Reminder: global rules, roleplaying, and sexual interaction

[SCS 7,537]

There have been a number of events lately involving inappropriate sexual content in private roleplays here, enough to the point where I need to touch on a few important points with the community at large.
 
The Global Rules are truly global, so they extend to personal messages as well. For the most part, personal messages are private, and the staff doesn't monitor them. However, if someone reports a message, or if we have a strong reason to believe that something harmful is going on, that privacy is voided and we will review the situation. 
 
Roleplaying via PM is welcome here, but please keep the content in PG-13 territory or milder. This is not the place to carry out pornographic roleplays and/or cybersex with others. There are many sites that allow such interaction, and we aren't passing a negative judgement on it by any means. We just want this site to be safe and appropriate for a more general audience.
 
On that note, engaging in sexual relations with a minor is never appropriate. This includes cybersex and sexually-fueled fictional roleplays. This does not extend to romantic roleplays with little or no focus on sexuality. Engaging in any form of sexual interaction with a minor here, including through fictional roleplays, will get you permanently banned immediately. You could also potentially face legal trouble. It doesn't matter if it's public or in a personal message. Don't do it.
 
On a more general note: sexual harassment of any form is not tolerated here, and any instances of it will result in harsher penalties than simply breaking the NSFW content rule.  
 
To summarize, MLP Forums is not the place for sexually explicit roleplays regardless of whether or not they are private. Romantic roleplays are welcome, but please keep it PG-13. Do not get into any form of sexual relations with a minor, including sexually-oriented fictional roleplays. Do not sexually harass anyone, and respect people's boundaries. 
 
Please remember that some members of this community are as young as 13 years old. They should be able to have a safe and friendly experience here, as should everyone else.
 
Thank you.

[RrVPfX9cPtw59FpC 1,304]

I'm glad this is finally getting mentioned. However, I didn't know that PMs would be viewed without someone reporting them. Would it be possible to let members know if any of their messages were viewed?

[SCS 7,537]

I'm glad this is finally getting mentioned. However, I didn't know that PMs would be viewed without someone reporting them. Would it be possible to let members know if any of their messages were viewed?

 

When we have to view someone's messages we generally don't tell them about it due to the nature of the situation. We might have to observe how matters unfold.

 

I'm all for giving people privacy, but there comes a point when protecting the well-being of people here is more important than that. I can assure you that this method of viewing PMs is reserved exclusively for severe situations involving illegal activity and particularly serious cases of abuse, and unfortunately these things happen from time to time.

 

I know this will make some people uncomfortable but I'm not going to champion total privacy at the expense of allowing people to be severely harmed in very real ways behind closed doors.

[RrVPfX9cPtw59FpC 1,304]

 

When we have to view someone's messages we generally don't tell them about it due to the nature of the situation. We might have to observe how matters unfold.

 

I'm all for giving people privacy, but there comes a point when protecting the well-being of people here is more important than that. I can assure you that this method of viewing PMs is reserved exclusively for severe situations involving illegal activity and particularly serious cases of abuse, and unfortunately these things happen from time to time.

 

I know this will make some people uncomfortable but I'm not going to champion total privacy at the expense of allowing people to be severely harmed in very real ways behind closed doors.

Alright, that's fair. But out of curiosity, would you be able to give a rough estimate of how many private messages have been viewed without being reported in the past?

[Rebel the Wolfgirl 5,601]

Personally, I'm glad the whole "sex with a minor" is getting mentioned. Even if it's a fictional roleplay, I still consider it pedophilia. 

[Darker 1,351]

...

 

Really...?, Seriously?

 

This happened...? When? Where? WHY?

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

 

When we have to view someone's messages we generally don't tell them about it due to the nature of the situation. We might have to observe how matters unfold.

 

I'm all for giving people privacy, but there comes a point when protecting the well-being of people here is more important than that. I can assure you that this method of viewing PMs is reserved exclusively for severe situations involving illegal activity and particularly serious cases of abuse, and unfortunately these things happen from time to time.

 

I know this will make some people uncomfortable but I'm not going to champion total privacy at the expense of allowing people to be severely harmed in very real ways behind closed doors.

If this is the case, why not make PMs accessible only in events of a report as opposed to allowing the admins total ability to see one's inbox when they please? While I can understand the reason, I can't necessarily say I dig the potential invasion of privacy of having someone able to view my inbox whenever they please, regardless of how little I use the thing.

[SCS 7,537]

Alright, that's fair. But out of curiosity, would you be able to give a rough estimate of how many private messages have been viewed without being reported in the past?

 

I can't think of a solid number for PMs specifically, but offhand I can think of maybe 4 or 5 situations from the entirety of my time as a mod/admin that required PM viewing without a message being reported first.

 

It's really not very common for the most part, aside from a recent uptick that prompted this announcement.

 

 

 

...

 

Really...?, Seriously?

 

This happened...? When? Where? WHY?

 

I can't get into specific details, but it has happened multiple times.

 

 

If this is the case, why not make PMs accessible only in events of a report as opposed to allowing the admins total ability to see one's inbox when they please? While I can understand the reason, I can't necessarily say I dig the potential invasion of privacy of having someone able to view my inbox whenever they please, regardless of how little I use the thing.

We don't just do it when we please. Admins are held accountable and have to follow rules like everyone else, and if one of us tried anything like that we'd be shown the door very quickly.

 

The reason why this functionality exists is that sometimes we notice public behavior on the site that implies serious problems going on in personal messages. If enough mods/admins agree that viewing someone's PMs is necessary as a result, one of the admins carries out the investigation.

[ghostfacekiller39 23,860]

The reason why this functionality exists is that sometimes we notice public behavior on the site that implies serious problems going on in personal messages. If enough mods/admins agree that viewing someone's PMs is necessary as a result, one of the admins carries out the investigation.

Accountability does little to appease my worry on this, to be blunt -_- I'm not just going to feel comfortable with such a thing all willy nilly like that with little to appease me other than accountability.

 

If there were a suspicion of foul play through the PM system, it'd be just as easy for a staff member themselves to file a report and then look over it in a PM. This serves good in the sense it gives the members security of having generally private messages that can only be reviewed with reason and would also allow a more full staff discussion as opposed to one person accessing the inbox and having the jurisdiction be left up to them. Two birds with one stone - with more staff members able to discuss this, there is more likely to be a fair punishment for foul play, and the members can have a needed sense of privacy knowing that as long as they keep their cool they won't have their inbox looked over.

[King 5,625]

 

 

as opposed to one person accessing the inbox and having the jurisdiction be left up to them.

Actually, SCS had mentioned that the decision isn't simply up to one Admin. The decision to view someones PM's is a result of discussion between multiple members of the moderation and administration team. This means someone cant go about and "willy nilly" tramp through peoples PM's. It would result in them being removed from staff, and the number of people actually able to view PMs is very small.

[SCS 7,537]

Accountability does little to appease my worry on this, to be blunt -_- I'm not just going to feel comfortable with such a thing all willy nilly like that with little to appease me other than accountability.

 

If there were a suspicion of foul play through the PM system, it'd be just as easy for a staff member themselves to file a report and then look over it in a PM. This serves good in the sense it gives the members security of having generally private messages that can only be reviewed with reason and would also allow a more full staff discussion as opposed to one person accessing the inbox and having the jurisdiction be left up to them. Two birds with one stone - with more staff members able to discuss this, there is more likely to be a fair punishment for foul play, and the members can have a needed sense of privacy knowing that as long as they keep their cool they won't have their inbox looked over.

 

It doesn't work that way: you have to be in the conversation itself to report it. Now, the staff member who viewed the conversation could potentially do that, but we generally just use private screenshots to share information with other staff.

 

The jurisdiction is never solely left up to whoever happens to view the message conversation. A group agreement among the staff is required before the messages can be viewed. Then, whoever views them shares relevant information with other staff and the situation is discussed as a group before any action is taken.

 

Just as with warnings/suspensions/bans for behavior taking place anywhere else on the site, a group discussion and decision is required before action is taken. It's never left up to a single person's judgement.

[CheeryFox 23,821]

And we can't forget that the government/s can and will patrol these sites. Not to mention, the server(s) can get into deep water as well -- this includes pictorial situations. 

 

Keeping it clean benefits everypony. 

[King 5,625]

Just to reinforce SCS' point, the Administration will only view a PM in the case that it has been reported or in the case that serious and probable concern exists that something against the rules is going on, and in the latter case, it's a decision discussed before being enacted. Plenty of discussion is had before its decided whether to view the PM or not.

In cases where we feel its necessary to view someones PMs, 9/10 our concerns have been proven true and those cases were of a very serious nature.

[Adorkable 2,737]

Actually, SCS had mentioned that the decision isn't simply up to one Admin. The decision to view someones PM's is a result of discussion between multiple members of the moderation and administration team. This means someone cant go about and "willy nilly" tramp through peoples PM's. It would result in them being removed from staff, and the number of people actually able to view PMs is very small.

 

Just to add to what Dawn said, it's actually a pretty big deal when Staff has to look into a member's inbox. It's not an easy decision to make by any means. ^^"

[corrosioncorridor 48]

I've never seen so many admins in one place

Either way I surport the idea of admins going throught PMs cause that solves problems. Also if you have to think should I send this don't send it and if your sending a password use gmail or anything else if you don't won't an admin to see. Also a flagging system would help weed out the rule breakers.

Also ignore Darker he post weird thing but he makes me laugh so I don't mind.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

Well, with how the forum allows minors to have accounts on it, I am fairly surprised this had to be said at all.

As for the pm issue, I have long advocated taking discussions about the staff and the general populace to either skype or a different forum. Like any government, they can access your more personal of conversations and so it is always best to move them outside their authority.  I don't doubt that the staff would only do it with the best intentions, but at the same time if I cannot trust my own real life government to not intrude, I am most certainly not going to trust civilians on the internet lol.

 

Although, I guess things just need to be reiterated sometimes. There are far better mediums for sexual conduct on the internet, and I would strongly advocate the use of those over this forum. 

[Fhaolan 4,483]

If there were a suspicion of foul play through the PM system, it'd be just as easy for a staff member themselves to file a report and then look over it in a PM. This serves good in the sense it gives the members security of having generally private messages that can only be reviewed with reason and would also allow a more full staff discussion as opposed to one person accessing the inbox and having the jurisdiction be left up to them.

Let me try to rephrase this, as I think I see where Ghostie is coming from. My interpretation is that it's a procedural issue, rather than a technical one.

 

In most western countries, the police can only search the private residences of a citizen if a warrant is issued. What I'm thinking Ghostie is asking for is that some similar form of paper trail is kept for viewing PMs, that if there is suspicion that there is 'bad things happening' in a PM (which has happened a lot recently, admittedly), that the staff opens a report on that suspicion before going into the PMs. The report being against the member, not necessarily on a specific PM, and acting like a warrant.

 

Although the rule here is to not discuss warnings or bannings with anyone other than the immediately affected parties, keeping paper trails like this isn't just bureaucratic nonsense. It keeps everyone honest, and allows for reviews if things go south.

 

However, this has nothing to do with true privacy. Let's be honest, the illusion of privacy on all forums is exactly that, an illusion. It is extremely rare for a forum software package that doesn't allow at least the tech administrator level to view so-called 'private messages'. All those messages are kept in plain text in the various databases. I've only run into one forum where PMs were encrypted in file storage, and even then the encryption key was available if you knew where to find it.

[SCS 7,537]

Let me try to rephrase this, as I think I see where Ghostie is coming from. My interpretation is that it's a procedural issue, rather than a technical one.

 

In most western countries, the police can only search the private residences of a citizen if a warrant is issued. What I'm thinking Ghostie is asking for is that some similar form of paper trail is kept for viewing PMs, that if there is suspicion that there is 'bad things happening' in a PM (which has happened a lot recently, admittedly), that the staff opens a report on that suspicion before going into the PMs. The report being against the member, not necessarily on a specific PM, and acting like a warrant.

 

Although the rule here is to not discuss warnings or bannings with anyone other than the immediately affected parties, keeping paper trails like this isn't just bureaucratic nonsense. It keeps everyone honest, and allows for reviews if things go south.

 

However, this has nothing to do with true privacy. Let's be honest, the illusion of privacy on all forums is exactly that, an illusion. It is extremely rare for a forum software package that doesn't allow at least the tech administrator level to view so-called 'private messages'. All those messages are kept in plain text in the various databases. I've only run into one forum where PMs were encrypted in file storage, and even then the encryption key was available if you knew where to find it.

 

The mod/admin staff does follow this general procedure when dealing with problems in personal messages.

[Jeric 46,851]

I am a father of two teenage daughters, and fears about online predators is something that I approach from the obvious bias. As unpopular and uncomfortable as this revelation is, it needed to be said. This is not a situation were the staff is discussing a threat of victimization - a concern that it may happen - as it has happened. Please do not lose sight of that fact and that the goal here should be to offer a safe environment to discuss a variety of topics without being afraid that you will become a victim of a predatory member. I would like to remind everyone that this very announcement will act as a preventative deterrent against sexual misconduct, bullying, and other highly inappropriate conduct.

 

Regarding the important aspect of communication privacy, SCS and Dawn Rider mentioned something extraordinary here, namely that there is a privacy policy. I am intimately familiar with the technology that drives MLP Forums, and the suggestion that no one have access to messaging content due to artificial triggers may sound fair and balanced, but it ignores a fundamental aspect of database management. For this site to exist someone will have access to what you type here. Every character you enter on the indexed internet is accessible by someone if there is a database that is called to show the text. I don't say this to scare you, merely to underscore what has already been stated. Your privacy is important to MLP Forum staff, but out of a desire for what is right. Your privacy is there because it is a fundamental belief that you need this ... by design of individuals with a conscious drive that you should have a right to be free from encroachment ... regardless of technological accessibility. It is only in the rare and threatening situations that they would need to break that code.

 

No decision made on these Forums is done in a vacuum. None.

 

Again, the focus here is in protecting you, the members of this board, from conduct that is harmful. The focus is not to violate your privacy.

[SCS 7,537]

As for the pm issue, I have long advocated taking discussions about the staff and the general populace to either skype or a different forum.

 

The fact that we allow people to criticize the staff publicly without getting in any sort of trouble should evidence the fact that we have no problem with this going on privately. People are free to express themselves here: the line is only drawn when it shifts from expression of opinion to personal attacks, abuse and harassment. 

 

Still, I understand where you're coming from. As true as it is that the staff doesn't use any invasive moderation tools without substantial prior discussion and a just cause, we can't prove that we abide by that. 

 

I promise that the staff has good intentions and only uses these tools for good and just purposes, but whether or not you believe that is your decision.

 

And, to alleviate these issues there are multiple layers of accountability structured into the staff. All staff -- including admins -- are monitored in some way and held accountable for their actions by different groups of people.

[cuteycindyhoney 13,307]

Let me try to rephrase this, as I think I see where Ghostie is coming from. My interpretation is that it's a procedural issue, rather than a technical one.

 

In most western countries, the police can only search the private residences of a citizen if a warrant is issued. What I'm thinking Ghostie is asking for is that some similar form of paper trail is kept for viewing PMs, that if there is suspicion that there is 'bad things happening' in a PM (which has happened a lot recently, admittedly), that the staff opens a report on that suspicion before going into the PMs. The report being against the member, not necessarily on a specific PM, and acting like a warrant.

 

 

The analogy, while good, breaks down on a higher level. Unlike the residence of a citizen, this forum is more like a hotel. The management of the hotel has the right to inspect all rooms to insure that everything is being run above board. If a problem is found, the "resident" of that room can be booted out.

[Leonard Smix 421]

Why was this a thing to being with...? I don't.... nevermind.

[boiteporte 591]

Of course this would be allowed. This is an American Forum after all. In the country where I come from, the law strictly forbids PM viewing on forums. No matter how illegal they are, administrators have no right to view them.

 

If members feel  they are being threatened by PMs (and I mean in real life), they usually go directly to the Police and this has happened in the past.

Concerning the matter at hand, I obviously do not agree with those practices (as you would probably already have noticed).

 

Basically, no matter how horrible they are, they should remain private. Of course, laws are different in different countries, so..... I have nothing else to say, really.

Except from the fact, that I will probably stop using PMs.

[M'aiq the Liar 5,804]

 

The fact that we allow people to criticize the staff publicly without getting in any sort of trouble should evidence the fact that we have no problem with this going on privately. People are free to express themselves here: the line is only drawn when it shifts from expression of opinion to personal attacks, abuse and harassment. 

 

Still, I understand where you're coming from. As true as it is that the staff doesn't use any invasive moderation tools without substantial prior discussion and a just cause, we can't prove that we abide by that. 

 

I promise that the staff has good intentions and only uses these tools for good and just purposes, but whether or not you believe that is your decision.

 

And, to alleviate these issues there are multiple layers of accountability structured into the staff. All staff -- including admins -- are monitored in some way and held accountable for their actions by different groups of people.

But, like any group of physically unknown people running a site on the internet those tools can easily be used for purposes that, your same line of thought was put forth by the Reddit administration and moderation staff, and one that has now be publicly outed for corruption amongst its staff and suppression of any discussion relating to it. All it takes is some minor tweaks in what the staff considers harassment or  "flame baiting" and you can easily dismiss any issues as simply being personal attacks.

 

So while I do not doubt you attempt at all times to operate with the best of intentions, the road to hell is oft paved with them, and as such I simply advocate the discussion of more sensitive to better grounds for such talk.

[long gone 8,929]

 

 

Of course this would be allowed. This is an American Forum after all. In the country where I come from, the law strictly forbids PM viewing on forums. No matter how illegal they are, administrators have no right to view them.

 This forum is owned by a Canadian.