Fallout Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Fallout Wiki
Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Discussion: Private Messages in Chat


Hi there folks, thanks for taking the time to peruse this forum, and I hope you all are enjoying the early part of the New Year. I want to discuss something which we appear to have a distinct lack of within our guidelines and policies – how to deal with rules abuse within private messages.

I bring this forum to you now because I have witnessed two recent incidents where users have told me about rule-breaking within private messages in chat. Now, I know what many of you out there will say, and I agree it is a logical path to take – requesting a screenshot of said rule-breaking instance. While this may seem like common sense to many of us, to some of our users this may not be quite so evident.

What I am suggesting is this:

  • We officially define abuse and rule-breaking within private chat as fundamentally the same as within the main chat
  • We establish a policy requiring a screenshot be presented to a chat moderator (preferably one in chat at that moment) in order to prove a case of rule-breaking

I’ve taken the liberty of writing up a mock policy for discussion purposes:

Although private messages within chat are, by nature, intended to be private discussion between users, they remain subject to the same rules and policies of regular chat. Due to the private nature of the discussions, simply asking a user to cease breaking the rules should be sufficient in many cases.

In more serious cases, it is at the discretion of a user to bring an issue to a chat moderator. The user contacting a chat moderator is required to have proof of the rule breaking in the form of a screenshot. This screenshot should include as much of the previous conversation (if there is any) to allow the chat moderator to evaluate the content and tone of the discussion. Chat moderators reserve the right to hand out punishment as they see fit, and users may bring the matter to another chat moderator if they feel that the evidence has not been properly considered.

Again, that is only a mock-up of a potential policy. I would like to discuss it as much as possible. Do you think we need an additional policy? Is this something that can be enforced properly, should it be adopted? For other chat moderators, how would you deal with a similar situation, if your methods differ from the above? Anyone’s input on this is more than welcome.

Thanks for everyone’s time & consideration.
FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:49, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Comments/Discussion[]

Private Messages already fall under standard chat rules, they are neither exempt or special. The only difference is that they are unmoderated, however this does not mean they can not be reported upon. Further more reaffirming "Chat moderators reserve the right to hand out punishment as they see fit" in the rules is rather silly, since users with chat moderation rights already have that power within chat, and private messaging is a subsection of those rights and that division.

What is suggested here is not useful, and opens paths for rule abuse. Asking people to provide a screenshot of a conversation is not reliable, since only one screenshot will exist from one side of the conversation, and no log will exist of the incident outside of it; to rely on solely the accuser's evidence would be a rather unjust procedure.

This is not necessary, just adding more definition to an already defined set of rules. Furthermore, I'd like to know what has sparked this discussion, what makes this something worthwile to discuss. Unless there has been a case to make this necessary, I don't see why we should even discuss it- irregardless of how useless discussing it would be. User Talk:ArchmageNeko Archmage NekoNeko's Haunt 03:57, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely already covered by the chat rules. PMs are a part of chat. As Neko, says, they're tough to moderate. I require a screen shot before I even act on something in PM, and then question the violator if possible. As for codifying them further in the rules, I don't see the need. The violations are covered, and the mods have the authority to deal with events in PM that are proven to them. Obviously we don't need a screenshot if the violation occurs in PM with a mod. The Gunny  UserGunny chevrons 04:13, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Simply because they are "private" does not mean they are beyond the scope of the rules. As long as the medium through which messages are sent is the Fallout Wiki Chat, then our rules apply and mods/admins can enforce them as they see fit. Obviously, without evidence, it is not justifiable to take action. Taking a screenshot of a violation and reporting it to a member of our staff is not a particularly difficult task... --Skire (talk) 04:37, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that PM messages are not subject to the Chat rules, I'm saying that what we are aware of might not be clear to some, and thus we should have it listed on the chat page that we can refer to. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 05:08, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of this... disclarity with some taking the view that as Private Messages can be blocked that enforcement actions typically arent warranted. Now while this might be a good first response to someone who is felt to be trolling, it doesn't cover the remaining rules - personal information, pornography, spam, etc.

Whilst to me it is definitely on another tier (Im not going to get anal about people using banned words in PM or discussing topics closed in public) the core of the chat rules definitely do apply and perhaps a clear "reminder" of that is warranted. Agent c (talk) 07:09, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely my position. Minor instances aren't really notable, but this is to cover the more serious breaches that have occurred in the past. And in my experience, if we don't have something noted about it, people can use it as a loophole. FollowersApocalypseLogomorituri te salutamus 03:40, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
I can understand the concern, but all we need is a small note on FW:CHAT stating that the rules apply to the public chat as well as all private chats. If someone is breaking the rules in a private chat, the other user(s) in that chat can simply a. ignore it at their own discretion, b. inform them that they are breaking the rules and ask that they stop, c. block them from private messaging, or d. report it to a chat moderator or admin (typically for more severe cases). Due to the nature of private chats, screenshots would be required for evidence. That should be all. I don't believe the extra verbosity is warranted. --Skire (talk) 03:47, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

I wonder exactly why should PMs even be subject of rules in the first place. If two users wish to, say, exchange links to pornography or to tell eachother racist jokes, or ever worse, to speak in Dolan, why should we bother with it? So long as it remains in PM,it's not affecting the wiki. To extend the same rules of the main-chat would mean said actions would be forbidden, and both parties technically breaking the rules. Sure enough, if neither party denounces it, it will be unlikely to be found out, but if it somehow does, then we will be required by the rules to punish said parties, even if it was a completely victimless crime. I believe the intent of this would be to prevent harassing and unwelcome PMs. But then, all it takes is for the person being offended by the it to block the other, and it all becomes a non-issue.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 22:33, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with people bullying other people in PMs (what follows are my thoughts if this is the case). Although this is understandably unacceptable, there already is a tool to put a stop to that that every user has rights to. And that's simply to block PMs.
As much as I'd love to see wrongdoing punished, screencapping PMs is too tedious and subjective when compared to victimized users simply blocking PMs from the bullying user. Basically to sum it up, in PMs, -you're- your own chat mod, and the PM is your own chat. Use your rights to block others from it at your discretion as you have every right to do. --The Ever Ruler (talk) 18:56, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the answer is that our users can block people they don't want to talk about. I do think, however, that the question at hand is whether or not as Administrators, if it's our duty to foster a safe environment and taking care of those are causing issues in PMs. Yes, if a user is abusing another in chat, they can be personally blocked from sending them any further PMs. But why shouldn't we end the problem there, with the first example, when other users are possibly being harassed as well as we sit around saying "Suck it up?" to the first guy?

I don't believe that's the right way to go about this problem. It is our duty to stop little incidents before they become full-blow problems that affect a majority of the wiki/chat-room. I mean, do we really want our wiki being an example for an environment where it's okay to verbally abuse other users in PMs without getting into trouble? Linking porn, or maybe even sending death threats? Would make us look incompetent and uncaring as hell for our community if that ever became a wide-spread problem. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 18:59, January 21, 2014 (UTC)

This is what I would propose. PM's are for communication between two or more parties outside of the normal chat. As Limmie state so what if they want to exchange links to odd sites or speak dolan. They chose to do that in PM and it's in private chat. Ever Ruler is correct, you originally joined the pm, if someone starts to bully you leave the pm and ignore the next request. But if some one is being threatened continuously via pm, then it should be screencapped if possible and sent or at least mentioned to a mod or higher to be dealt with accordingly. If we start to regulate pm's then what is the point of pm's? In my opinion, isn't the point of pm's is to have chats outside of the regular chat and to say what you feel without persecution from the peers. I.e. if let's say user A want to speak dolan and send a porn link to user B they can because it's in private and it's not hurting nor distracting chat. Start regulating pm's and we begin moving towards a police state wikia.--Kingclyde (talk) 20:17, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
I can agree with that. Continuous harassment via PM may be dealt with using our current policies, and one-off incidents can be solved easily by blocking someone from sending further PMs. --Skire (talk) 20:20, January 22, 2014 (UTC)
I also can agree with that. It's only when multiple users are being harassed and stuff like death-threats are presented that I think we should step in to do something about it. Just because they're PMs doesn't mean those that abuse them shouldn't be held accountable, just as in the real world we'd be held accountable should we ever send anonymous E-Mails or letters between friends which contain excessively questionable content. ForGaroux Some Assembly Required! 20:29, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Same rules apply. Yeah, you need a screenshot because we can't just ban on someone's word alone. If both/all parties are okay with the rules that are being broken in PM then obviously they wouldn't screenshot/report it. If they're not, they need to voice this to the other party/parties and, if these rule breaches persist, then report it. JASPER//"Do you like hurting other people?"UserRichard 20:27, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

No matter what "tier" people think this enforcement might fall in, I hope theres some things we all agree our chatroom - private or not - simply may not be used for. Spreading the personal private information of a third party, using the system to arrange "raids" or coordinate other trolling actions. Yeah, our ability to prove it is restricted, but that shouldn't change the principle. Agent c (talk) 21:01, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we agree, or on what we do if we do, the fact remains that there's absolutely no distinction made on the text of the rules between chat and PM, and it's therefore left to personal interpretation if PMs are covered by said or not. And the thing is, the absence of explicit differentiation makes the situation entirely binary, either all the rules apply (absurd, obviously), or none do, with no room for a halfway house. Cherrypicking the ones we'd like (or even the ones that are reasonable) to apply to PM whilst ignoring others is something that we simply cannot do if we are to follow the letter of the policies.
Limmiegirl Lildeneb Talk! ♪ 17:36, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Or you can just block the pm, I mean, its not that hard...--I really need to get a signature (talk) 02:55, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement