New Policy - my response

[Gargoyle_Steve (Steve)]

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.

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

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 !!

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 (Clive)]

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

[programmer]

Originally Posted by ving

providing dangerous parts?

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

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by programmer

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

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 (Al)]

Long live Iceinspace!

[okiscopey (Mike)]

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 (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Tannehill

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?

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.

Gazz

[wavelandscott (Scott)]

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 (Matthew)]

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 (David)]

Originally Posted by programmer

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

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

G'Day,
You have my vote on that Dennis, thanks lads
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]

Originally Posted by Tannehill

Anyone a lawyer on this forum?

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 (Mike)]

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.