Board guides personal posts

MrsE_2

Churchmouse wrote: »

Oh sorry, that wasn't the bit I especially wanted answered

The bit I was interested in was

ceridwen posted
Originally Posted by ceridwen
Whilst I think you have a valid point there - it IS MSE policy not to disclose the contents of PMs as I understand it. It think it would be wise if MrsE abides by the policy - and doesnt disclose the contents. She herself could be in trouble if she does.

i think we can all hazard a few guesses - but Mrs E - I urge you to stick to MSE privacy policy on this.




I then said

Now this was obviously meant to say she thought she knew who'd sent it to you. I will wager my house that she did not think it was Venus, which is why I thanked her for not allowing suspicion to rest on anyone else. Making reference to a PM casts shadows on all sorts of people unfairly
Can you see my problem now?

I'm truly lost?
You want me to answer what Ceridwen meant?

The PM ref really wouldn't have been an issue if people could have refrained from sending me warning PMs;)

jackieglasgow

MrsE you are being naughty again!! I didn't say I was, I was offering a suggestion as to why others had posted after the Board Guide. I was the first person to say I thought the thread was a wind up, I take no more notice of the BG's than anyone else, if I like what someone has to say, I like it, no matter who they are, you are just looking for a fight from me tonight, but your lucks out as I am about to log off!

MrsE_2

jackieglasgow wrote: »

MrsE you are being naughty again!! I didn't say I was, I was offering a suggestion as to why others had posted after the Board Guide. I was the first person to say I thought the thread was a wind up, I take no more notice of the BG's than anyone else, if I like what someone has to say, I like it, no matter who they are, you are just looking for a fight from me tonight, but your lucks out as I am about to log off!

Not at all:):kisses3:

jackieglasgow

Poet I don't think people jumped to PP's defence in this particular instance because she is a Board Guide, I think it was because she, was singled out and named for posting similar thoughts to others on that particular thread, I think no matter who had been singled out the response would have been the same.

Churchmouse

MrsE wrote: »

I'm truly lost?
You want me to answer what Ceridwen meant?

The PM ref really wouldn't have been an issue if people could have refrained from sending me warning PMs;)

No I want you to acknowledge what can happen when people state they have been sent an " almost threatening " PM on a thread. Ceridwen said "I think we can all hazard a few guesses" She may not have been the only one who was suspecting the wrong individuals of having sent the PM. I doubt anyone thought Venus had sent it. You chose to publicise ( against the rules ) the PM, that decision was yours and yours alone. Do you think ceridwen's comment was right ( the one about hazarding a guess )? I know she's your friend so maybe you'll want to avoid answering ;)

MrsE_2

Churchmouse wrote: »

No I want you to acknowledge what can happen when people state they have been sent an " almost threatening " PM on a thread. Ceridwen said "I think we can all hazard a few guesses" She may not have been the only one who was suspecting the wrong individuals of having sent the PM. I doubt anyone thought Venus had sent it. You chose to publicise ( against the rules ) the PM, that decision was yours and yours alone. Do you think ceridwen's comment was right ( the one about hazarding a guess )? I know she's your friend so maybe you'll want to avoid answering ;)

I honestly had no idea who would PM me so I wouldn't expect anyone else to know.

Do I think Ceridwen was right to urge me not to publicise. Its up to her - she can ask what she wants.

I shall use my own judgement & I wasn't going to hide it. If they didn't want the fact they had sent it known, they shouldn't have sent it.

Churchmouse

MrsE wrote: »

No, I'm not. But I know at least one OSer who freely admitted she is:D

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=37597788&postcount=101

Try reading it again. She quite clearly does not say that.

Savvy_Sue

I am now utterly confused. And even as a BG, I wasn't aware that it was 'not on' to even refer to a PM having been sent, which strikes me as a rather difficult rule to 'police'.

New users often don't realise there IS a PM system - it took me a while to catch on! Am I the only one to have seen a post which says "I have sent you a PM"? or "PM received, thanks"?

Now I'm well aware that it's possible to abuse the PM system - and I'm 100% certain that sometimes information is exchanged by PM which is technically against 'the rules' - addresses, phone numbers etc.

So I personally would rather that PMs WERE referred to, BUT NOT PUBLISHED, so that if necessary a BG can gently remind everyone that personal information shouldn't be exchanged.

I can't see the value of NEVER referring to PMs on the boards.

Or am I missing something?

Churchmouse

MrsE wrote: »

I honestly had no idea who would PM me so I wouldn't expect anyone else to know.

Do I think Ceridwen was right to urge me not to publicise. Its up to her - she can ask what she wants.

I shall use my own judgement & I wasn't going to hide it. If they didn't want the fact they had sent it known, they shouldn't have sent it.

OK I give up. I can't make it any clearer that I wanted your opinion on ceridwen doing her " I can hazard a guess " bit. I think you know that full well. You stay obtuse, keep onside with your friend :cool:

Savvy_Sue

btw dazco, I was horrified to hear that someone - anyone - had published a PM with personal information on the boards. I sometimes get new posters asking for information by PM, and even if I can give a brief answer I encourage them to post on the boards, because I may be wrong, and if it's on the boards my responses can be challenged and corrected (and often are!)