comments about mods, all of whom should read.

dbnavan

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=298296



I would like to refer to the above thread, In it i asked about a website, which I felt was illigitimate. And asked for others opinions before i gave my credit card details, i got a number of replies agreeing with my hunch. and then a mod came along, closed it and snipped the url which i had posted. Closing it I can agree with, as it it was all round feeling that the site i was asking about was a fake, however i feel it should have remained posted as a warning to others to steer clear now a thread remains warning people about a fake website but doesnt name it. Also i feel a private messege to me would have been appreciated upon closing.

Also....while i am ranting, I have seen 2 boards this morning where people got bans which 'may' have been a little harsh, depending how its viewed where the mod warns people that they will be banned if the try to defend the banned person, if a msg is posted everyone has a right to comment and disagree once it is done respectfully IMO, just because mod's are mod's does not mean they are always and does not place them above everyone, just means they are respected members here for the members and to control with common sense and respect. I think this can be overlooked at times.

Beruthiel

dbnavan wrote:

however i feel it should have remained posted as a warning to others to steer clear now a thread remains warning people about a fake website but doesnt name it

and leave boards open to legal proceedings?

Also i feel a private messege to me would have been appreciated upon closing

did you send the mod in question a PM instead of posting this thread here?

where the mod warns people that they will be banned if the try to defend the banned person

thats normal as it will only drag the thread off topic, take it to PM if you have a problem

dbnavan

Beruthiel wrote:

and leave boards open to legal proceedings?

If you warn someone about a scam what is illegal about that??? I wasnt advertising about it. If that was the case, newspapers and media wouldnt survive they would be sued every day of the week. That doesnt stand up as far as I am concerned.

Beruthiel wrote:

did you send the mod in question a PM instead of posting this thread here?

yes, awaiting reply

Beruthiel wrote:

thats normal as it will only drag the thread off topic, take it to PM if you have a problem

Good argument maybe it could be worded something like "disagrements must be by pm only", other way gives impression that mods cant be contradicted.

WhiteWashMan

dbnavan wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=298296



I would like to refer to the above thread, In it i asked about a website, which I felt was illigitimate. And asked for others opinions before i gave my credit card details, i got a number of replies agreeing with my hunch. and then a mod came along, closed it and snipped the url which i had posted. Closing it I can agree with, as it it was all round feeling that the site i was asking about was a fake, however i feel it should have remained posted as a warning to others to steer clear now a thread remains warning people about a fake website but doesnt name it. Also i feel a private messege to me would have been appreciated upon closing.

Also....while i am ranting, I have seen 2 boards this morning where people got bans which 'may' have been a little harsh, depending how its viewed where the mod warns people that they will be banned if the try to defend the banned person, if a msg is posted everyone has a right to comment and disagree once it is done respectfully IMO, just because mod's are mod's does not mean they are always and does not place them above everyone, just means they are respected members here for the members and to control with common sense and respect. I think this can be overlooked at times.

youre absolautely correct.

however, it works most of the time for most of the people,and since you havent suggested anything that may be more useful, then thanks for your opinion.

Hobbes

Don't mind WWMan he didn't have his pint of fresh virgins blood this morning.

Mods have lives too. Just because you haven't gotten a reply to a PM doesn't mean you won't.

If a mod warns someone then it is generally up to the person to stop what they are doing. As mentioned it pulls the thread off topic and your left with a tread of tripe that (normally) the mod has to read through.

and leave boards open to legal proceedings?

This I am not sure about. In what sense Bru? I guess if we sent people there and it was a scam we get in trouble? We have had other treads before showing links to scam sites . However I guess in these instances they are generally documented. I've been trying to keep a list of [wiki]Scams[/wiki] on the biki. The OP thread seems to have lost its context.

You also posted in the Television forum, which tbh even with the missing link seemed to suggest it had nothing to do with the forum.

Talliesin

dbnavan wrote:

Also....while i am ranting, I have seen 2 boards this morning where people got bans which 'may' have been a little harsh, depending how its viewed where the mod warns people that they will be banned if the try to defend the banned person, if a msg is posted everyone has a right to comment and disagree once it is done respectfully IMO

I've seen plenty of interesting threads ruined because they turned into a debate on a moderator action. I quite often state that I won't allow any further discussion on such a matter in a thread, though I do generally point out that such discussion would be on topic here in the feedback forum.

stevenmu

dbnavan wrote:

If you warn someone about a scam what is illegal about that??? I wasnt advertising about it. If that was the case, newspapers and media wouldnt survive they would be sued every day of the week. That doesnt stand up as far as I am concerned.

Newspapers do regularly get sued (despite having better "freedom of speech" protection than boards). They have expensive teams of lawyers to protect themselves, and still lose regularly despite that. They can afford it because they charge you much more than boards does, and they make a lot more out of advertising.

dbnavan

stevenmu wrote:

Newspapers do regularly get sued (despite having better "freedom of speech" protection than boards). They have expensive teams of lawyers to protect themselves, and still lose regularly despite that. They can afford it because they charge you much more than boards does, and they make a lot more out of advertising.

you have me on that one, still dont think boards.ie would have a case to answer as hobbes pointed out. A member posted a link questioning it, boards.ie are in now way advertising it or saying yay or nay over it, i dont believe boards.ie would have any worries over it

stevenmu

I'm not a lawyer myself, but several people who seem to know what they're talking about have posted up before that boards.ie is held accountable for all the posts. If someone says on boards that a site is a scam, and that site decides to sue (which is unlikely but still possible), then boards.ie is held liable for the post.

Altough I do think I remember hearing about a case where it was found that a bulletin board couldn't be guilty of libel as long as it allowed both sides express there views/opinions, I've never been able to find any more on it so it could easily have been in some other country.

Hobbes

stevenmu wrote:

Altough I do think I remember hearing about a case where it was found that a bulletin board couldn't be guilty of libel as long as it allowed both sides express there views/opinions, I've never been able to find any more on it so it could easily have been in some other country.

Believe that was a UK case afair. But your correct boards.ie is not protected by common carrier laws (I'm sure admins will pipe up on this as they know waaay more then me in regards to this).

Tar.Aldarion

Please pipe up.I tried looking at the laws regarding this for ages back when the michael jackson threads were around but it was quite hazy.

Talliesin

That's because the law is hazy. We need to wait until some poor bastard gets sued over each of the various possible scenarios and case-law gets formed. We'd rather not be that poor bastard.

Tar.Aldarion

I recall somebody that owns a forum like here posted that he went and got legal advice and was told that he would be fine.
It really depends on each specific case but i don't think there would be much of a case for most things that could be questioned,as long as it was the two opposite sides of an arguement giving opinions and not just plain old slander.Even then i don't know how strong the case would be.Lets just wait for whatever poor bastard to take the brunt.

Talliesin

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I recall somebody that owns a forum like here posted that he went and got legal advice and was told that he would be fine.

DeVore gives a very good description of the colour the lawyers' faces turned when recounting his seeking similar advice. One of his best-told anecdotes that one.

Tar.Aldarion

heh i can imagine some good responses...

i think i will just ask my sis and see if she can earn all those little letters after her name

stevenmu

Hobbes wrote:

Believe that was a UK case afair.

Could very well have been, I've tried to find it a few times searching Irish sites with no luck.

DeVore

Common sense would say that Boards is blameless, unfortunately commonsense has very little to do with the Law.

"The chilling effect of Ireland's defamation laws reach into all forms of written expression, even into ancillary industries. Publishers have books fully "lawyered." Distribution systems and major news agents and newspaper and magazine shops have refused to stock some publications for fear of libel, because in a defamation case a plaintiff can go after the writer, the editor, the publisher, printer, distributor and seller of the offending material."
From: http://www.cpj.org/attacks96/sreports/ire.html

There are plenty of other documents on the web explaining the situation here.

Theres some light at the end of the tunnel. The Law Reform Commission have been recommending *some* alterations to the laws here and they are considered to be likely to be in contravention of the EU Charter of Human Rights and if someone takes the case all the way to the supreme court in Strasbourg, we might get a very fast resolution to the problem!

Finally, I dont want boards to become a platform whereby (genuinely or mischieviously) people decry what THEY perceive to be hoaxes or scams. Its not what I want to do with the site and its dangerous legally. You are the thin end of that wedge I'm afraid, sorry but its a pandora's box I dont want to open.

DeV.

dawballz

DeVore wrote:

Common sense would say that Boards is blameless, unfortunately commonsense has very little to do with the Law.

"The chilling effect of Ireland's defamation laws reach into all forms of written expression, even into ancillary industries. Publishers have books fully "lawyered." Distribution systems and major news agents and newspaper and magazine shops have refused to stock some publications for fear of libel, because in a defamation case a plaintiff can go after the writer, the editor, the publisher, printer, distributor and seller of the offending material."
From: http://www.cpj.org/attacks96/sreports/ire.html

There are plenty of other documents on the web explaining the situation here.

Theres some light at the end of the tunnel. The Law Reform Commission have been recommending *some* alterations to the laws here and they are considered to be likely to be in contravention of the EU Charter of Human Rights and if someone takes the case all the way to the supreme court in Strasbourg, we might get a very fast resolution to the problem!

Finally, I dont want boards to become a platform whereby (genuinely or mischieviously) people decry what THEY perceive to be hoaxes or scams. Its not what I want to do with the site and its dangerous legally. You are the thin end of that wedge I'm afraid, sorry but its a pandora's box I dont want to open.

DeV.

Could all this be applied in the For Sale forum regarding "Thread Spoilers" ?
Seems like the same principle.

CuLT

Most "thread spoiling" is of a non-accusitory nature; ie, "spoilers" generally claim that items can be obtained cheaper somewhere rather than openly accusing the seller of attempting to scam (which may actually be libel under current Irish law, but that's purely speculation on my part).

And usually outright claims of scamming are met with either the seller or the accusor facing a banning.

sceptre would know more about the technicalities of such things, but I presume this was looked into upon formation of the FS forums, hence why thread spoiling is taken very seriously.

DonkeyStyle \o/

DeVore wrote:

Common sense would say that Boards is blameless

Am I having deja vu, or did you post this before word-for-word?

ecksor

Certainly not word for word anyway.

amp

dbnavan wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=298296



I would like to refer to the above thread, In it i asked about a website, which I felt was illigitimate. And asked for others opinions before i gave my credit card details, i got a number of replies agreeing with my hunch. and then a mod came along, closed it and snipped the url which i had posted. Closing it I can agree with, as it it was all round feeling that the site i was asking about was a fake, however i feel it should have remained posted as a warning to others to steer clear now a thread remains warning people about a fake website but doesnt name it. Also i feel a private messege to me would have been appreciated upon closing.

Also....while i am ranting, I have seen 2 boards this morning where people got bans which 'may' have been a little harsh, depending how its viewed where the mod warns people that they will be banned if the try to defend the banned person, if a msg is posted everyone has a right to comment and disagree once it is done respectfully IMO, just because mod's are mod's does not mean they are always and does not place them above everyone, just means they are respected members here for the members and to control with common sense and respect. I think this can be overlooked at times.

I suspect you of being a communist hell bent on overthrowing our glorious Benevelont Dictorship! Release the flying monkeys!

madrab

DeVore wrote:

Finally, I dont want boards to become a platform whereby (genuinely or mischieviously) people decry what THEY perceive to be hoaxes or scams. Its not what I want to do with the site and its dangerous legally. You are the thin end of that wedge I'm afraid, sorry but its a pandora's box I dont want to open.

DeV.

so can we ask if a site is genuine or not? or if anyone has used it before?

dawballz

So what about threads about "Nigerian Scammers" which have appeared on AH and computers.. possibly Online Buying/Auctions too..
Are they ok?

Tar.Aldarion

I'm sure the nigerian prince has too much money and too many people to ask for help to have the time to sue boards

Evil Phil

Hey! Mr Mwabo Umbumbay of the Nigerian National Petrolium Company is a legitimate business man.

Tar.Aldarion

Yes i am,Pm me for details on how you are going to give me money.

CuLT

dawballz wrote:

So what about threads about "Nigerian Scammers" which have appeared on AH and computers.. possibly Online Buying/Auctions too..
Are they ok?

Hmm, I don't browse AH or read the Online Buying forum much... I've never seen an obviously "Nigerian Scammer" thread on any of the forums I read or moderate.

DonkeyStyle \o/

CuLT wrote:

I've never seen an obviously "Nigerian Scammer" thread on any of the forums I read or moderate.

I saw that thread (can't remember which board it was on), and it was so obviously a 419 scam, and AFAICR the OP was told as much... anyone who reads 419eater should be able to smell one of these a mile away.

DeVore

We use a little thing called "judgement" to differentiate the two very obviously different cases.

I hate arguements that descend into "but who decides if A or B or waaah <insert pedantic, left-obsessed absurdly reductionist pc-bollox arguement here about how we have to contort ourselves to protect the rights of the average nigerian scammer etc>"
My answer to that kind of argument is very short and simple. "I do."

DeV.