Policy re Criticism of Vendors on IceInSpace Forum

[iceman]

All,

Due to a few recent incidents, it has been necessary to implement a new policy regarding criticism of vendors on IceInSpace. The policy is outlined below, and will be added to the IceInSpace Terms of Service (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/?tos) in the next few days when I get more time.

-------------------------
Disputes regarding vendors and service regarding their products should be addressed elsewhere, and not on the IceInSpace forum.

We very much want to encourage people in the pursuit of their love of astronomy. We do not want IceInSpace inadvertently to become a platform for individuals to air their personal grievances. In this regard, it is unfair that the hosts and moderators of the forum should be brought into disputes that have nothing to do with them as individuals, and we have therefore decided that we would rather stand well clear of such debates, and focus instead on the positive aspects of amateur astronomy.

We trust our members will understand that we are not attempting to restrict freedom of expression in taking this position, but rather to provide as positive a contribution as we can to the development of amateur astronomy in Australasia.

If a member has a concern about a vendor or their product, they are encouraged to contact that vendor directly to address their concerns and seek resolution with the party concerned. They are also, of course, always free to discuss their grievances with their friends and family at any other time.

As a result, if anyone initiates a thread or posts a comment critical of a vendor, the moderators have been instructed to lock and/or delete same. Such action does not reflect any opinion on the part of the hosts or moderators regarding the contents of such threads or posts. We trust that members will understand when we have to make a judgment call when things are perhaps marginal, and that no offence will be taken when such action is taken.

If a member is unsure whether a thread or post they are considering making is in breach of this policy, it is probably best to err on the side of not posting. A moderator can always be consulted if you would like any more guidance on this issue.

If a vendor or member is concerned by the contents of a thread, they are encouraged to contact one of the moderators as soon as possible (use the red X "report bad post" button) so that appropriate action can be taken in accordance with this policy.
-------------------------

I appreciate your understanding.

[jjjnettie]

Good onya Mike.

[leon]

Yep I agree 100% Mike

Leon

[Kal]

I understand Mike, and to be honest, I don't see this as a bad thing. A few years ago another Australian forum that I'm a long time member of (OCAU (http://www.overclockers.com.au/)) shut down for a couple of months after a vendor initiated legal action against the forum owner after a member posted a poor vendor verdict. When the forums came back it was without vendor verdict in order to protect itself from similar incidents.

I would hate to see IIS forced to be taken down due to legal action, hence I support this decision.

[turbo_pascale]

Not that I don't understand the reasoning for this, but where will the balance be? Plenty of posts about the good instances of service, but none about when things go wrong?

Can you say, "don't buy from X, as I have found Y to be of better service?".

I am constantly amazed that we are becoming as litigious as our US cousins. Where is the Australian ethos of telling it how it is?

I'm not arguing against this policy, I totally understand the need for it to be here based on recent events, but can't help thinking that you're putting yourself in a harder position by continually attempting to moderate/regulate content.

Turbo

[Louwai]

I agree with Turbo. I'm not aware of the incedent which prompted this action (please point me to it so I can make my own judgement), but I do believe that everyone should be able to state their position.

I personally take a lot of advice from members on this forum. If those members are going to be restricted in what they can say then, really, what is the use of the forum. I have often asked for advice on what to buy & the best place to buy it.

If this is the position the moderators are taking, then I think that ANY discussion regarding vendors should be removed. If this is being done to protect the moderators from possible litigation (which I don't blame them for) from vendors who don't like any bad publicity, then I think there should be NO publicity / discussion at all regarding vendors. Good or bad.

It needs to be a level playing field. The vendors can't have it both ways.

Bryan

[Outbackmanyep]

If we want IceInSpace to continue to benefit amateur astronomers and general public alike then whatever changes are necessary i'm all for it!


:thumbsup:

[Omaroo]

Vendor "bashing", as such, is unwarranted, terrible and uncalled-for - but I suppose it's all a matter of degree. Where do you draw the line between "attack" and "complaint"? This is a DISCUSSION forum - a place where people come to discuss their hobby and its supporting products. It can't all be "nice" I don't think - as much as everyone would just love it to be. I have to say that discussion revolves around a pivotal argument - which has both an affirmative and negative side to it. In not being "allowed" to air a negative thought, are we constricting the very nature of a forum? I believe so. There needs to be a way to say what you need to but in a moderated fashion, for which we have just such people to keep it fair. Guys - you can't run a forum and only ever see positive opinions on vendors because I think you are removing the very reason why people use these forums - to empower their decision making processes. Keep it fair, yes - but please don't stifle it. If you want to run a forum you have to expect disagreement and dissent from time to time. Keep it under control and you'll be doing everyone who comes here a great service. Again - it's all a matter of degree, and that degree must be dynamically monitored per post - again, that's why there are helpers called moderators.

I understand the plausible threat of legality, but if a complaint against a vendor (who earn their very living by me and you spending our hard-earned with them) is legitimate and can be supported without making false claims then it should be able to be heard. This forum should, in my opinion attempt to protect its users from unscrupulous vendors if they prove to be that. If the complaint is not justifed then it must be either withdrawn or apologised for. It's a difficult thing to manage, but I sincerely think that you have to provide this service if this forum is to be of use to the target audience. You can't have the good without the occasional bad. If I can't come here to hear an opinion on the performance of a product or the people selling that product, then all it becomes is a less effective place to visit.

Here I go - rocking the boat again. :lol: The very real need for advertising revenue here could sometimes negate the impartiality aspect I suspect. It's a very hard balancing act, but one you've chosen to partake in.

On the flip side - I am yet to think of a complaint about ANY vendor usually mentioned here on the forum that I've dealt with. They've all been exceptionally good in comparison to some I've dealt with in other industry circles.

[matt]

This is gonna be a hot one!:lol:

[Lee]

I'd prefer to see a new sub-forum, where grieved punters and vendors duke it out while we the jury watch :P
The vendors are far too precious now - some wouldn't get slammed if they gave good service, answered emails, sent things promptly etc.

I'll play by whatever rules are set, but hope we don't end up as militant as cloudynights are at times....

[spacezebra]

Hi Mike

All I can say is allow healthy debate "good or bad". Maybe people airing issues about a paricular vendor in a forum atmosphere, should also be prepared to state that they have followed the issue up with the vendor directly.

And equally so a Vendor should be given the opportunity to rebuttle a comment or concern.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers Petra

[citivolus]

I doubt that a thread is likely to be locked at the merest mention of "I had a bad experience with that shop one time", but a thread which is started with the express intention of bashing a vendor is not likely to live for very long. The policy is there to protect the forum, not to dominate it.

There have been a few threads in specific in the last two months that I think that this policy is aimed at. Those threads did not serve a real use to the community, nor did they leave anyone with a good taste in their mouth. They were approached poorly, with the intent of using the forum as a platform to gain leverage against the entity in question. That type of posting has no place on a public forum, in my personal opinion. There are government sanctioned channels for handling that type of thing.

Eric

[Ric]

I fully understand your position Mike and will abide with the umpires decision as they say.

On the other hand if vendors are not doing the right thing by their customers and getting away with it without fear of being found out, how many other customers will be burned as well.

Constructive criticism is a good thing, derogatory comments are not.

Cheers

[GTB_an_Owl]

somebody once said to me

"if you can't say something good about a person - don't say anything at all"

words of wisdom me thinks

geoff

[Kal]

I agree completely, but people need to understand that lawyers will consider this forum a privately owned business with a Michael A Salway (http://whois.domaintools.com/iceinspace.com.au) as the owner, hence he is legally responsible for every post on this forum.

Also, Australia does not have freedom of speech (http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/Pubs/RN/2001-02/02rn42.htm) written in it's constitution, unlike the United States of America.

[Omaroo]

LOL! .. with all due respect Geoff - you're a vendor! :rofl:(One of the better ones, I might add! :) )

[Omaroo]

Yes, it is. Going into business (which is what this venture is in the eyes of the law) is a tricky thing - it becomes a balance between usefulness and self-protection. I used to host and run forums myself, and got out ages ago because of the very reasons discussed in this post so far. It's a real PITA to host a public meeting place these days - so my hat off to you Mike.

One thing - I believe that it's a common misconception to believe Australia is becoming as litigious as the USA - we've now far exceeded them at this practice.

[GTB_an_Owl]

yes i was going to add that

but that would have started me off on a rant about people who don't resolve their problems with the vendor's directly - open their mouths and put in jeopardy all those nice astro goodies we all expect to win at our star parties

geoff

[Omaroo]

Just having a crack Geoff :P

You're so right though. People SHOULD do it off air - except for when they legitimately feel that they've been summarily ignored by a vendor and need the advice of fellow users to be able to judge their next actions by. Rare cases one would hope, and certainly open to severe moderation.

[Zuts]

I'm sorry, but i think this is a bad policy. What is the point of having moderators, let them do their job and if things start to get out of hand then by all means attempt to moderate.

Again i am sorry, but i believe in free speech and the right of every individual to tell the truth as they see it.

I think it is very unfortunate that a few badly moderated threads, which i must admit i never saw (but they must have been bad to result in this) have caused this new policy.

I still think it is a great forum and am not having a go at anyone in particular, i am just stating my opinion and my sadness that it has all come to this.

Regards Paul

[Stephen65]

I can understand a policy that specific disputes with vendors should be dealt with directly between customer and vendor, but this blanket ban on all comments that are in any way critical of a vendor is a great shame, CN does not go to this extent and they also have vendor sponsors. Sadly this will make these forums less useful than they could have been.

[GTB_an_Owl]

I knew that Chris :lol:

now what was that other saying - oh yes

"you will catch more flies with Sugar than you will with Vinegar"

geoff

[mcross]

I'm a big believer in going to the person/business to let them know what problems you are having and give them an opportunity to fix it...
It is disappointing when you do this and you do not feel that you are being heard or your problem is being resolved... But, as mentioned, there are other avenues to pursue this - avenues that may be more fruitful to you in the long run..
As I understand it, the policy is about direct criticism of vendors. This (to me) does not mean that people cannot ask for recommendations of vendors from other members who have had positive experiences (Yes? No?)
Cheers,
Mark :)

[TidaLpHasE]

:lol: Oh well, it was this kind of attitude and unfair restriction that made a few old members go elswhere, me being one of them.

This site sure has a great wealth of knowledge and helpful people more than happy to help others out, being a forum for a great hobby, but gees, are you for real Mike?

Part of that advice and help you think would include opinions and past dealings of a company, and its ability to provide a service that is good and let the people know, and also the bad service people have had.

Anyways while on my way out, it also seems that there is a ban on being at all critical on anyones images, i mean i have seen some really poor images taken by some members and they get nothing in the way of critique, only well dones and great pic, maybe we should all get short back and sides and a mo, and raise one arm in the air?

Just my opinion of the site.......

[circumpolar]

This is not good. A couple of hotheads have spoiled it for all. We can't have a blanket ban on negative feedback.

There is no need for bashing!
You can make your complaint heard without resorting to bashing.

I think many of us appreciate when a red flag is raised with regards to a vendor. Especially when several members point to the same issue. This is valid information. But once again, no need for bashing.

Sometimes vendors need a good pointing at or a public frowning, not repeatedly kicked and spat upon.

No blanket ban.
Better to warn first, and then punish if needed, those who abuse the forum. Restrict their use if it keeps happening. If you don't have self control with your keyboard go elsewhere.
Contribute to the flow of information.

[circumpolar]

Somebody start a poll regarding this issue.

This is election day after all. :whistle:

[Dennis]

It is a wonderful feeling, to be able to go to bed and enjoy the benefits of a deep, untroubled sleep.

Mike and Mods – if this policy helps provide you that same peace of mind, then go for it. All organisations that I have worked for have policies that protect them, so why not Ice In Space.

I can visit this site for free every day, without a care in the world and then every night I can log off with no fears or concerns about what I will find posted here when I arrive the next morning.

I think that the site owner, mods and operators should enjoy the same benefits that forum users enjoy. Their peace of mind, family life, careers etc. should not be thrown into turmoil or put in jeopardy by posts that have the potential to derail their lives.

If I paid fees for this service and IIS had paid professionals with access to funded legal advice, then I might feel differently.

Cheers

Dennis

[Alchemy]

good policy, positive information will move our hobbby/passion forward.

A face to face discussion (not email, phone or on IIS) with the vendor will achieve the best results in my experience.

[astronut]

Mike,
I don't envy your position, simply because as president of M.A.S I'm in the same situation.
We are in the process of attaching a forum to our website and the same factors have surfaced.
As Chris mentioned, where do you draw the line between Fairness and Censorship?
Ahhh..............the joys of being the boss!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Starkler]

A poll is irrelevant as IIS is not a free for all or even a democracy accountable to the will of the membership (who enjoy the benefits of IIS but carry none of the risks).
It is a free service provided by the goodwill and hard work of the site management and moderators. As a former moderator I have a personal insight into this and i can understand why some risks are not worth carrying, let alone the horribly increased workload managing such controversial issues can create.

Dennis says it well below.

[Kal]

Another interesting read for anyone doubting this decision is on this (http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile2.htm#libel) page.

Some interesting quotes:

In Australia defamation action is essentially concerned with damage to reputation, rather than publication being untrue or an invasion of a plaintiff's privacy.

In 2002 Sydney was claimed as "the world capital for defamation cases" on the basis that it had more than double the number of suits per capita than the UK and over 10 times the number per capita than in the US.

[GrahamL]

well said eric.

I'd imagine if an O/S vendor for example was having there customers c/c details abused by a third party you would be
quite reasonable in passing on that information ...Or asking a question regarding poor ongoing comunication from a vendor .

But threads whos intent are plainly to "stir the pot " or upset others have no place here.

OMHO this policy will have no impact whatsoever on the day to day activities here .. most all the other inmates I see here are quite capable of self moderation .. for a couple of others a little attitude adjustment ( delete key ) maybe isn't
such a bad thing.

[Stephen65]

If you order item X or part Y and it's defective then you should deal with the vendor directly rather than come running to the boards to abuse them. That's a pretty obvious case. But what if the vendor says it's not defective and you don't know if they are right? Can you ask here?

And what about people asking for opinions on vendors? The great majority of the vendors I have dealt with have provided excellent service but I could name at least one who while well intentioned has consistently messed up my orders and sent the wrong parts, can I no longer mention that when people ask so as to warn them to be extra careful in dealing with that vendor?

[rogerg]

I agree 100% with Mike's change to T&C. I'd hate to be in his position of hosting a fun astronomy site then having vendors and laywers bashing down his door. It wouldn't be worth the stress, I'd give it up.

:thumbsup:

[MortonH]

This isn't necessarily anything to do with previous posts on IIS. A number of forums around the world have become the subject of legal action because the comments written in them constitute libel (which is against the law, even if free speech is allowed). Bear in mind that it's not only IIS that could be in trouble, it's the person posting the message that is actually guilty of libel.

The above isn't my opinion, it's a fact that has been demonstrated recently on other forums. Specifally, the one I read about on the BBC website a few weeks ago concerned disgruntled fans of a football club in the UK. I don't know exactly what was posted, but the club's directors sued the individuals (and possibly the forum) for libel.

So, while this may be a bit unfortunate, I think that most of the info on IIS is positive, e.g. people helping solve problems, improve techniques, choose equipment, etc. We don't need public vendor-bashing, but this can still be carried out off the forum.

Morton

[Omaroo]

Point three - "must be a false statement to the plaintiff's discredit" say it all. It must be a false statement.

If it's true? If an EBAY SELLER rips you off, how are you going to react? You'd certainly want to make sure your friends don't get stung too!

Now a bit of fun: New logo - no disrespect intended, just an "Aussie" thing to do: :P (Unless by being an Aussie we shouldn't try this sort of humour any more for fear of being sued) I'm getting tired of this nation becoming a haven for apologists.

[matt]

You've made some good points, Chris. This has become a very interesting discussion.

Up until quite recently the laws pertaining to defamation and libel, as they apply to the internet, were quite nebulous.

Much of the problem stemmed from how the law/s were interpreted and applied across jurisdictions and indeed from country to country.

Recent developments, however, overseas and here in Australia, with people successfully suing websites for defamation, have established precedents and the way is now much clearer for litigation.

The old claim of "oh well...it's only the web....no-one sees what's written anyway and the comments are only shared within a small community" doesn't hold as much water as it used to. It's still published material being shared with others who are reading it, like they would read a newspaper or magazine governed by strict defamation laws.

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing but is also a great responsibility. As much as it should be fiercely protected, it also needs to be wielded with great care and balanced against the protections for the individual's and/or a business' reputation and standing in the community.

Public attacks on a person or business for the sake of attack are not what 'freedom of speech' is all about. That's defamation and an abuse of freedom of speech.

And as has been pointed out previously, it's not only the person making the defamatory comments who can be sued, it is also the website administrator as the 'publisher' of the offending material who will find themselves facing legal action.

[Omaroo]

I suppose hat the point is Matt, that we do not know, and neither would Mike or the moderators, that any statement being made by someone is actually false or not.

If a rule has to be made, and given that this is a hobby for Mike and nothing more (I hope) then fair's fair. We can all go to other forums where we can say what we like at our own risk and that of the owners. Mike has decided that it isn't worth the trouble. The problem he now has is whether or not the value of the site is sufficient for people to use it - which is their choice.

[matt]

Whether a statement is true or false is only part of the defamation equation, Chris.

But as you say...a decision has been made...and that's the way it is 'here'.

Only time will tell whether it diminishes the value and relevance of IIS.

BTW...I'm not saying whether I support the decision or not. I'm just sharing what little knowledge I have of this subject.

Cheers.

[astronut]

As I put in an earlier post, I have to agree with BOTH sides.
Unfortunately a few people have gone too far in getting their grievences across and this has prompted Mike and other forum administrators to introduce these rules.
Anyone that disagrees with this, can be the first one to hand over their house when the lawyers come knocking.:thumbsup:

[Satchmo]

I think this in an extremely difficult issue for any forum to handle.

I hope there is a distinction made between criticism of a product and criticism of a vendor who may happen to be the manufacturer or only vendor.

[mill]

What i understand from this policy is that we can only praise vendors but we can't say "this or that eyepiece is not good " and from now on we can't say if a vendor has bad policies on returns etc.
So only praise is good. :(
Most vendors are very good (the ones i have dealed with anyway).
Some out there are just out for a quick buck and dont care.
Also with this rule we cant say anymore that an department telescope is crap because there is a vendor behind it.
And how many times has been said that "nat*** geo***" scopes are no good? They are also an vendor.
No more warnings on Ebay scopes of dubius quality and dubius vendor :(
Just my 2 cents.

[aerobrake]

I think people should have their say, good or bad. After all this is a discussion forum. I look at IIS as a virtual constant star party where I can ask my fellow amateurs their opinion on a particular part or where to buy gear. The input I get here plays a huge part on what I do or what I buy so I would like to know the good, the bad and the ugly. The way we are going with all of this very soon we wont be able to give our opinion on a bit of gear or vendor even at "real" star parties for fear of a vendor overhearing what we say.Lets get real here.


There are countless forums on line that have a vendor section where people can log their experiences (have a look at the mac forum for eg) with a particular vendor. These guys cant have it both ways.

Peace
Mike

[fringe_dweller]

seems fair enough to me, it's not like you have a choice now anyway Mike?
I have seen some mightily gratuitious and hysterical OTT threads here in the past - some are exaggerating the issue i believe in this thread, its not like its gonna affect normal reviews ect.? is it - what about those famous 'lost in space' threads :whistle: i see even movie reviewers are worried these days.
my the times are changing, i remember it was considered laughable to take someone seriously (legally) who was called for instance fringe_dweller, or something similar.
welcome to ozmerica :D

[wavelandscott]

from an earlier post" Mike and Mods – if this policy helps provide you that same peace of mind, then go for it. All organisations that I have worked for have policies that protect them, so why not Ice In Space.

I can visit this site for free every day, without a care in the world and then every night I can log off with no fears or concerns about what I will find posted here when I arrive the next morning.

I think that the site owner, mods and operators should enjoy the same benefits that forum users enjoy. Their peace of mind, family life, careers etc. should not be thrown into turmoil or put in jeopardy by posts that have the potential to derail their lives."

I say Ditto...

Based on the current climate with respect to potential litigation were I in charge, I would do the same thing (tighten the rules a bit)...

[casstony]

I don't have a problem with the new rules. If a really terrible vendor appears in Australia the word will get around anyway. Newbies could be advised to question a vendor about their after sales service before purchasing. Maybe we could draw up a short list of appropriate questions to ask that cover typical faults with new gear.

[rumples riot]

As a former solicitor who practiced in corporate law and in particular defamation and intellectual property rights, Omaroo has got the statement pretty correct.

For defamation to succeed the statement must be false and it must act to discredit a persons (companies are person too) earning capacity. There are other criteria but that is the basis of it. Several exceptions exist that can still mean that a matter can succeed when on the facts it looks as though it will not.

All other commentary here from certain parties about what constitutes defamation are erroneous. Defamation law here is not like in the US. The rules are slightly different and the judgements of late are not binding, they are simply persausive. There are multiple jurisdictions here and all have slightly different rules on defamation. Primarily it is covered by the Tort of defamation, but slight variations exist. There are not many upper court decisions on the issue of defamation and the web as yet. It really needs to be tested before anyone can say one way or the other, especially given that most of the servers are in another Jurisdiction. Where are you in cyberland when you make the statements? Are you on the server or are you on Australian soil?

Bottom line don't defame.

[rumples riot]

BTW the problem is two fold.

1. the injurious falsehood be committed by certain individuals when they bag certain companies in a systematic fashion. Meaning they are doing this at every opportunity.
2. that these people doing this are by their very nature exposing the companies to the possiblity of ridicule and or making people avoid them. especially in a community which is solely based on the company's likely clients.


It should be also borne in mind that statements that are likely to be injurious to a company are also likely to succeed.

So be warned, most companies will not mind criticism but systematic attacks from people are what is likely the cause here. Constant bagging is grounds for libel especially when most of the statements are not true and go directly to the heart of points one and two.

[Alchemy]

Sadly when one has an issue or gripe with a vendor apart from publicly blowing steam , others like sharks smell blood in the water and its on for young and old, i normally dont buy into these sort of discussions as i feel they achieve little other than to show the personality traits of some.

As someone who was an official at a state level in a sporting organization, and competed at a high level in that sport, i have seen endless whining and complaining that did absolutely zero to the forwarding of that sport.

in short im over it.

[mick pinner]

after being on the site for a couple of years it's about what l would expect.
blanket bans are no good, judge each post on it's merits.

[Zuts]

How will the word get around if we cant talk about it?

[casstony]

Word of mouth at star parties, club meetings, etc. Creative posts such as "I've had great service from dealers A,B,C & E, with dealer D being intentionally omitted. Private messages. You could post a thread asking "I'd like to hear of good experiences with dealer X" - if there are several replies, or silence, you can draw conclusions; you might get PM's if someone wants to report a bad experience.

I've had some nit-picks with a few dealers, but there aren't any really bad ones in Oz that I'm aware of.

[cahullian]

I know Mike and more than one of the moderators and I joined this forum because Mike especially was a great bloke (he still is) so if he says things are going to change because certain members are abusing the current system then so be it. Anyone who knows Mike ,knows he has the grteatest intensions at heart for this forum and if you don't like what he is doing with it, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. I for one have had good and bad dealings withn vendors but have always dealt with things face to face not on line like a little sook.

Gazz

[Zuts]

I'd like to go to star parties, but i dont have the time. This forum is the only interaction i have with the astronomy community and who knows maybe i am not unique :)

I am not a sleuth, i dont judge people or organisations on what people dont say about them, usually i like to read all opinions and make my judgement, hopefully a balanced one on the good and sometimes bad things that may be said. I rely on the pleuralist nature of this country to be able to read a wide range of opinions on just about anything; including vendors. This policy makes that difficult.

Paul

[ColHut]

I don't think this helps - the reasonable inference is that the vendor is dodgy - and this is the way this gets expressed. "Ask vendor x about..." becomes code for "they're c**p" and we have not mitigated the risk. I think:rolleyes:

[snowyskiesau]

If we want to be truly balanced then we should also ban posts that praise a vendor.
I think you should be able to post your personal experience with a vendor be it good or bad and let the reader or your post make up their own mind.

[Gargoyle_Steve]

Surely the key here if you have suffered what you consider an unfair or unpleasant experience with a vendor lies in simply outlining the facts in a Clear, Concise, and above all COOL-headed fashion, as opposed to making Assumptions, Accusations and Attacks.


Use the 3 C's, not the 3 A's !! :thumbsup:

[okiscopey]

Perhaps Mike and the moderators could cover themselves legally by requiring posters to agree to various terms and conditions before proceeding to the forum pages.

Another forum I am involved with requires the user to click on a button labelled: "I agree with the terms and conditions".

Here are some extracts from that forum's list of terms and conditions:

"If you intend to include a reference to a brand name or a company please ensure that you confine your comments such that they are based on your own personal experience, made in neutral language for the purpose of discussion, are as objective as possible and are not submitted to the website for a Commercial Purpose ... "

"In entering a submission to this website forum the writer declares and agrees:

That the content is limited to an opinion based on the personal experience of the writer and does not contain hearsay.

That it is solely responsible for the contents of any submission, that such submission is their own personal opinion, and that the submission is not supported or endorsed by (name of forum).

By proceeding to the forum you agree to be bound by these terms and conditions."

"... forum reserves all rights to seek all available legal action against any writer who uses the forum to publish defamatory material of any kind or content that is false, misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive."

Anyone have an opinion on whether this is a legally effective means for preserving 'free speech' whilst protecting IIS's 'owner' and moderators?

- - - - -

In general terms, surely there's no basis for litigation if if one says "It is my opinion that xxx scope is rubbish" rather than just "xxx scope is rubbish".

It seems to be traditional in amateur astronomy to always compare equipment and its performance in pursuit of the best result for the dollar. Is this now going to be a problem here?

HOWEVER, all said and done, if Mike and the moderators really feel that they need to introduce the proposed new rules, and do not wish to get into the business of analysing every post for possible trouble, then so be it. IIS will still be a great forum.

[casstony]

To be more clear, I was trying to say that anyone making a significant purchase from an unfamiliar dealer should ask about after sales service. Some dealers will sort things out for you, some will refer you to the manufacturer and you're on your own. Can the dealer test the optics for you if you think they aren't up to scratch? How will they test the optics? Will there be a charge for this? Will the dealer offer full refund if the item is defective?(some do) Can the dealer perform adjustments on the computerized mount if necessary free of charge? .........etc, etc.

While I would prefer to avoid censorship, this issue is really a storm in a tea cup. There are work-arounds.

It's Mike's forum, he's the one who gets it in the neck if there's a problem; he feels the need to protect himself, end of story.

[casstony]

This American site has ratings for their vendors http://www.excelsis.com/1.0/catalog.php?categoryid=3
I imagine entries could be made here regarding Australian vendors too. Just one more way around the censorship.

I'd like to again state that Aussie dealers are generally a pretty good bunch, IME.

[g__day]

A few comments of my own here:

1. If you're going to blanket ban posting of any factual, negative situations - poor service will continue and the vendors practicing it and we the people won't know about it.

2. If you ban negative comments - for fear of defamation risk - ban positive comments - for fear of damages of folk acting on "expert" or informed advice that proves wrong - can create a situation for a claim in law against the offerer of the advice.

Example - say "Ronda gave me great service, she will always give you great service, her warranties are terrific, her gear never breaks or has any problems" - you have openned yourself and and IIS to just as much risk as saying "Ronda lied and cheated and stole my son and she'll steal yours too!" (if its not true nor spectulative).

Let's say you praise vendor X and attribute things to them broadly - I act on your advice and its wrong and I suffer collateral loss - then I have a claim against the vendor, you (for providing me wrong advice - yes really in law I do if I can reasonably consider you an expert) and possibly IIS!

If you stick to only saying what is clearly true then there isn't risk. If you say only speak happy, happy experiences - well you dilute the usefullness of the forum - and you open it up to just as much risk as saying negatives things in a non factual way.

My suggestion is only to speak factually. When I had troubles with vendors - service attitude mainly, or not keeping me informed - well eventually things got worked out and their service improved. Had no one said this could be better - I doubt they would have been aware of the problem, nor be enabled to fix it - to everyones benefit.

My suggestions are - keep it factual and non emotional. If you want to add a emotional contect - keep that personal to how you felt - example - it was really crowded, I was kept waiting 15 minutes whilst everyone else was served and that made me feel small. Those are two factual statements - waiting time and your own internal state of mind. No one can sue anyone over describing factual events. Ronda kept me waiting because I'm better dressed than her - is on the other hand spectulative.

Censorship doesn't stop the factual relating of a true experience - just write truthfully and don't spectulate. Saying vendor X promised A, B, C and lied once, twice, three times - is dynamite - but what if it's true - we want to know, likely they will hurt us too - if its false - you've defamed someone and hurt them and potentially us too.

PS

"As a result, if anyone initiates a thread or posts a comment critical of a vendor, the moderators have been instructed to lock and/or delete same." - well sorry the horse has already bolted - and performing that action may open IIS to another sort of claim. You see if someone defames me - then you delete the thread - you make it harder for me to sue them. It is a discoverable event, if I invoke a legal warrant to get your logs and you have deleted them you can be in trouble - you must produce evidence of what was said about me - failure to produce this evidence - or its deliberate destruction - for whatever reason - makes it harder for me to claim in law against this party - so now I have a different claim against you Mike and moderators for enacting this "destroy evidence" advice - even if its intended so many folk don't see your defamation of me! You server's, their back-ups, all logs are discoverable - at a cost to you, under my (limited) understanding of Australian law. If you get a legal demand to produce evidence and you say can't do - I destroyed it - oh the pain!

Instead you should move this thread /or post to a controlled forum section say that only moderators or defendants in the disputed case can see. That way you have not destroyed "legally discoverable evidence" - as certain other Australian forums found can cause a sting and you have limited the chance of any legal action.

Simple rule - never, ever destroy what has the potential to become a legal document of evidence (remember what happened to Andersen's when not only they defrauded - they shredded documents - it was the shredding that sunk the firm).

PPS

If you want to discuss bad service - post on http://www.notgoodenough.com/ and ask the moderators if you can link to it here.

[xelasnave]

Well lets do our best to help Mike with these difficult issues...

If you feel duded by someone worry about sorting that vendor out man to man perhaps.

I understand how valuable free speech is and why some think Mikes actions possibly errode free speech... but really think of the greater good which is keeping this place going...keeping Mike going... personally I dony think free speech is really being taken away in any form really... I dont like to see a bad vendor get away with stuff and will be the first to say so.. but the effect as observerd above ...of posting sometimes can be like the blood in the water parallel with a shark attack... bad news travells fast enough and I doubt if by eliminating negative posts bad vendors are still not expossed.

Anyways irrespective of the fors and againsts I think it really comes down to each of us supporting Mike when he has taken the time to work on a problem and ititiate action.

Mike is trying to manage a problem we could compliment him on that and not worry him more with all the negatives with running a site.

But it is nice to see so many folk recognise the importance of free speech and stand up for it if they suspect it is being tampered with.

And as to legal matters... it is still extremely expensive to be named as a defendent in a matter even if you win...and awarded costs as those costs never pay your Lawyers bill..a legal battle costs more than most understand and anything you can do to prevent any action the better... and the more you minimise the chances of having someone run off to court ..the better..

I support your actions Mike keep up the great job you do.

alex

alex

[Dennis]

Our use, enjoyment and the benefits accrued from participating in this forum are provided freely by the owner, operators, maintainers and moderators. All of whom probably have full time jobs, would like get out and do more astronomy, have families, a social life, etc, not unlike most of us here.

I suspect that their lives are already quite busy, and full, before they even log onto Ice In Space to feel the pulse and see “what is going down”, each day.

So, let’s put ourselves in their shoes. What guarantees would we personally require before we could be confident that our generosity in providing this free service will not be abused – either innocently or deliberately?

What safety net would we personally require before we could feel sufficiently at ease; providing protection for ourselves, our family, our financial health, our life style and our general state of well being?

Most forum members probably well understand the difference between right and wrong, without being legal experts. But, on our histogram, this still leaves 254 shades of Grey in between Black (0) and White (255).

I’m not sure why Mike, the Mods, Terry and the others who manage and maintain this site do it, but I’m pretty sure that if I were one of them, unpaid, holding down a full time job etc, I would opt for a simple, unambiguous Black and White Policy so I could sleep peacefully at night and not have to worry my busy brain with the potential careless behaviour of other’s, and subsequent responses to that behaviour. Life really shouldn’t be that hard, should it? After all, this is our hobby, a place we go to relax?

Ice In Space appears to be an open house – anyone can join? I think it prudent that Mike protects his house with some policies and guidelines to prevent it being trashed.

Cheers

Dennis

[g__day]

I agree - but will be quick to point out - destroying matters that may be linked to a suite is dangerous. Deleting warnings that might stop others from incuring loss is dangerous.

Remove - yes - Delete NO!

Which dangers do you want cover from and which don't you? The protection Matt and others want is clear (and very reasonable) - the way he is thinking about achieving this might expose him to more risk than a layperson intuits - as Australain examples in the financial services sector showed last year - when brokers where named for giving bad advice, potential defamatory comments where made - comments where struck down - the lawyers supeonaed the comments - they couldn't be provided - there was dispute over which acts covered internet web sites - the site then became liable for deleting the posts - in a word mess!

I wonder if you'd be better off with a disclaimer recognising the site allows you to relate experiences, ask question and hear opinions - but warrants none of the advice given nor expressly or implied shares views and opinions stated.

Could the right type of disclaimer - copied from a major web site e.g. is below


This sites been active for many years (and around 3,000,000 posts) - I think we hammered out the rules reasonably well, and given a publisher owns it - their lawyers worked out the right sort of language to cover the risks of otherwise good folk doing something idiotic. Initially they were saying delete bad stuff - until they realised this was potential destroying discoverable evidence...

Enhance your disclaimer and terms of acceptable usage to minimise any third party liability

From common usage policy of major publishers - to indemnify them (note they use remove - not delete offensive material!) ...

4. Monitoring.

IIS shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor the content of the Community Areas to determine compliance with this Agreement and any other operating rules that may be established by IIS from time to time. IIS shall have the right in its sole discretion to edit, refuse to post or remove any material submitted to or posted on the Community Areas. Without limiting the foregoing, IIS shall have the right, but not the obligation, to remove any material that IIS, in its sole discretion, finds to be in violation of the provisions hereof, otherwise objectionable or stale. Notwithstanding this right of IIS, users shall remain solely responsible for the content of their messages. You acknowledge and agree that neither IIS nor any of its affiliates shall assume or have any liability for any action or inaction by IIS with respect to any conduct within the Community Areas or any communication or posting on the Community Areas.

5. Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability

A. You expressly agree that use of the community areas and the IIS site is at your sole risk. Neither IIS, its affiliates or any of their respective employees, agents, third party content providers or licensors warrant that the IIS site will be uninterrupted or error free; nor do they make any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of the IIS site or as to the accuracy, reliability or content of any information, service or products provided through the sites or the community areas.

B. The IIS site and the community areas are provided on an "As Is", "As Available" basis without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to warranties of title or implied warranties if merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, other than those warranties which are implied by and incapable of exclusion, restriction or modification under the laws applicable to this agreement.

C. The Disclaimers of liability contained in this section 5 apply to any damages or injury caused by any failure or performance, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, delay in operation or transmission, computer virus, communication line failure, theft or destruction or unauthorized access to, alteration of, or use of record, whether for breach of contract, tortious behaviour, negligence, or under any other cause of action. You specifically acknowledge that IIS is not liable for the defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of other users or third parties and that the risk of injury from the foregoing rests entirely with you.

D. In no event will IIS or any person or entity involved in creating, producing or distributing the IIS site be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of the use of or inability to use the IIS sites or out of the breach of any warranty. You hereby acknowledge that the provisions of this section 5 shall apply to all content on the IIS site and/or the community areas. IIS's liability to users, if any, shall in no event exceed the total amount paid to IIS. IIS neither endorses nor is responsible for the accuracy or reliability of any opinion, advice or statement on the IIS sites, nor for any offensive, defamatory or obscene posting made on the community areas by anyone other than authorized IIS employee spokespersons while acting in their official capacities. Under no circumstances will IIS be liable for any loss or damage caused by your reliance on information obtained through either the content on the IIS site and/or any postings on the community areas. It is your responsibility to evaluate the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, opinion, advice or other content available through the IIS site and/or the community areas. Please seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, regarding the evaluation of any specific information, opinion, advice or other content, including but not limited to financial, health, or lifestyle information, opinion, advice or other content.

F. IIS does not endorse, warrant or guarantee any products or services offered through the IIS sites and will not be a party to or in any way monitor any transaction between users and third party providers of products or services. As with the purchase of a product or service through any medium or in any environment, you should use you best judgement and exercise caution where appropriate. IIS makes products or service available on the IIS site without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, other than those warranties which are implied by and incapable of exclusion, restriction or modification under the laws applicable to this agreement.

G. Prior to the execution of a purchase or sale of any security or investment, you are advised to consult with your broker or other financial advisor to verify pricing and other information. Neither IIS nor its third party content providers shall have any liability for investment decisions based upon, or the results obtained from, the content provided herein. Neither IIS nor its third party content providers guarantee or warrant the timeliness, sequence, accuracy, or completeness or any such information. Nothing contained in the IIS sites shall be construed as investment advice. IIS is not a registered broker-dealer or investment advisor and does not give investment advice.

6. Indemnification.

You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless IIS, its affiliates and their respective directors, officers, employees and agents from and against all claims and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of the use by you of the IIS Site and/or the Community Areas.

[ving]

this reminds me of one time on this forum where someone started a tread stating they recieved a telescope with a scratched mirror from a vendor they named and said how bad it was and how pissed off they at said vendor which started other saying much the same thing... my first question to the thread starter was have you contacted the vendor and what did they say? of course the thread starter hadn't even told the vendor the problem :rolleyes:

a bit of common sense and the sort of measures mike has had to take wouldnt happen me thinks. I actually feel sorry for mike because this has had to happen...

of course i like free speech and I personally would like it if we could pick out bad vendors and share our experiences. who ants to buy from a bad vendor? not me! theres a wealth of knowledge on this site and its a shame to let this information go to waste...
chris made a good point about ebay (or should i say online auction sites :P). does this now mean that when we see a online auction site shop selling telescopes with those dangerous screw-in solar filters that can leave you blind if they crack we shouldnt warn other members of the community? I am guessing that you are saying to yourself "well of couse we should mention it !" right? whats the difference between that and warning members of a shonky dealership that gives say bad service or bad advice?

... anyhow mike is just protecting himself here. we are not talking about a giant multi-national company that deals with these sort of claims every day, we are talking about someone who runs a forum in his spare time from home... he dosnt need or want to be hauled off to court cause someone is less that tackful in airing thier grievances.
It would be good if mike could have a disclaimer stating the he and the moderators were not responsible for what the members type, but i doubt that could be legaly binding. it would be good is each member could be held responsible for thier own actions.

[Doug]

Four pages of responses far exceeds my attention span, so I'll just jump in without having read all posts.:)

I agree with Mike on this one and see no need to air publicly any dissatisfaction with various vendors. There is a PM service that could be used for this.
For example, I might post something like:

"I have had an interesting experience with 'ZAPSONIC Lasers'. Anyone interested in my story is welcome to PM me."

From that point on, interested persons can form their own opinions.:thumbsup:

Cheers,
Doug

[g__day]

Kinda a way of bending PM's to meet what a general forum is for - and do you think PM's aren't discoverable? You've just abstracted the problem one level. Someone cuts and pastes that PM to the wrong person - you still face the same legal issues.

Its a once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in. All you can do - so a publisher found - with alot of legal advice - is disclaimer - the one I posted above.

Opinions are fine to have - but you need legal advice on this - not general comments.

[nightsky]

G'Day,
I've read with interest all of this thread,and without having to quote some of them.I really don't know what the fuss is about :shrug: Mike runs the site and has help from the moderators and all of them do a good job. The bottom line is this,the Decision has been made period!! Every family has rules for the house,as do sports clubs,companies etc etc.Accept the rule off the site and move on.And unless I've misread Mikes announcement
he's not asking for your permission,he's merely informing you what has already been decided.
Cheers
Arthur

[Gargoyle_Steve]

I agree that Mike and the Mods (great name for a rock band!) need to be able to rest assured that they are not going to become targets of litigation over someone elses words writtten here, but it does seem to me that we are losing / have lost something significant in terms of what has made this forum such a wonderful entity in terms of teaching newcomers and sharing information.

Many people do not have a local astro shop to buy from - I don't, yet over the last 20 months I have purchased 4 telescopes fand 3 pairs of bino's for myself (plus numerous accessories, additional ep's, etc) plus I've bought another 2 telescopes and a pair of binoculars for others and NONE of these was purchased over the counter at an Astronomy vendor!

In fact unless you live in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or Adelaide then it seems you have very little choice but to deal via phone / internet and purchase remotely from a vendor, hopefully based on the reports of previous experiences and successes or failures of others, and that is one of the great strengths that the IIS community has always had! You want to feel safe and secure in the knowledge that you're hard earned money isn't at risk, and that you'll receive what you wanted, delivered promptly, and in good condition.

If you're buying a $30 cd or other such items this foreknowledge of reliable and honest dealing maybe isn't quite so important, but when you are spending perhaps thousands of dollars on a telescope, hundreds or thousads again on a mount, and hundreds of dollars again (and again!) on eyepieces, accessories, etc you really want to know about any bad experiences that others may have had, and not just the good ones!

If the ability to openly discuss negative issues re vendors is banned then many people who rely heavily on this kind of free and open commentary may have much less faith in taking the plunge in dealing with such vendors in the first place, which could possibility inhibit the growth and long term success of the astro community in general, and perhaps of the vendors themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------

One last point ... this very issue has now apparently caused the IceInSpace community to lose something else important - I was informed today by a long standing member of IIS, who is both valued and valuable to the amateur astronomy community in general, that he has now withdrawn completely from the IIS site over this issue.

I suspect he may not be the first, or the last.

:shrug:

[iceman]

Thankyou to everyone for your comments and concerns. My reply is in a new thread so that people can find it easier.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=26188

I'm locking this thread as a result.