A Proposed Rule: Fair and Simple.

[Andrew D]

Concerning unwanted PMs.

Suzy has been sending Fred PMs. Fred asks Suzy to stop sending Fred PMs. At that point, Suzy is entitled to send Fred one more PM. If Fred ignores that PM, and Suzy sends no more PMs to Fred, then that is the end of that. If Fred responds to that PM, then Fred has invited Suzy's reply to Fred's response. If Fred ignores Suzy's PM, and Suzy sends another PM anyway, then Suzy is harassing Fred.

In short, if someone asks you to stop sending her or him PMs, you can send one reply to that request. After that, you can send a PM to that person only if that person sends you a PM.

If you send more than PM to someone who has asked you to stop, then you have crossed the line. If that person has sent you a PM after having asked you to stop sending her or him PMs, then that person has redefined the line.

There will, of course, always be difficulties. What happens if Suzy says that she did not receive the PM which Fred claims to have sent to her? What happens if one of the PMs is garbled? What happens if Fred tells Suzy that it is okay for Suzy to send Fred PMs about this but not about that? Etc.

Nonetheless, to me, that rule seems as fair, simple, and clear as anything else we are likely to come up with. I propose it, caveats and all.

[Scooter]

You're assuming that Fred sent that message to Suzy via a PM. If he has not, but has asked Suzy never to send him a PM in public forum, then Suzy should respond in public forum, or shut the fuck up.

[Andrew D]

Yes, my proposed rule pertains to communications made by PM.

Maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time), but I do not see where you are going with this ....

[Scooter]

No further than what I said. Only that your proposed rule presupposes that the request to cease PM'ing was made by PM, which is not necessarily the case. You appeared to have made the same assumption in the other thread, without knowing whether it was the case in that instance either.

[Sean]

I've got a counter-propsal Andrew (not for a rule though as neither you or I are in a position to make rules here and I for one would never assume that I was)...

Fred asks Suzy to stop sending him PMs. Suzy decides to act like an adult and doesn't send Fred any more PMs.

Why is courtesy such a difficult concept for you to comprehend?

[loCAtek]

..because some people are discourteous and need rules, 'eh?

[Andrew D]

If people were angels, there would be no problems.

Shall we jump back to reality now?

[Sean]

We're not talking angels Andrew, we're talking about basic decency. Look it up in your dictionary.

[loCAtek]

AndrewD was talking about reality, sorry you missed that.

[Lord Jim]

If you send someone a PM, and they reply by telling you that they don't want any more PMs from you, why shouldn't you just stop sending them PMs immediately?

That's what I would do...

I have no desire to communicate with someone who has made it clear they do not wish to communicate with me....

It's only sheer ill mannered arrogance that could lead a person to think that if someone tells them they want no further communication from them, that they have some sort of entitlement to get in one last lick....

The person who has been asked not to send any further communication is supposed to be able to send yet another communication so they can have the final word in the exchange?

On what planet does that make any sense?

[quaddriver]

If someone has someone on ignore, wouldnt they also not be able to see threads started?

But then again, LJ has people on ignore about as much as I have Sandra Bullock friended on facebook....

[Reality Bytes]

Thats a "rule" which is unenforceable unless of course you welcome one of the admins going through the database to read private messages to prove the veracity of any accusation of this "rule" being broken, something I personally am not prepared to do. If you don't want to read someones pm simply delete it without reading it.

[Andrew D]

It's simple enough: If you are the one who wants to stop the communication, then you should be the one who stops communicating.

If you don't want a response from the other person, then just don't send that person anything.

The person who does not want to communicate further is supposed to be able to prevent the other person from communicating? Rather than the person who does not want to communicate further simply stop communicating?

On what planet does that make any sense?

[Andrew D]

Thats a "rule" which is unenforceable unless of course you welcome one of the admins going through the database to read private messages to prove the veracity of any accusation of this "rule" being broken, something I personally am not prepared to do. If you don't want to read someones pm simply delete it without reading it.

I agree.

This subject arose in the thread about the Foe Feature. And there is no love lost between me and the Foe Feature anyway.

My point is simply this: The person who wants the exchange to stop is the person who should stop participating in the exchange.

If you don't want to trade messages with someone, then don't.

If that person keeps sending you messages, even though you have not responded to that person's prior messages, then that person is harassing you. The consequences of that are up to those who administer the board.

But the whole "I don't want to trade messages with you, but I'm sending you this message just to piss you off, and you'd better not respond" thing is bullshit. Cowardly bullshit.

If you don't want an answer to your message, then don't send a message.

Clear enough?

[Sean]

So how about this scenario Andrew...

Fred sends Suzy a PM. Suzy doesn't want to receive any more PMs from Fred so she doesn't respond. Fred has no idea that Suzy doesn't want to receive his PMs so he sends another.

And another.

Fred gets pissed off because Suzy is not replying to his PMs. His PMs become more and more abusive. All Suzy can do is delete the PMs without reading them (except for the abuse laden subject lines which she can't avoid reading) because if she DARES to reply and request he stop sending them she's just being a whiny little bitch who's trying to have the last word!

Now THAT makes sense doesn't it?

This is precisely why people like you do not get to make the rules on boards like this.

[Joe Guy]

If someone has someone on ignore, wouldnt they also not be able to see threads started?

But then again, LJ has people on ignore about as much as I have Sandra Bullock friended on facebook I have Timothy Geithner for a boss....

Fixed that for you to give it a bit more punch.

[Lord Jim]

You know it seems to me, that if a person finds themselves in a situation where they have people so fed up with them that they don't even want to get private communications from them, then rather than get arrogant and indignant about it, some humility might be in order...(especially if it's happened with more than one person)

Instead of trying to figure out some way to blame the person who has asked nothing of them except to be left alone, they might want to take a long hard look at their own behavior, and ask themselves what it is about their behavior that is causing people to do this.

And then, if they manage to figure that out, they maybe, just maybe, might want to try to improve their behavior, and acknowledge publicly and offer amends for the behavior that led people to get fed up with them in the first place.

[loCAtek]

Fred sounds like an immature jerk.

[Lord Jim]

I assume that telling people that they don't want to receive PMs from someone is fairly rare occurrence....

In my own case, in 15 years I can only recall one other time I felt compelled to do that; (our old buddy mediator)

As a general rule, when you don't get along with somebody in one of these forums, it seems to me that they kind of understand that private overtures would be unwelcome, and they don't attempt it. (I have never received a PM from rubato for example.)

It's the rare character who doesn't seem to get that.

[BoSoxGal]

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition, DSM IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines narcissistic personality disorder (in Axis II Cluster B) as:[1]

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

Requires excessive admiration

Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes