”, salesmen, and beyond, I wish you the best of luck. The day the forums has to ask the community “If posting DMs is okay” , that’s the day when the majority of us should ask ourselves, “Should I even fucking be here?”

Seriously.

I’m in my early twenties - and without us your game is dead.
Click to expand...
If you have a spare 12 hours you’ll see what I mean. Best thread that’s ever been on here. Genuinely this is the peak :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/a-bunch-of-scrub-donkeys.45506/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

KingZilla
  • Poll
Please vote to help me pick an inlay design - POLL
Replies
20
Views
713
PokerSenpai
P
tooth_doc
  • Locked
Wanted PI private cardroom chips
Replies
0
Views
228
tooth_doc
tooth_doc
Tommy
Community Guidelines Update
Replies
18
Views
1K
softchewy
softchewy
FDLmold
  • Poll
PCF's Favorite $500 Casino Chip - prelim 3 of 4
Replies
8
Views
623
FDLmold
FDLmold
TheHun
For Sale Free Giveaway, 10 decks of "Tangiers Hotel & Casino" 100% plastic cards
2 3
Replies
60
Views
2K
Duvalpoker
Duvalpoker
Back
Top Bottom