Policy re Criticism of Vendors on IceInSpace Forum

[g__day (Matthew)]

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 (Matthew)]

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 (David)]

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

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 ). 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.

Cheers,
Doug

[g__day (Matthew)]

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 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 (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.

[iceman (Mike)]

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/s...ad.php?t=26188

I'm locking this thread as a result.