This analogy does appear to depend on a pond difference. In UK law, being "sealed" means being formally affixed with a seal. In the US, it appears that "sealed mail" is a specific category of post that is protected from inspection.
You don’t put a letter in an envelope, activate glue on the flap of that envelope and then close (aka “seal”) the envelope shut so that it can only be opened by tearing or cutting it in the UK? That’s all that’s meant by “sealed mail.”
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39 - Postal Service, 233 Inspection Service Authority, 233.3 Mail Covers, Definitions:
(3) Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express; USPS Ground AdvantageTM—Retail Outbound International Expedited Services (Priority Mail Express International; as well as Global Express Guaranteed items containing only documents); Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service; International Priority Airmail, except M-bags; International Surface Air Lift, except M-bags; Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International; Global Bulk Economy Contracts, except M-bags; and International Transit Mail.
A number of you seem to be seeing a particular distinction between "private" and "confidential" that eludes me. Maybe there are pond differences concerning the expectation of privacy in personal communication.
I think it's a social convention. I could imagine it being different across various American cultures, let alone different countries.
To look at it another way, I think most cultures have these categories but draw the lines differently: There's a difference between a faux pas, an offense, and a crime.
I would argue the opposite; the backroom is more contained and shared with fewer people. The purpose of those discussion would be to provide W.C. with guidance as to how they could proceed with their concern.
Going back to the original post. I am applying Matthew 18 to the reported exchange
Here’s a clean, 200‑word response focused **only on Matthew 18** and grounded in the actual dynamics of the Whimsical Christian thread (citing the tab you shared [forums.shipoffools.com](https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/6882/whimsical-christian)). It explains *where the Matthew 18 process broke down* without attacking anyone.
Matthew 18 gives a clear three‑step process for handling a situation where you believe someone has wronged you: first address it privately, then involve one or two others, and only then bring it to the wider community. What happened here only loosely resembled that pattern, and that’s part of why everything went sideways.
Whimsical Christian’s PM wasn’t framed as “you sinned against me” or “your post harmed me.” It was a procedural question: *was that a personal attack?* That’s not Matthew 18’s first step; it’s an attempt to understand the rules. And procedural questions on the Ship belong with Hosts or in the Styx, not in private exchanges between two posters who don’t know each other well.
On the other side, Dafyd treated the PM as if it *were* a Matthew 18 step—an attempt to resolve a personal dispute privately—and responded by jumping straight to the “tell it to the church” stage. But Matthew 18’s second step is to involve one or two others, not the whole community.
So, the breakdown wasn’t malice. It was mismatched assumptions: one person thought she was quietly checking a boundary; the other thought she was being asked to adjudicate a personal conflict. Naming that mismatch seems more helpful than assigning blame.
.
@Gramps49 are *you* applying Matthew 18 or are you asking a sophisticated predictive text generator to do it? Directly feeding content from the ship to a LLM seems to me more problematic than disclosing a mundane PM.
I was working on two different messages: one dealing with what was written in the creedal thread and this thread. In both cases I did use AI only as an editorial feature. The body of the response is mine, AI just helped me to clean up the language.
Social Media uses "DM" -- direct message -- which to me carries the understanding that while a message may be sent 1-to-1, it's not bound by anything like "privacy" or "confidentiality." It's merely cut-out the general public for the purposes of that message.
ETA: And a resounding OF COURSE to the idea that nothing digital should ever be considered private or confidential. Soon, all one is going to have to do (if one can't do it already) is create the right prompt for an A.I. to write code that gives access to any PM or DM described.
My greatest concern with this public sharing was that in was done by someone who has the role of Host on the Ship.
But it wasn't just anything, it was a question regarding a possible personal attack. That seems to demand *more* transparency rather than less if it was a Host.
The concern was raised privately - why would anyone expect a Host who's received such a PM to respond by making it public?
My understanding is that Shipmates who have a concern are encouraged to either PM a Host or Admin or to start a thread in Styx. I further believe that it's up to the Shipmate who has a concern to decide whether to start a thread in Styx or contact a Host or Admin by PM. I don't recall it being normal practice for a Host who's received a PM from a Shipmate to respond by unilaterally starting a Styx thread about it.
As already noted, we can both think of good reasons for not continuing the exchange of PMs. (Whether the message amounted to "an active and angry Hell call" is not yet known to us.) But what still isn't clear to me is why you continue to think it was justified to make it public, instead of pursuing any of the non-public ways of dealing with it that you had at your disposal.
A question regarding hosting and personal attacks, especially from a host, is one that needs to be resolved in public.
What do you suggest? I contact another admin or host, without disclosing that I've received a PM, they contact the complainant, somehow without disclosing explicitly or implicitly that I contacted them behind the scenes?
Why on earth would you contact another Host or Admin about a PM you've received and *not* disclose that you've received a PM? As a Host, trying to deal with such a PM yourself, being a PM that calls your own conduct into question, strikes me as being a clear conflict of interest. I believe that established advice to Hosts and Admins is to recuse themselves from certain actions when they are personally involved.
It seems to me that backroom discussions are a necessary evil; and it certainly seems to me that if it's wrong to share a private message in public it's even more wrong to share it with the backroom.
Why? Are you saying that it's wrong for Hosts and Admins to discuss issues that are brought to their attention by PM?
This analogy does appear to depend on a pond difference. In UK law, being "sealed" means being formally affixed with a seal. In the US, it appears that "sealed mail" is a specific category of post that is protected from inspection.
You don’t put a letter in an envelope, activate glue on the flap of that envelope and then close (aka “seal”) the envelope shut so that it can only be opened by tearing or cutting it in the UK? That’s all that’s meant by “sealed mail.”
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39 - Postal Service, 233 Inspection Service Authority, 233.3 Mail Covers, Definitions:
(3) Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express; USPS Ground AdvantageTM—Retail Outbound International Expedited Services (Priority Mail Express International; as well as Global Express Guaranteed items containing only documents); Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service; International Priority Airmail, except M-bags; International Surface Air Lift, except M-bags; Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International; Global Bulk Economy Contracts, except M-bags; and International Transit Mail.
Do you really think I had all that in mind? Capital letters and all? C'mon. @Nick Tamen told you what "sealed mail" means in normal US speech, and in response you looked up postal regulations for a country foreign to you so you could make a pedantic point that isn't even a little bit germane to the argument. This is bullshit.
Social Media uses "DM" -- direct message -- which to me carries the understanding that while a message may be sent 1-to-1, it's not bound by anything like "privacy" or "confidentiality." It's merely cut-out the general public for the purposes of that message.
So @WhimsicalChristian pmd @Dafyd about his posting in Purgatory, wherein Dafyd was posting in his capacity as a shipmate. @WhimsicalChristian suggested the post constituted a personal attack. Possibly newish shipmate @WhimsicalChristian thought pm a host about queries meant any host, rather than the forum specific host.
@Dafyd referenced/described the pm in the OP of this thread, stating - essentially - it would be more appropriate to send this the relevant Host. And that such hosting normally happens in public and he would prefer that.
PMs are supposed to be covered by the 10 commandments. There is no fixed rule about disclosing pms anywhere that I can find (I have just skim read the hosts manual as well as the 10 commandments and FAQs) but it has long been considered poor form to do so without a good reason.
Which leaves the question, was this a good reason ?
Firstly, as far as we know, @Dafyd did not just copy and paste the pm into an op - he referenced its import. Later in the thread he posted:
I think it's entirely inappropriate to have a private messaged conversation with someone with whom one is having a personality clash, or where either or both parties think the other may be making personal attacks.
That is presumably his ‘good reason’. I don’t know what @WhimsicalChristian thinks about the situation.
I am inclined to agree with @Dafyd that a pm exchange situation is unlikely to be a good idea. But I also think just replying - please raise it with a Purgatory Host if you are concerned - and then leaving the pm thread might have been a better way of handling the situation (conversely contacting the correct host in the first place rather than the poster would also have been more appropriate.)
All in all, this leaves me feeling, a) this is all a bit of a an unfortunate situation with quite possibly both people trying to handle the situation in what they consider the right way b) we might need to clarify a consensus about pms onto the rolling policy update thread when we’ve reached one.
This analogy does appear to depend on a pond difference. In UK law, being "sealed" means being formally affixed with a seal. In the US, it appears that "sealed mail" is a specific category of post that is protected from inspection.
You don’t put a letter in an envelope, activate glue on the flap of that envelope and then close (aka “seal”) the envelope shut so that it can only be opened by tearing or cutting it in the UK? That’s all that’s meant by “sealed mail.”
Code of Federal Regulations…
Do you really think I had all that in mind? Capital letters and all? C'mon. Nick Tamen told you what "sealed mail" means in normal US speech, and in response you looked up postal regulations for a country foreign to you so you could make a pedantic point that isn't even a little bit germane to the argument. This is bullshit.
I don't know what you had in mind - that's why I asked. I'm still trying to understand the point of your analogy - in particular, what the significance is to you of receiving a letter that has been sealed.
In the UK, whether or not a letter is sealed is largely irrelevant (in contrast to just tucking the flap inside the envelope, for example) - it's who it's addressed to that matters, in relation to whether or not someone should open it and read it.
And whether or not the recipient is free to make the contents public depends on the intention and/or expectation of the sender, not the recipient. For example, the copyright of a creative work, including a personal letter, remains with the author. In the absence of any other information, all that a recipient of a letter can infer from receiving a letter addressed to them is that the author intended them to read it.
This analogy does appear to depend on a pond difference. In UK law, being "sealed" means being formally affixed with a seal. In the US, it appears that "sealed mail" is a specific category of post that is protected from inspection.
You don’t put a letter in an envelope, activate glue on the flap of that envelope and then close (aka “seal”) the envelope shut so that it can only be opened by tearing or cutting it in the UK? That’s all that’s meant by “sealed mail.”
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 39 - Postal Service, 233 Inspection Service Authority, 233.3 Mail Covers, Definitions:
(3) Sealed mail is mail that under postal laws and regulations is included within a class of mail maintained by the Postal Service for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express; USPS Ground AdvantageTM—Retail Outbound International Expedited Services (Priority Mail Express International; as well as Global Express Guaranteed items containing only documents); Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Package International Service; International Priority Airmail, except M-bags; International Surface Air Lift, except M-bags; Outbound Single-Piece First-Class Mail International; Global Bulk Economy Contracts, except M-bags; and International Transit Mail.
Oh good grief. I was talking about what the average American means in everyday speech by “sealed mail,” not a regulatory definition that I suspect the vast majority of Americans are unaware of.
But yeah, per that regulatory definition, “Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express . . . .” That covers most of the mail sent in the US.
And with the exception of postcards or advertising cards, it basically boils down to all letters you put in an envelope that is glued or taped shut.
For example if someone was to put a note on the windscreen of my car or in my letterbox accusing me of doing something they don't like (for example parking on a public road they wrongly assume is their personal property) I think it is absolutely reasonable to share it with other neighbours and if it is threatening even the police.
Of course it is. It would also be reasonable to show it to someone who can give you legal advice. But none of those things are the same as making it public.
It's the making it public that's the issue here, not the sharing of the contents of a message with a number of individuals.
Social Media uses "DM" -- direct message -- which to me carries the understanding that while a message may be sent 1-to-1, it's not bound by anything like "privacy" or "confidentiality." It's merely cut-out the general public for the purposes of that message.
Whether it's a PM or a DM, it's still not public. In the case of something that's not public, it's the person who makes it public that bears the responsibility for making it public (and potentially stands to be sanctioned or sued or whatever for doing so).
ETA: And a resounding OF COURSE to the idea that nothing digital should ever be considered private or confidential. Soon, all one is going to have to do (if one can't do it already) is create the right prompt for an A.I. to write code that gives access to any PM or DM described.
Whatever the technical reality, the laws of our lands still work on the basis that there is such a thing as privacy and confidentiality, and that this applies in the online digital world as much as in the offline analogue world.
To be clear, if you receive an angry unpleasant anonymous letter you would never share it "in public" in a local newspaper, on a social media site or anywhere else?
I think that's a minority position. A person behaving in a socially unpleasant way is usually considered not to have any expectation of privacy. Socially shaming a person who does this by publicising their poisoned pen letter has been normal behaviour for hundreds of years.
Further to pm conversation with Whimiscalchristian - that she has told be she is ok for me to reference here - she feels the issue between her and Dafyd is resolved and this thread could be closed.
I am therefore going to close this thread.
However, I will set up another to discuss the status of pms without reference to specific individuals - so as a community we can attempt to reach and record a consensus.
Comments
I think it's a social convention. I could imagine it being different across various American cultures, let alone different countries.
To look at it another way, I think most cultures have these categories but draw the lines differently: There's a difference between a faux pas, an offense, and a crime.
Going back to the original post. I am applying Matthew 18 to the reported exchange
Here’s a clean, 200‑word response focused **only on Matthew 18** and grounded in the actual dynamics of the Whimsical Christian thread (citing the tab you shared [forums.shipoffools.com](https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/6882/whimsical-christian)). It explains *where the Matthew 18 process broke down* without attacking anyone.
Matthew 18 gives a clear three‑step process for handling a situation where you believe someone has wronged you: first address it privately, then involve one or two others, and only then bring it to the wider community. What happened here only loosely resembled that pattern, and that’s part of why everything went sideways.
Whimsical Christian’s PM wasn’t framed as “you sinned against me” or “your post harmed me.” It was a procedural question: *was that a personal attack?* That’s not Matthew 18’s first step; it’s an attempt to understand the rules. And procedural questions on the Ship belong with Hosts or in the Styx, not in private exchanges between two posters who don’t know each other well.
On the other side, Dafyd treated the PM as if it *were* a Matthew 18 step—an attempt to resolve a personal dispute privately—and responded by jumping straight to the “tell it to the church” stage. But Matthew 18’s second step is to involve one or two others, not the whole community.
So, the breakdown wasn’t malice. It was mismatched assumptions: one person thought she was quietly checking a boundary; the other thought she was being asked to adjudicate a personal conflict. Naming that mismatch seems more helpful than assigning blame.
.
ETA: And a resounding OF COURSE to the idea that nothing digital should ever be considered private or confidential. Soon, all one is going to have to do (if one can't do it already) is create the right prompt for an A.I. to write code that gives access to any PM or DM described.
My understanding is that Shipmates who have a concern are encouraged to either PM a Host or Admin or to start a thread in Styx. I further believe that it's up to the Shipmate who has a concern to decide whether to start a thread in Styx or contact a Host or Admin by PM. I don't recall it being normal practice for a Host who's received a PM from a Shipmate to respond by unilaterally starting a Styx thread about it.
Why on earth would you contact another Host or Admin about a PM you've received and *not* disclose that you've received a PM? As a Host, trying to deal with such a PM yourself, being a PM that calls your own conduct into question, strikes me as being a clear conflict of interest. I believe that established advice to Hosts and Admins is to recuse themselves from certain actions when they are personally involved.
Why? Are you saying that it's wrong for Hosts and Admins to discuss issues that are brought to their attention by PM?
Do you really think I had all that in mind? Capital letters and all? C'mon. @Nick Tamen told you what "sealed mail" means in normal US speech, and in response you looked up postal regulations for a country foreign to you so you could make a pedantic point that isn't even a little bit germane to the argument. This is bullshit.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
@Dafyd referenced/described the pm in the OP of this thread, stating - essentially - it would be more appropriate to send this the relevant Host. And that such hosting normally happens in public and he would prefer that.
PMs are supposed to be covered by the 10 commandments. There is no fixed rule about disclosing pms anywhere that I can find (I have just skim read the hosts manual as well as the 10 commandments and FAQs) but it has long been considered poor form to do so without a good reason.
Which leaves the question, was this a good reason ?
Firstly, as far as we know, @Dafyd did not just copy and paste the pm into an op - he referenced its import. Later in the thread he posted:
That is presumably his ‘good reason’. I don’t know what @WhimsicalChristian thinks about the situation.
I am inclined to agree with @Dafyd that a pm exchange situation is unlikely to be a good idea. But I also think just replying - please raise it with a Purgatory Host if you are concerned - and then leaving the pm thread might have been a better way of handling the situation (conversely contacting the correct host in the first place rather than the poster would also have been more appropriate.)
All in all, this leaves me feeling, a) this is all a bit of a an unfortunate situation with quite possibly both people trying to handle the situation in what they consider the right way b) we might need to clarify a consensus about pms onto the rolling policy update thread when we’ve reached one.
In the UK, whether or not a letter is sealed is largely irrelevant (in contrast to just tucking the flap inside the envelope, for example) - it's who it's addressed to that matters, in relation to whether or not someone should open it and read it.
And whether or not the recipient is free to make the contents public depends on the intention and/or expectation of the sender, not the recipient. For example, the copyright of a creative work, including a personal letter, remains with the author. In the absence of any other information, all that a recipient of a letter can infer from receiving a letter addressed to them is that the author intended them to read it.
But yeah, per that regulatory definition, “Sealed mail includes: First-Class Mail; Priority Mail; Priority Mail Express . . . .” That covers most of the mail sent in the US.
And with the exception of postcards or advertising cards, it basically boils down to all letters you put in an envelope that is glued or taped shut.
Of course it is. It would also be reasonable to show it to someone who can give you legal advice. But none of those things are the same as making it public.
It's the making it public that's the issue here, not the sharing of the contents of a message with a number of individuals.
Whether it's a PM or a DM, it's still not public. In the case of something that's not public, it's the person who makes it public that bears the responsibility for making it public (and potentially stands to be sanctioned or sued or whatever for doing so).
Whatever the technical reality, the laws of our lands still work on the basis that there is such a thing as privacy and confidentiality, and that this applies in the online digital world as much as in the offline analogue world.
Post-quantum encryption, if you want to future-proof it. It's simpler to work on the basis that there are no more secrets. Share and enjoy!
I think that's a minority position. A person behaving in a socially unpleasant way is usually considered not to have any expectation of privacy. Socially shaming a person who does this by publicising their poisoned pen letter has been normal behaviour for hundreds of years.
I am therefore going to close this thread.
However, I will set up another to discuss the status of pms without reference to specific individuals - so as a community we can attempt to reach and record a consensus.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting