Originally posted by TovMauzerOk, that last part I'll give you. Paultopia, I enjoy playing against you and I have a great deal of respect for you, but you may have been lowering yourself to your opponents' level.
I agree that ability to turn out the log would be useful, and you can suggest this to Russ. But this does not change the point: initial post is answering bad behaviour by bad behaviour.
HOWever... 😛 I still feel its important that we all recognize that the behaviour Paul's opponent demonstrated is becoming more and more common as players here demonstrate less and less self control and honour...
AND I still don't believe that the message log is necessarily private. If Paul can't shut off his opponent's comments, then those comments are essentially public. By failing to exhibit common courtesy, his opponent has essentially forfeited the right to expect discretion on Paul's part...
Originally posted by DecanterConceededly. I'll give there. It was a little lowing to their level. (And thank you, Decanter.)
Ok, that last part I'll give you. Paultopia, I enjoy playing against you and I have a great deal of respect for you, but you may have been lowering yourself to your opponents' level.
I do want to say, more generally in response to other comments on this thread, especially what Tov said, that I firmly believe, as a normative principle, that, unless someone indicates an explicit desire for silence for good cause, unless the information they're giving me is plainly supposed to be confidential, or unless there is an ongoing social or legal rule requiring silence (ie. attorney-client privelige), communications to me are freely publicizable. There's no good reason to magically render certain types of communication "private" such that one participant can't reveal them. On the other hand, the values of accountability and free discussioni weigh in favor of permitting a party to a conversation to publicize it freely.
Well it doesn't make much sense to me. Something private is usually something other people may want to know that you don't want them to know. And message logs are of no interest to anyone but the players involved. I have no intention of making mine public unless a certain individual, who incidently made six draw offers on six consecutive moves from a lost position, sends me any more abuse, in which case I will.
Originally posted by paultopiaLegal terminology tends to paralize my brain - so I would rather leave this unanswered😵
Conceededly. I'll give there. It was a little lowing to their level. (And thank you, Decanter.)
I do want to say, more generally in response to other comments on this thread, especially what Tov said, that I firmly believe, as a normative principle, that, unless someone indicates an explicit desire for silence for good cause, unless the information ...[text shortened]... ree discussioni weigh in favor of permitting a party to a conversation to publicize it freely.
Just a few ideas concerning privacy here...
I think it is always a good idea to assume that anything you write (in electronic media) may become available to people other than whom you intended. I have seen this happen in every workplace I have been in.
In a forum such as RHP, if you can't write something in a way that it could be made public, perhaps you should consider not writing it.
I do not assume that my game messages are private. Most game messages are unsolicited, and I can't see how unsolicited messages require privacy! If the recipient requested information from the sender, then I think that is different. People using "messages" may also have an expectation to privacy but should be prepared for public disclosure in any case.
Originally posted by TovMauzerWell technically, agreements of non-disclosure are incumbent upon the written consent of all parties involved along with a document detailing the limitations of said consent.
Legal terminology tends to paralize my brain - so I would rather leave this unanswered😵
In this particular case, given the absence of any written consent, I would submit that as and wherefore the party of the first part had determined that the content of the log in question violated any right of privilege afforded to the party of the second part and as a consequence of the aforementioned violation..........
*THUD* 😴
Originally posted by jgvaccaroYes, but there's a difference between
There's a reason you can't view the message logs of others' games.
(a) you can't go snooping into a conversation between two other people; and
(b) if you're in a conversation, you can't disclose its contents to someone else.
Those values are recognized in many different ways. For example, in every state, it's illegal to tap someone's phone. In many states, it's perfectly legal to tape record your own conversations.
Originally posted by paultopiaPaul, re-read Gatecrasher' post and let's go back to chess🙂
Yes, but there's a difference between
(a) you can't go snooping into a conversation between two other people; and
(b) if you're in a conversation, you can't disclose its contents to someone else.
Those values are recognized in many different ways. For example, in every state, it's illegal to tap someone's phone. In many states, it's perfectly legal to tape record your own conversations.