Comment On Thread Closure

[mick pinner]

the recent thread re GS R/C price war has been closed.
the removal of posts seen as vendor bashing l have no problem with, the fact that the thread was branching out and covering a couple of different topics but still related in general to the scope in question, big deal.
the people who were participating in the thread seemed to have no problem with any of the discussion taking place of which Mike was not one, l also had an off site discussion with Peter Ward that cleared up a few issues of interest to me which was brought about by this thread.
this was a very informative discussion and should have been left to follow it's course, why moderation was needed l fail to see, l am interested in other peoples opinions on this matter if indeed this is an open forum.
this is NOT moderation bashing just a complete lack of understanding on my part as to why this happened.

[iceman (Mike)]

Several people commented within the thread that they didn't think the 'vendor bashing' was appropriate, as well as several reported posts by other concerned members.

So to say "the people who were participating in the thread seemed to have no problem with any of the discussion" is completely incorrect.

The discussion about the optical/photography theory was fine and will be moved to a new thread where discussion can continue.

I think it's pretty obvious why posts by Peter, a vendor, making comments about prices of another vendor, are inappropriate. It's completely against the spirit of the TOS and doesn't belong on the public forum.

[mick pinner]

why not remove the offensive posts and remind the posters of the rules?

[iceman (Mike)]

I already have done so.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Well, since one of my posts was removed, I'll make some comments. As a hobby, I'm also interested in hi fi. Many years ago, I remember reading a series of letters to the editor in a particular magazine (hi fi news if memory serves me correctly). Interestingly, a dealer had sent a letter in, saying that he believed magazines solely existed for his convenience, and not the readers. This of course, rightly incensed the readership who replied heavily in the following months magazine releases.

Now where am I leading with this? I guess, the bottom line here is that RRP is not a legal entity. A reseller is free to set whatever selling price that they wish - if they go low, they make less profit. If they go high, they make more profit, but at the expense of competition taking their business due to lower and more competitive prices.

Now the crux of this most recent issue is that almost certainly, a certain reseller has placed pressure on a certain manufacturer, to force a competitor to change their pricing structure. Now, it's almost certain that aforementioned reseller was not prepared to play the price war and simply was being greedy and wanting to make an increased profit instead. It therefore used its influence to place pressure on a competitor, very underhanded and dirty tactics, and possibly illegal under the Trade Practices Act 1974 I might add (price collusion). The whole capitalist practice is based on price and open competition. What has transpired is not open competition and should be duly reported to the ACCC as such.

Why is this important? Because these prices affect us, the consumer. By underhanded tactics, said reseller has influenced manufacturer and increased the price by a good percentage. That is bad for the consumer. This forum is for the users, and pricing affects us. It's a legitimate topic imho.

I understand Mike's point of view about potential legal action etc, but in the end, as far as I understand it, individuals' comments remain theirs. All Mike has to do is to provide anyone taking legal action with the IP address and details of the individual making the posts and then direct legal action would be taken against the individual. Quite possibly, Mike would have to remove the offending "post/thread" upon legal comment. What we are effictively seeing is pressure placed on the forums, by resellers etc, to censor posts. Is this truly morally right?

The way I see it is that this is a forum for the users. Sure, some dealers have accounts, but they are a minority. Why should the minority affect the majority's rights?

I'd rather see an open and transparent discussion to be honest. If price fixing and collusion (or bad support) are occuring, I think it's only fair for individual members to be able to voice their comments.

For those querying my line of thoughts, I suggest you look up the meaning of the word forum. I stand by my comments that online forums are not forums by the strictest sense, as nearly everyone censors to some degree and removes the basic human right to freedom of speech.

There, I said my bit.

Dave

[iceman (Mike)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

I understand Mike's point of view about potential legal action etc, but in the end, as far as I understand it, individuals' comments remain theirs. All Mike has to do is to provide anyone taking legal action with the IP address and details of the individual making the posts and then direct legal action would be taken against the individual. Quite possibly, Mike would have to remove the offending "post/thread" upon legal comment. What we are effictively seeing is pressure placed on the forums, by resellers etc, to censor posts. Is this truly morally right?

Unfortunately it's not that simple, or as black and white as that.

For some people, they may want to defend their right to "freedom of speech" all the way to court, and may choose to run a forum that way.

Myself, I do not.

I don't wish to place myself, my house, my family at any risk of exposure to stand up for someone else's 'freedom of speech'. That's why the TOS is there as it is - it means we avoid these discussions and I can sleep at night.

Anyone is welcome to start their own forum or shout from the rooftops if they believe so strongly in it.
I've even seen people do that - start a forum so they can have the "freedom of speech" that was so rudely robbed of them here at IceInSpace (yes, I'm being sarcastic ). Let me tell you how that turned out - they had to introduce rules after a while, too.

Nothing is ever as black and white as you want it to be.

[Gallifreyboy]

Originally Posted by iceman

I don't wish to place myself, my house, my family at any risk of exposure to stand up for someone else's 'freedom of speech'. That's why the TOS is there as it is - it means we avoid these discussions and I can sleep at night.

I don't think anyone can argue with that logic. Well explained.

[mick pinner]

the offensive comments could and should have been removed but the thread itself should have been left in tact.