arod-1 wrote:the whole issue would have been less contentious if the feature did not contain the word "private" in its name. by calling PM "private message" you imply a level of privacy for which you can't really commit, and maybe you don't want to commit.[...]
That's crap, as long as your users are suggested that there is a conversion between them an someone other, you can call it this way or that way, and write "hidden" disclaimers as much as you want. As long it is not clear for your users the moment they write a message, that it will be read someone else than the recipient, it's unnecessary to change something. See also:
The only morally adaquate, absolute legally and legitimate PM-Reading MOD would this:
updown wrote:My idea is an experiment, and the best thinkable PM-Reading MOD: Every time when a user composes a PM, an admin or admin-group is automatically added as a "To:"-recipient, visible for the sender and recipient, and not removable (this could be easily modded by adding some minor lines of codes to ucp_pm_compose.php and template)! That is basically the same as an open "CC:" in Emails, informing all recipients that someone else has also got this message. And it is basically the same as a hidden PM-Reading MOD with disclaimer, but more concrete.
But believe me, in most cases you could also disable the PM-function then.
That's only theoretically, practically it doesn't work that way. That's not wisdom, that's idiomatic nonsense.
updown wrote:I want the MOD Team to see and accept their responsibility for what they do and don't do, and being responsible for the consequences. Not more, not less. My concern is to make them see the consequences, then they have to decide in the name of the community and with full responsibility for negative consequences resulting from. No "that's not our job", no "we are not the authors", no "it's only technically validated" and other crap. Full responsibility - that's all, nothing more.
I think you've confused something here. We've never said we're not accepting responsibility for this decision.
You never said that you don't, but that doesn't mean you do. How could you, when you are not fully aware of the situation. Does that sound responsible and fully aware to you?:
eviL<3 wrote:We will make sure a modification meets our formal criteria. Whether or not we think it is morally right is an other matter. It shall be the judgment of of the admin using it.
ToonArmy wrote:Except those rules what people do on our site not what people do on their site with their users.
iWisdom wrote:Validation does not at all imply any encouragement or recommendation for a MOD -- it simply means that the MOD is functional and secure.
ToonArmy wrote:Finally, I'm generally opposed to censorship, I'm sure most people here are so why should we censor these MODs?
ToonArmy wrote:I'm out of this, let's agree to disagree. If the issue becomes a problem, we'll re-evaluate.
AdamR wrote:This is the MOD Team's official policy. As Chris has stated, should the need to reevaluate arise in the future, we will certainly do so.
Doesn't sound so to me...