Whenever you check off that little box on the bottom left side of a post; it asks you if you want an email sent to you, anytime that particular thread has a new message.

That's fine. What I'm wondering about, is that I keep receiving messages telling me that I have a new messagege from SurvivorBlows, and every so often, when I check my email, there's no message to be found.

Is the SBlows' email going crazy? When I actually find the alluded to message; it usually has the incorrect poster's name in it.

Since this has been happening only recently, I can't help wondering if the SB email has a mind of its own.

• RE: Email Blues,dabo, 10:42 AM, 06-12-02
• RE: Email Blues,Teddy_Bear, 08:33 AM, 06-18-02
  • RE: Email Blues,Femme, 10:21 PM, 06-18-02
    • RE: Email Blues,Bebo, 11:48 AM, 06-21-02
  • You have to take the good with the bad...m,anotherkim, 10:45 PM, 06-18-02
  • Point taken,AyaK, 04:28 PM, 06-20-02
    • RE: Point taken,Teddy_Bear, 08:46 PM, 08-27-02
      • Yes and no.,sleeeve, 02:32 AM, 08-28-02
        • A question...,Pepe Le Pew, 08:38 AM, 08-29-02
          • RE: A question...,Femme, 01:10 PM, 08-29-02
          • An answer...,sleeeve, 08:54 PM, 08-29-02
            • RE: An answer...,PepeLePew13, 02:19 AM, 08-30-02
              • RE: An answer...,PepeLePew13, 02:34 AM, 08-30-02
        • Stalking by Email,Teddy_Bear, 09:54 AM, 08-31-02
          • RE: Stalking by Email,Femme, 11:06 AM, 08-31-02
          • RE: Stalking by Email,SurvivorBlows, 01:31 PM, 08-31-02
          • RE: Stalking by Email,SherpaDave, 01:31 PM, 08-31-02
            • RE: Stalking by Email,Outfrontgirl, 02:56 PM, 08-31-02
              • RE: Stalking by Email,SherpaDave, 03:14 PM, 08-31-02
                • Thank you Dave,Outfrontgirl, 03:29 PM, 08-31-02
                • End of Conversation,sleeeve, 03:30 PM, 08-31-02
                  • RE: End of Conversation,SurvivorBlows, 03:57 PM, 08-31-02
• RE: Email Blues,nailbone, 10:23 PM, 07-07-02
  • RE: Email Blues,JeffGator, 02:20 AM, 07-08-02
• RE: Email Blues,Outfrontgirl, 06:32 PM, 08-28-02
  • RE: Email Blues,Teddy_Bear, 08:23 PM, 08-28-02
    • RE: Email Blues,Outfrontgirl, 03:10 AM, 08-30-02
      • RE: Email Blues,Teddy_Bear, 08:35 AM, 08-30-02

>Since this has been happening only
>recently, I can't help wondering
>if the SB email has
>a mind of its own.
>
Yes, actually, it does! A senile one, in fact.

Seriously, there were glitches in the emails last summer, maybe it's a seasonal thing. This only happens on emails from threads where you've indicated you wish to receive emails whenever the thread receives a new message? You should receive a notification every time a post is made anywhere on the thread, regardless of whether it is a post in responce to one of your posts.

SMILES ARE FREE

I have an entirely different issue with both emails and private messages.

First off, I love sending and recieving emails. It's a lot more fun than posting, and more personal; although less interactive than CHAT.

Now, I do feel that both emails and PMs are a great way to exchange Spoiling theories, or to express your enthusiasm or concerns, towards a particular thread, post, posting style, etc.

I received--in addition to the much preferrable--I wanna-get-to-know-you-better type, of emails--some very civil, polite and friendly, suggestions of a technical nature; so of course, I was more than happy to oblige.

What concerns me is the potential, to abuse a method of communication, that should be used judiciously. Since I have only received friendly emails so far, I continue to leave it turned on, but should this ever change; I might decide to re-think my decision.

Emails and PMs are private for a reason; it is all about privacy, and respect for the privacy of all of the posters at SB.

While I am glad that peeps are respecting the wonderful ZTP; private emails and PMs should never be used for any sort of uncivil correspondense.

I obliged the requests I received, precisely, because they were, friendly, civil, and polite; I believe you can catch far more flies with honey than vinegar.

I beg to differ here, as I think the email feature is a tool that should be used (in addition to maintaining friendships) to make a point in private.

I would not want to be "scolded" in a public forum, but if I were doing something that might offend someone else or was just generally bugging others, I would hope that it would be brought up in private. I don't want to get into a pissing match in the middle of a thread and have it get so far off topic that Bebo drops dead of a heart attack.

And, fer shure, honey is preferrably to vinegar, but some people don't get the nice hints. If it was me, I'd welcome a private message that was well thought out and warranted, since for every person that DOES speak up by emailing, there's probably 20 others that feel the same way who haven't said anything.

I don't want to get into a pissing match in the middle of a thread and have it get so far off topic that Bebo drops dead of a heart attack.

ROFLMAO! I need to check the Help topics more often.

I'm on Femme and Kim's side on this one. Allowing people to have their private disagreements is just going to make it that much easier for the blue men to maintain order in the forums. And I certainly trust our blue men to treat inappropriate emails with the same wisdom that they handle inappropriate posts.

Yes, there is the potential for abuse, but I have a feeling that the abuse would be extremely short-lived if the mods found out about it. But this is definitely an issue that I think should be handled on a case by case basis, should a situation occur.

Friendly advice dispensed daily, courtesy of My superiority complex

first of all---your email addy is private. If I click, I can't see it. I don't have access to your actual address.

I honestly don't agree with your point about uncivil communication. Like Femme, I would much rather have personal issues dealt with in private if they are of a personal nature....especially considering how blown out of proportion some topics can get or how they can get hijacked with something totally OT.

But, what it boils down to is freedom. A public community cannot and never should put any stipulations on when email should be used. Your friendly suggestion is all fine and well, but I certainly don't see it ever becoming SB policy of any kind. I, for one, would vote no every time.

>What concerns me is the potential, to abuse a method of
>communication, that should be used judiciously. Since I have
>only received friendly emails so far, I continue to leave
>it turned on, but should this ever change; I might
>decide to re-think my decision.

When this board first launched during S1, e-mail addresses were visible to all members. One night, we had someone post that CBS had confiscated his computer because of his knowledge of upcoming events on the show; he wanted to know if this had happened to anyone else. I checked his e-mail and found out that he was at Purdue University, which meant that there was no chance his post was true, and I posted as much. But then others got his e-mail address and started sending him sizzling anonymous flames via e-mail. (The thread was deleted, by the way, so you won't find it in the archives -- sorry!)

In response to this, Webby decided to alter DC Scripts (the message-board program) so that e-mail address was no longer visible. Thus, all e-mails had to be sent through the board by a member. Advantage: if someone started flaming another poster via e-mail (say, to avoid the ZTP against flaming), the offending account could be blocked, which would deny the flamer the ability to send e-mail to the flamee.

As Femme and anotherkim point out, not all messages that disagree with someone are flames. This is one of those it-depends-upon-the-message items. It is possible for people to send e-mails and PMs that range from fawning approval to strident but civil disagreement to flames. Many people prefer to air disagreements via e-mail or PM, sometimes including me. Thus, in general, only flames of another poster via e-mail may lead to suspension.

As Albus Dumbledore (!) said, if we expect universal popularity, we will always be disappointed. So each of us will receive messages with which we disagree. But, as you note, Teddy_Bear, those disagreements are expected to remain civil. Please inform the moderators if they do not.

LAST EDITED ON 08-27-02 AT 08:51 PM (EST)

I know that Webby and the mods have an extremely important policy called: the ZTP.

Unfortunatly some people, apparently, don't respect this board enough to appreciate it's real meaning.

What I would like to know is, do you have a policy against continued email harassment?

If so, I would greatly appreciate it if you or one of the other mods would be as kind to post it.

I don't think it is right that any currently registered member of this community, should be allowed to be continually subjected to this ongoing form of harassment.

Thank you very much, SB afficianado, Teddy.

|=Spamming Victim
Light a Virtual Candle~~~Eleanor Roosevelt: No one can make YOU feel inferior without YOUR consent!

LAST EDITED ON 08-28-02 AT 02:33 AM (EST)

Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor communication between our members off of the boards... while there is definately a policy against harassment of any nature, it's not one easily controlled by us when the harassment takes place out of our jurisdiction... (unfortunately, none of us have achieved the level of internet-wide moderator... we're merely moderators of this site ).

Our general recommendation has always been two-fold.

First of all, you should never give out your e-mail address to other people. This eliminates the majority of the problems.

If you are recieving unwanted e-mails through our server, the way to fix it is easy... simply turn off the e-mail option (in your user profile), and no members will be able to send mail to your account through our server any more.

Private messages (which are stored on our server and can be accessed by Webby in the event of a complaint, although this has never happened in the history of the site) can still be used for private communication, with our assurance that your messages will remain confidential unless you forward one to us.

E-mail, however, is not stored on our server, so we are unable to address e-mail issues... you must do so yourself by turning off the e-mail option and assuring that you keep your own address confidential.

>If you are recieving unwanted e-mails through our server,
>the way to fix it is easy... simply turn off the e-mail
>option (in your user profile), and no members will be able
>to send mail to your account through our server any more.

Maybe I'm just reading the questions wrong, but it comes across as a little confusing. When I click on the options, I see questions such as "Disable your inbox?" and On/Off -- to me, clicking 'on' means I want it to disable my inbox, thus receiving no messages at all?

Wouldn't it be clearer to say "Receive messages in your inbox/Receive emails?" Yes or No.

Also, "Hide your profile" and on/off, what does that mean? Clicking 'on' means my profile would be hidden (i.e. turning it on will hide it)?

I know I've sent emails in the past and have others tell me they sent me a message, but it apparently didn't get through. Perhaps this is why with the terminology confusing some people?

.......

It counfused me too, but whatever it's set on now (on or off, I cant remember) I know it's working 'cause I get emails. But, that was a VERY confusing thing for me when I first came here and started posting...

Femme

LAST EDITED ON 08-30-02 AT 07:47 PM (EST)

For each of the below, "on" means that the things are disabled, and "off" means that they are not disabled (ie active).

These are the options (and an explanation of each):

Hide your profile? (Determines whether users can see the responses to the answers in your profile: name, ICQ#, AOL-IM, gender, address, City, State, Country, Homepage, Hobby, and Comments. To view a user's profile, click on this icon at the top of one of their posts: )

Disable your inbox? (Determines whether users can send you private messages. These messages are stored on our server, and you are notified if you have a new message by a waving red flag, visible on the lobby page. This can be used like any other web-based e-mail, except that anyone that you send messages to or recieve messages from must be a member of this site... It is recommended that you leave either this option or the e-mail option active, so that users can contact you without posting to the boards. To send a user a private message, click on this icon at the top of one of their posts: )

Disable your email? (Determines whether users can send you e-mail through our server. All e-mail addresses remain confidential when using this option. In this method, messages are sent directly to your e-mail address. You can respond to the user through our server by following a link at the bottom of the e-mail message. To send a user an e-mail, click on this icon at the top of one of their posts: )

You never know what might be up my sleeeve...

>For each of the below, "yes"
>means that the things are
>disabled, and "no" means that
>they are not disabled (ie
>active).

The actual options available to choose from are "on" and "off" so on = yes? off = no?

on = I don't want email/inbox?
off = I want to get email and have an inbox?

My head is dizzy.

.......

Ok thanks eee for clearing it up in the bar.

So YES... to receive email, activate your inbox and to have your profile shown -- click "OFF" for each category.

Whew!

.......

>First of all, you should never give out your e-mail address to other people. This eliminates the majority of the problems.<

You are absolutely right Sleeeve, I gave my email addy out to the WRONG person; things unfortunaetly did NOT work out the way I had expected, and now this individual is literally TERRORIZING Me!!!

I have no one to blame but myself for trusting the WRONG person. This individual is hell-bent on a hell-hath-no fury-like-a-woman-scorned type vendetta against me.

3 days ago, everything here was okay; The night before last, I received a verbal threat in CHAT, and previously via email--my PRIVATE email addy--that is, and then I recieved a verbal threat which was whispered to me in CHAT.

Eventhough I have blocked this individual from any further private correspondence with me; I don't feel safe. I am being told odd things to me by other members of this board who know very personal details about me--which I have never shared with them, but ONLY with said individual.

I don't feel safe here anymore; because I am not at all convinced that this person is through with their vendetta, and I have no idea how far they are willing to go.

|=It is not necessary to acept everything as true, one must only acept it as necessary. Kafka: the Trial.

Then you should call the police, TB. I don't think the blue men can arrest anyone. They probably can't even do a citizen's arrest, seeing as how SB is not a REAL PLACE, and the people, too, are NOT PHYSICALLY HERE, they can't really do anything about such a serious allegation. Sounds like you need to call the police then look into a restraining order if someone is "literally terrorizing" you.

Femme

LAST EDITED ON 08-31-02 AT 01:44 PM (EST)

>3 days ago, everything here was
>okay; The night before last,
>I received a verbal threat
>in CHAT, and previously via
>email--my PRIVATE email addy--that is,
>and then I recieved a
>verbal threat which was whispered
>to me in CHAT.

TB, if you have a credible threat, you can't just publicly accuse an anonymous member of our community like that and not provide the site administrators with additional details or an opportunity to take whatever little message board disiplinary action that we can.

Please privately email me the details of the threats, but also be aware that false accusations are also not tolerated.

-SB

No offense, Teddy, but unless there have been other emails than those you forwarded to me when you first started worrying about this, there was nothing threatening in those emails. Was the person fed up? Yep. Did the person state his or her case strongly? Yes. Did the person threaten you? No.

Criminals From the Neck Up

LAST EDITED ON 08-31-02 AT 02:59 PM (EST)

Dave, I think she has moved on to accusing someone new--that is, other than me, of harassing her, although I would not believe it is any less false without what Webby called credible proof.

For the record:
Yes, I sent a board email with suggestions on how TB could write posts HER way that we could read and not see as chaos, and yes, I sent a final board email after she refused to consider listening, which was quite fed up with trying to reason with her.

I also totally respected her request that she ONLY THEN sent me--not to email her further. That was before she posted above about being harassed the first time, and SHE had the last word in the exchange although I doubt she sent HER emails to me around.

"Stalking," "harassment" and especially "terrorizing"--as we are coming up on the anniversary of 9/11--those are serious and offensive terms to level at fellow-posters, and I am shocked.

Although I have never had TB's real email addy and haven't been in chat for ages, it sounds like Teddy sent my board emails around to a few poeple (and such things get passed on) and now a number of you who don't really know me may be wondering if I am cyber-stalking Teddy, ludicrous as that sounds.

I don't appreciate having my name associated with this fiasco one bit and I would like to have my name cleared by her, pronto.

Edited because apparently I can't spell when I am this mad.

*Not a red-headed psychobitch--I only play one on LadyT's new soap*

Hey there, OFG.

Nope, she wasn't referring to you (this time). Someone else that TB forwarded your emails to asked her why she didn't just try what you suggested. A series of emails between the two followed and TB forwarded those to me as well, asking advice. Considering your own experience, you can probably guess how that series of emails went.

Teddy, I know you asked me to be discrete in the handling of these emails, and up until now, I have been. But your claims of harrassment where none seems to exist only serve to agitate the community and its members. I've forwarded all the emails along to the Blue Men, as I believe the matter is best handled by them and not in a more vigilante fashion. They have proven themselves time and again to be abundantly fair and I have no question that they will continue to do so. If you disagree, then perhaps it is time that you make good on your farewell speech in chat last night.

That helps. I always try to be a nice person but I was pushed by non-responsiveness and non-logic into being pretty blunt. I felt bad about that. It's nice to know that someone else went from friendly to fed-up when they tried engaging, as it shows a pattern of escalation that wasn't "all about me."

*glad the blue men are apprised and on the job*
*now returns to normal routine of looking for belongings not properly labeled in recent move*

I've recieved the e-mails from Dave... from this point on, I'd request that we handle this off of the boards... thanks .

You never know what might be up my sleeeve...

I'm locking this thread while I await an email response from Teddy.

-SB

>
>Is the SBlows' email going crazy?
> When I actually
>find the alluded to message;
>it usually has the incorrect
>poster's name in it.
>
The deal with this part is that the email notification shows the person at the bottom of the thresd, even if the post that generated the notification is a reply to an earlier reply in the thresd.

IOW, if I reply to one of your thresd, and then Sami, Buggy, katem and Gator all reply, you'll get separate notifications with each of their names shown. THEN Mon replies to Buggy's reply, the notification will say Gator in it, even though Mon's was the reply that generated the notification.

Clear as mud, right?

- it took me a while to figure this out.

Daytime, nighttime, anytime, things go better with Rock! - Def Leppard

Clear as mud, right?
--Actually, that was a damn good explanation nailbone...I was going to try myself but you had a better way with words

I'm replying to take the newest conversation to the bottom, since Nailbone solved the original question (which bothered me for a LONG time until I finally figured it out).

I do agree with Femme, AyaK, and Bebo (hah, AyaK, I sandwiched you inbetween these two femme fatales) that private email is a good way to raise discussion to PREVENT a flame war and also to avoid embarrassing someone by criticising them in public.

On the other hand, Teddy, I agree with you that everyone should have the right not to engage in a prolonged dialogue after receiving a critical email or suchlike. Perhaps one doesn't have the time, or one's mind is set in stone, whatever... one should have the right to just say No and end it.

I had someone email me persistently about a Spoilers' debate last Christmas, and the timing was bad for me (an answer demanded on Xmas Eve as I was visiting with family) and I told the person flat out I didn't want to get more email from them (and they emailed back and said, why do you feel that way, but then respected my wishes, and there is no lingering animosity on my part).

So I think the first question to ask before you call something harassment is whether a person continues to email you after you have plainly said: Do not email me again. Up to that point I would think that internet etiquette allows for people to open up a discussion.

A word about the oft-cited ZTP:
I remember its beginnings well, as someone I am quite close to was the person flamed just before the ZTP went into effect. In that case, civil disagreement had degenerated into flinging obscenities and emotional accusations on another poster, and Webby put a stop to personal "hate-filled" attacks. (I think that's more or less his wording, which can be looked up elsewhere in this forum and in the original post on OT.)

I certainly agree that email SHOULD NOT be used to bypass the ZTP and make obscene comments to other posters or to scream at them. (I also note that sleeeve has expressed why the mods can't really monitor email, so this is more of a discussion of how we SHOULD act rather than asking the mods to step in when they cannot.)

However, I think we all need to remember there is a big difference between disagreements about and/or dislike of what a poster says or does and a violation of the ZTP, which is expressing true HATE of THE POSTER as a person.

One can hate someone's fashion sense without hating the person; one can hate someone's ideology similarly and engage with that; one can tell someone hey, I don't like the way you talk to so-and-so. All of these are within the bounds of civilized and often interesting dialogue.

As a contrasting example--it would seem to obviously violate the ZTP to say:
"#### YOU, you tedious Moron, why don't you go play on the freeway? "

(although I confess, in the old days before the ZTP, I have enjoyed watching Shakes do just that on Spoilers. My bad. )

Teddy, I hope no one here at SB is being harassed in that way, and that you need only say No More to end any email dialogue.

In the forums and bus-stations, people talk of situations
Read books, repeat quotations, draw conclusions on the wall
Some they speak in flames, others they speak softly,
They know there's no success like failure
and failure's no success at all... in fact, failure sucks

with apologies to Zimmy"