AUP Addition

[Dave in Green]

Captain Kangaroo made some good points in this post:CK PostAt the very least, I think that consideration should be given to adding in the AUP that negative use of the PM feature on ZN.O will not be tolerated in order to clarify this issue for all forum members. I think this might help avoid future problems in this area for those who may not have read CK's post.

[Zip Watcher]

See rule 8.

[Dave in Green]

On some forums, members are encouraged to take testy disagreements "off line," which many interpret as PMs.I just thought it might help avoid potential future misinterpretations of the forum rules to make it clear that it's NOT OK to take a public disagreement "off line" and continue it one-to-one via PMs on ZN.o.If you prefer staying with broad rules that require interpretation from time to time, that's fine with me.

[Captain Kangaroo]

On some forums, members are encouraged to take testy disagreements "off line," which many interpret as PMs.I just thought it might help avoid potential future misinterpretations of the forum rules to make it clear that it's NOT OK to take a public disagreement "off line" and continue it one-to-one via PMs on ZN.o.If you prefer staying with broad rules that require interpretation from time to time, that's fine with me.

It is very simple:If two people agree to take their beef off-board, I'm fine with it. It's invisible to me, and causes me no work.If one guy opens his PM box and finds he's being threatened by a random member, it becomes a problem.

[Dave in Green]

Got it, CK. Very sensible way to look at it. Everyone needs to be aware not to send a PM that could be interpreted as threatening even if it's not intended to be. Thinking twice before sending a PM is as important as thinking twice before posting publicly. A good lesson for all of us.