Policy re Criticism of Vendors on IceInSpace Forum

[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 (Martin)]

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 (Michael)]

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 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

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

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 (Clive)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[casstony]

Originally Posted by Zuts

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Colin)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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 (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 !!

[okiscopey (Mike)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.