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.
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
Last edited by mcross; 24-11-2007 at 12:39 AM.
Reason: typo
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?
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.
Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis
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.
Another interesting read for anyone doubting this decision is on this 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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
Libel: Can you succeed in law?
In a libel action, the plaintiff must prove three elements of the tort of libel:
1) The statement has been made to a third party.
2) The statement referred to the plaintiff. (This does not mean that the statement has to refer expressly to the plaintiff. A statement can be actionable if it is reasonably capable of referring to the plaintiff).
3) The statement must be defamatory, which means that it must be a false statement to the plaintiff's discredit.
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: (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
