New Policy - my response

[iceman]

I decided to start a new thread with my response, so that people who don't wade through the thread to find new replies can read it easily.
--------------------------

I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your concerns and comments, it was the weekend though and I like to spend time with my family - plus I needed some time to digest your input and formulate my response.

I knew that this new policy would receive some criticism, but to be honest I'm surprised and disappointed by some of the responses.

The decision to implement this policy wasn't taken lightly. In an ideal world, it wouldn't have been necessary. A bit of common-sense and self-moderation and it wouldn't have been necessary. Unfortunately there have been several incidents (recently and in the past) where it has now become necessary in order to protect myself and my family. As much as I'd like to take the high moral ground and make a stand on the behalf of you guys, it's simply not worth it. It's not worth it to me, it's not worth it to my family.

How many of those people critical of the new policy would make a stand in the event of legal action? How many of them would contribute to legal fees, and how many of them would move on and say "it's not my problem"? We can argue all day about the legal facts and what can or can't be proven in court - but it's very easy for people who are merely watching from the sidelines to have strong opinions.

I know that there are a great many loyal and generous supporters of IceInSpace who would want to help out, but it shouldn't get to that. It's not your responsibility. The time and stress that would be involved in any such preceedings is borne my me - cost is only one part of the equation.

IceInSpace is my hobby - I do it for the love of astronomy and to help advance amateur astronomy in Australasia. Being dragged into expensive, time-consuming and damaging legal action does absolutely nothing to help amateur astronomy or to help IceInSpace.

There have been a few comments here and elsewhere about advertising. I can assure you this has absolutely nothing to do with advertising or advertisers. All vendors have been treated equally, regardless of whether they are an advertiser or not. I challenge you to provide evidence where threads have been deleted or moderated because of negative comments about an advertiser. I don't expect any to be forthcoming because I know there isn't any. Anyone claiming such biased moderation is simply out to start trouble, spread rumours or are making baseless claims or assumptions with nothing to back it up.

Regarding good comments about vendors - I'm not going to make any policy regarding good comments about vendors. Why? Because good comments don't have the potential to get me in trouble. It's up to the individual if they want to reward a vendor by making positive comments about them, and if they want the "balance", then they can avoid making any comment.

I'm sorry that some people think that this policy reduces the usefulness of IceInSpace. In my opinion, there has always been and will continue to be a lot more to IceInSpace than this one issue. In almost all cases, this won't affect the day to day activity and discussions on IceInSpace one little bit. It's really not the end of the world and i'm surprised and disappointed by the pessimism and over-reaction of some people. I'm also grateful for and encouraged by the understanding shown by many. It's unfortunate if some people choose to not visit IceInSpace as a result of this, but I can't run IceInSpace to please a minority who may have been looking for an excuse to go elsewhere anyway.

Discussions about vendors and products will always be a part of IceInSpace, but if you're going to be critical then you will need to avoid statements that can't be substantiated such as personal accusations, emotional comments, generalisations and heresay. Stick to the facts. Discussions about products - that is, their good points and their bad, problems and shortcomings, etc will always be a part of IceInSpace and there's absolutely no problem with that.

This new policy is to ensure that IceInSpace is not used as a platform to attack a vendor, and posts which are intended to cause a reaction or have unverifiable or untrue claims is where this policy would need to be enforced.

Thanks

[Dennis]

Mike

It’s your cyber house and although you have invited the majority of guests inside freely, as complete strangers, without vetting them, you do need to protect your cyber dwelling and quality of life from accidental, unintentional or deliberate harm. Policies and guidelines seem an appropriate way of doing this.

Cheers

Dennis

[Campus Dweller]

I agree completely Dennis. If somebody wants to make a public complaint that could become litigious, let them start their own public website not use someone elses that was made for for the purpose of and is mostly used as an avenue of further enjoying their hobby.

[erick]

OK by me, Mike. Eric :)

[Garyh]

I totally agree Mike! It is your forum and you and your family would be in the firing line if any action was taken by a vendor etc. You have to look after your self and family first. I can`t see how this new policy would make much difference anyway to this great forum! Everyone seems to go on about freedom of speech etc but do we really have freedon of speech or are too many of us wearing rose colored glasses?
Like Campus dweller mentions , go and start your own public site and put there own neck on the line if you feel strongly enough about it!!
I`m with Mike here!..:thumbsup:

[casstony]

Perhaps dissatisfied members are not aware of the power of this type of litigation to completely destroy people and families - I certianly would not like to be on the receiving end.

Now back to thinking about better things - potential life bearing planets and shiny Moonlite focusers :)

[Ric]

Well put Mike, your position is perfectly understandable, the decision is made and I will abide by that. :thumbsup:

Now if these clouds would go away, we can all get back to astronomy, the reason we are all here. :D

Cheers

[Omaroo]

Gee - here I am - being portrayed as the complete *******. :P

My response was the first in that thread to disagree with the (remember) "blanket" policy to ban any negative talk about a vendor so I guess that I'll play the target for a bit. I'm fine with that. My intentions were good - but I'm not sure that they were seen to be by some, including Mike.

Mike's second, modified, response is now out. Maybe had he responded earlier on rather than let so much water pass under the bridge before giving his second edict he would not have received so much flak. Now it's OK to talk about a vendor's products in the negative sense:

"..if you're going to be critical then you will need to avoid.."

That statement is a lot different to:

It's MUCH better.

Wording can make all the difference. I'm sorry to be so critical of wording here, as I know many of those that responded favourably to Mike's first post probably didn't really attempt to visualise the full ramifications of a blanket ban on criticism - which is what it initially appeared to be.

We're all friends here - so maybe give those of us who see things a little differently a break here. My main interest is to see this community grow - just like everyone else. I tend to be critical of things because I want to CONTRIBUTE - not destroy. Mike - if that's the way you've taken my response then you do not know me at all. As I said - I've run four motoring forums in the past and my family life was at risk due to ensuing legal matters so I tossed it away with the trash. There are more important things in life than a hobby that can end your existence.

Hopefully we can get back to regular programming.

[programmer]

I fully agree with the policy.

Apart from 'free speech', what practical purpose does a complaint thread serve? Please name one (no, venting is not practical!). Most of the responses, like mine in a recent thread, were along the lines of 'better take it to <vendor X> and see what they say'. So might as well take it there in the first place. I also find it highly embarassing having to wade through people's dirty laundry, so to speak.

Let's get back to the good stuff!

[SkySearcher]

The Way I see it, we either have IceInSpace with this policy or one day have no IceInSpace.

The Buck stops with Mike.

[Dennis]

Hi Chris

I did not interpreted your posts, or those of others where our views happened to differ, as being anything other that just one of the myriad views on life that constitute the collective thoughts of members of this Forum, each defining their particular perspective, at a particular point in their life.

Although we have much in common here on IIS, we also have quite different views, personalities, life experiences, beliefs, upbringing, etc., which most certainly can give rise to diametrically opposed views on certain topics.

However, where reasoned and considered views are quite different to mine, I do not see them as rocking the boat, nor as holding any less importance or value than mine. I may choose to disagree with them, but I will respect them, and even whilst disagreeing, I retain the perspective, through bitter experience, that my own views are by definition incomplete, sometimes narrow or even just wrong; they are limited by my personal vision and understanding and will most certainly continue to evolve as I develop.

The perspective of each of us is shaped by a myriad of events and experiences and that’s why we are the person we currently are, why we write the words we think. I do appreciate reading about how others experience the same events that I do, yet react so differently. I have and will continue to change my view because of the increased perspective I have obtained through such interactions.

Mostly they are adult to adult, but occasionally the mischievous child does creep in during those unguarded moments!

Cheers

Dennis

[h0ughy]

I wonder how many other sites will enforce this type of policy as well? Family first, then us mugs!!

[h0ughy]

BTW chris I thought you gave a good arguement - not a *************** in my books

[Omaroo]

Thanks Dennis. I believe that you've summed up why we post the way we do in one, easy to digest, and well-crafted response. You are just oh-so right.

Cheers
Chris

[Omaroo]

Onya Huffster! Hey - what's a "***************" ?? :whistle:

:D

[night-vision]

It happened to Whirlpool only a few months ago, the founder of whirlpool and his team were going to fight it all the way for the rights to peoples freedom of speech. The case has since been dropped.
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1753
http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1755

[g__day]

Mike - strongly agree with what you say and admire the aplomb with which you said it!

Can I suggest you lift the terms, conditions and disclaimers from another website (look at www.atompicmpc.com.au (http://www.atompicmpc.com.au) for a great example) and simply add it to yours as a bit of extra, cost free insurance?

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/info.asp?CIaIID=1

[Omaroo]

Mick - a very interesting case - and one that points out that freedo of speach still works - albeit maybe not as intended in law.

Society is mostly self-regulating - which should be of comfort to most.

[Kal]

My true position is in fact far closer to yours , with the ideal scenario having Australian Law being changed instead of IIS policy ;). But since changing Australian Law is not so easy, I support Mikes stance 100%.

[ving]

hmm... how about warning other to less than desirable acts by vendors like providing dangerous parts? want another?

;)

get back to work ving! :P

[Gargoyle_Steve]

As I said in my first post in the other thread....



It does seem that the latest (modified?) version of the policy will acheive what needs to be achieved, while still protecting you and your family Mike.

I think you know that the vast majority of us here DO completely understand the need that has forced you to implement this rule, and WILL support and abide by this rule.

Life will go on, IIS will continue, we will all still enjoy our hobby,which is what it's all really about.

Steve

[Alchemy]

seems common sense is starting to show...... im back off to my favorite section, deep sky......bye for now.:)

[programmer]

I'm not sure which dangerous parts you're referring to, but I guess this is off topic anyway.

[Omaroo]

These come up quite often actually - especially on eBay, but sometimes through toy chains - and Ving is right. One part in particular which raises our level of concern is the good old "solar eyepiece filter".

[timelord]

Long live Iceinspace!

[okiscopey]

Enough talk! Implement the policy!

Mike needs to be able to protect himself and his family ... that takes precedence over IIS having its .. er ... 'content' reduced by a miniscule amount.

[Coach]

Mike,
I'm a guest in you home from a long ways off. I'm here almost every day and have enjoyed the company of your friends. I'll not use profanity in you home and will not free-base in church. A joke can be told without hurting the feelings of others. There is soooo much good information that is swallowed up by us new-bees and we will come back as long as helpful information is available (some of us even have e-mail)
I wish to thank you and you freinds for a job well done and will continue to return as long as I feel welcome.
How bout them Kangoroos? Larry

[Tannehill]

I fully support Mike, here. It's his sandbox.

But to continue the thought process....

Anyone a lawyer on this forum? What represents a legally safe (within the realm of practical predictability) method of being critical of a product, while not exposing oneself to legal liability? I'm not talking about nuances, but rather really stabbing deep into a particular product or item.

The solar eyepiece comment is an extreme example, but noteworthy for being spot on....but in this case, there is tremendous corroboration of it's being a bad product...Mike or the poster is unlikely to come under fire for that, I think, tho' they could threaten legal action to try to scare one into deleting the threads...

How would the manufacturer of those department store "Xmas specials" telescopes (the ones that advertise "500X!" on the box of a 60mm barely-achromatic refractor) react to one of us saying on an IIS thread that such a product - in general or specifically - is a worthless purchase if one wants to start to explore the hobby of amateur astronomy? (please, no replies to this claim, it's just an example but one that comes up often)

When someone comes onto IIS and asks such a question, if we keep the advice and discussions general and non-specific we should be invulnerable, right? For example:

The Acme 60mm scope is RUBBISH!
versus
Such small aperture economy scopes - often found in non-specialty departent stores next to Big Wheels and Barbie Dolls - are not the best choice for those looking to truly explore amateur astronomy because yada yada yada...

Thoughts?

[iceman]

That's a perfect example. Obviously you're begin verbose in the latter comment, but that's a perfect example of how to state the facts without generalising.

You can still give your opinion on something, but make it factual and give specifics.

[gbeal]

Man, see what you miss if you don't do ALL of the forum??
I normally sit firmly on the fence, with the ultimate say going to the sandpit owner, after all it is his sandpit.
I do like to give credit where (vendors here) credit is due, and am also happy to suggest that there are better places to spend the discretionary if the service is less than expected. I would not like to see that ability taken away. What I don't want to see is the ability to "bash", nor do I want to see the inability to comment. I guess it is all a matter of degree.
Gary

[cahullian]

I have been behind Mike 100% in this. It's his site to do what he wants with and if you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.:eek:

Gazz

[wavelandscott]

I am all for a safe and helpful place to exchange ideas...I have no problem with this or any other rule that IIS feels necessary (justifiable to me or not) to implement.

After all, I see this as a "Golden Rule" varient...He who has the gold makes the rules...in this case, it is Mike's gold and he gets to make the rules. If I am unhappy with that, I can always take my ball and go home...

[g__day]

On something silly - like getting Hubble views from the dime store scope -well its easy to present factual information - its not diffraction limited optics, its not colour corrected and the mount might just wobble a bit - quality clone binoculars and visit a star party type suggestions.

On a dangerous products - variable quality sun filters , megawatt lasers etc - point out the risk categories and exposures if these products were to fail, and query whether the brand in question has a sterling reputation.

[ving]

like chris stated in response, on ebay and in some department stores some telescopes are sold with a solar filter that screws into the eyepiece. these have been proven to be dangerous as when the sun is focused straight down the telescope it can generate enough heat to crack said solar filter... we know what happens to a persons eye when you look at the sun unprotected thru a telescope. I wouldnt want that to happen to my worst enemy! and so by stating in a thread "dont buy this scope" you are possibly savng lots of forum members eyesights... as you can see, its about safety.
Mikes new and refurbished (on ya mike ;)) statement allows us to be able to point out dangerours products and shonkey workmanship now. of course wording (as stated above) is all important.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you :)
live long and prosper :)

[Dennis]

On a more general note, I think a timely "THANK YOU" and well deserved “PAT ON THE BACK” is due for Mike, the Mod’s and the operations team.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Making the time, finding the mental and emotional resilience, doing the hard yards, continuing to promote, maintain, manage and watch over Ice In Space is no doubt a daunting “spare time” (yeah, right!) challenge.

At times, I suspect a few of the management team would have liked to throw in the towel when the job at hand seemed thankless, the path ahead strewn with difficulties.

Well done gang for persevering and keeping your (cool) heads above water – you’re doing a terrific job in providing this rich on-line resource to the hungry astro community of Australia and our world wide cousins.

Cheers

Dennis

[nightsky]

G'Day,
You have my vote on that Dennis, thanks lads :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Cheers
Arthur

[avandonk]

If you want to reeeeaaaaly have a whinge and possibly libel someone or some company then post it on your own site and make reference to it. Then you will face any potential consequences.

Simple really!

Bert

[nightsky]

G'Day,
Going back months ago when a member was thinking about starting up a Astronomy Club.I had said be careful and make sure you get insurance. As I had been in a similar position with a another club (computer) and I refused to be on the committee until they got insurance against liability as there was no way I was going to lose my house which I had worked hard to buy.A lawyer who is a member of IIS expressed his view on the matter,so maybe he would be kind enough to express his view on this.Thats why I supported Mike on the previous thread as I knew what could happen.Although this is different, ie my problem was Public liability.
Cheers
Arthur

[iceman]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and input.
I'm going to lock this thread now as everyone who has wanted to, has had their say.

I'll be updating the TOS in the next day or so.