Otib

[Robbored]

Did you email the forum Admin for an explanation? No.

Is that what you should do if you have a complaint or query about how an issue has been handled on here? Yes.

I did not email Admin for an explanation because I saw little point in doing so. The thread was deleted and no matter what, would not be re-instated. My point is that imo it should be Admin that inform the poster by PM why a thread has been deleted. Thats both good practice and good manners.

Tbh I don't have a problem with your explanation as to why the post was deleted. The Mods on this occaision were quite right. I should not have posted it.

[Robbored]

I am grateful to the guys for giving up their time. Have you offered to give them a hand?

No.

I assumed being a Mod was not something you volunteered for. I assumed ( rightly or wrongly) that one was asked to take to on such a role and I've never been approached.

[edson]

I did not email Admin for an explanation because I saw little point in doing so. The thread was deleted and no matter what, would not be re-instated. My point is that imo it should be Admin that inform the poster by PM why a thread has been deleted. Thats both good practice and good manners.

Tbh I don't have a problem with your explanation as to why the post was deleted. The Mods on this occaision were quite right. I should not have posted it.

In many cases, we do send an explanation. In other cases, the moderator concerned can be on their way out/busy doing proper work/feel the poster is undeserving of an explanation or whatever.

You saw little point in contacting us for an explanation privately, but have been quick to condemn us publicly for not contacting you.

To give you some idea, on that particular day 25 posts were deleted. It was the day of the first match of the season and few if any mods were online. I imagine they were fairly annoyed that they had that sort of thing to deal with when they were trying to get ready to go and enjoy the game.

Perhaps try to think about that in future.

[Mr Mosquito]

I often see Freedom of Speech quoted in debates like this one. Perhaps it's should be renamed to Freedom of Opinion. I am free to express my opinion that X, Y or Z is a gobby little so and so etc etc. What I cannot be free to do is suggest that X, Y or Z have been involved in certain activities without the proof to substatiate the claim - and if I have proof then I am free to tell whomever I wish. And that is how it should be.

Fair comment. However, some readers/posters complain to the moderators of this forum over material posted on here that already exists in the public domain. I don't agree with many comments posted on here but I never complain to the moderators to censor it.

[The Man In Black]

I feel an explanation of who and why in a closed thread would be very useful..... if members are unhappy that they are not happy with the decision then it is up to them to take the matter up directly with the instigator of the censorship

Completely agree with that, and if someone/a solicitor demands something to be removed they should be prepared for everyone to know it was them that requested it.

I don't mean that in a sinister way, but that if they are willing to threaten legal action they shouldn't act all coy over their identity.

[lukejones2]

Completely agree with that, and if someone/a solicitor demands something to be removed they should be prepared for everyone to know it was them that requested it.

I don't mean that in a sinister way, but that if they are willing to threaten legal action they shouldn't act all coy over their identity.

For what it's worth I have a few points:

1 - I agree with the above on closing topics. I think that is a great idea.

2 - I agree with Robbored that people should have explanations when posts are deleted or closed - there was a sticky thread for that which I thought worked well and I think the mods should be commended for making efforts to do exactly what Robbored requested.

3 - As a former mod on here, I know how much time it takes and that everyone is human. We, as users, should fogive and not be so aggressive and OTT if a mod makes a decision (which may be a completely duff one - we've all made them right?) which they disagree with.

4 - Sometimes, posts are closed / deleted unnecessarily - as an example there was a discussion post about Maynard holding a gun in photos which was closed in my opinion completely unnecessarily, stifling a fair debate. A different one started though, and ran... A mod clearly had a different opinion on one than another - this happens. I am sure that theyt acted in the best interests of the board as a whole in their eyes. This isn't really a point, but I think it is an argument for 1 being a good idea and is repetitive of 3.

5 - I don't like that when I log on one of my computers, the board logs me out elsewhere! It is particularly annoying when logging in on the blackberry is a pain in the backside. Completely off topic, but while I was typing and all that... mods - this point may deserve deletion ;-)

[phantom]

If completely seperate would be interested to know how I recieved a phone call from BCFC following a posting that I put on this site ???

Anyone ?

[Father Jacki]

Nanobots?

[Guest ashtonyate]

This board may be worried about be sued by people who are being slandered on here but they don't seem to be worried being sued by the posters.

The reason I say that this site could be regarded as a club,If you discipline members on his site without following the club/site rules then it leaves the trust open to be sued by a member.

Which is covered by the same rules as employee/industrial rule ie a warning another warning then if you suspend them you must give them the chance to appeal against the ban.

I am a member of a Bowls Club and we had to draw up a discipline proceeder because a club was sued for banning a member without following the rules to the letter

[edson]

This board may be worried about be sued by people who are being slandered on here but they don't seem to be worried being sued by the posters.

The reason I say that this site could be regarded as a club,If you discipline members on his site without following the club/site rules then it leaves the trust open to be sued by a member.

Which is covered by the same rules as employee/industrial rule ie a warning another warning then if you suspend them you must give them the chance to appeal against the ban.

I am a member of a Bowls Club and we had to draw up a discipline proceeder because a club was sued for banning a member without following the rules to the letter

Nonsense. It's a forum.

We can ban you for no reason at all, if we choose to.

By all means try to take us to court if we do, but I doubt we'd be able to hear the case for the prosecution over the laughter.

[edson]

If completely seperate would be interested to know how I recieved a phone call from BCFC following a posting that I put on this site ???

Anyone ?

The only thing I can think is, you have your date of birth in your profile information, so they possibly cross-checked their database using that.

I can absolutely 100% assure you, the football club has no access to the OTIB database, has never asked for details of anyone on here and would most certainly not be given the details even if they did ask.

You'd have to ask the club how they did it, but I promise you that they did not use any information that isn't publicly viewable.

[Guest ashtonyate]

Nonsense. It's a forum.

We can ban you for no reason at all, if we choose to.

By all means try to take us to court if we do, but I doubt we'd be able to hear the case for the prosecution over the laughter.

Definition: An association of persons for the promotion of some common object, as literature, science, politics, good fellowship, etc.; esp. an association supported by equal assessments or contributions of the members.

That is the meaning of the word Club and I think it could be argued that is what the forum is

[bully]

Nonsense. It's a forum.

We can ban you for no reason at all, if we choose to.

By all means try to take us to court if we do, but I doubt we'd be able to hear the case for the prosecution over the laughter.

Blimey Edson, thought more of you than that - expected something different from you.

I have had my differences with the mods as you well know, but I think you do a great job.

[edson]

Blimey Edson, thought more of you than that - expected something different from you.

I have had my differences with the mods as you well know, but I think you do a great job.

Don't get me wrong, we wouldn't ban someone for no reason. We really try hard t obe as reasonable as possible. I'm just making the point that suggesting we could be sued for banning someone is nonsense.

[Father Jacki]

From a newbies point of view (new to computers) It looks like you've had your problems, but they are all being addressed. I've read all the threads over the last few weeks and i can see why people are annoyed with certain aspects of how the forum works, or should i say used to work. Guidelines are getting laid down and that's a good thing so everyone knows where they stand. Happy posting!

[Guest ashtonyate]

Don't get me wrong, we wouldn't ban someone for no reason. We really try hard t obe as reasonable as possible. I'm just making the point that suggesting we could be sued for banning someone is nonsense.

Its not banning someone that's the problem its the way you do it,it must be fair and have a proceeder so that someone has the right to appeal,you just can't ban someone without good reason.

Now it may never happen but you only got to do it to someone with money who takes exception to it then you could be in trouble.

That's what happened to a Bowls Club in Cornwall, they banned a member he sued because they never followed the rules and won.

They even made a film based on it called Blackballed

[NickJ]

[edson]

Its not banning someone that's the problem its the way you do it,it must be fair and have a proceeder so that someone has the right to appeal,you just can't ban someone without good reason.

Now it may never happen but you only got to do it to someone with money who takes exception to it then you could be in trouble.

That's what happened to a Bowls Club in Cornwall, they banned a member he sued because they never followed the rules and won.

They even made a film based on it called Blackballed

That is utter nonsense.

Nobody is obliged to allow you to post on their webspace.

[edson]

[Guest ashtonyate]

That is utter nonsense.

Nobody is obliged to allow you to post on their webspace.

If you post on the web site then you are allowed if you take that right away then you have been refused and disciplined.

You may argue what you want but its how its viewed in a court of law,for the board own good I would check it out.

Our Bowls clubs have taken out an insurance identifying its committee against being sued.

[edson]

If you post on the web site then you are allowed if you take that right away then you have been refused and disciplined.

You may argue what you want but its how its viewed in a court of law,for the board own good I would check it out.

Our Bowls clubs have taken out an insurance identifying its committee against being sued.

You are being absurd.

If it's how it's viewed in a court of law, show me an example of someone being banned from an internet forum and successfully winning the case to be reinstated.

Try to do this without mention of some irrelevant bowls club.

[Guest ashtonyate]

You are being absurd.

If it's how it's viewed in a court of law, show me an example of someone being banned from an internet forum and successfully winning the case to be reinstated.

Try to do this without mention of some irrelevant bowls club.

look I am trying to give some advice,its how you view this forum you say its a forum.

I am saying that it could be viewed as a club,if it was viewed as a club in law it makes no different if its an internet forum.

[edson]

look I am trying to give some advice,its how you view this forum you say its a forum.

I am saying that it could be viewed as a club,if it was viewed as a club in law it makes no different if its an internet forum.

Ok, thank you for the advice.

I am absolutley happy that no court in the land would even consider someone being banned from an internet forum as a matter of concern to them.

[NickJ]

[edson]

[NickJ]

Fair points, Nick. Thanks.

The difference is, I think, it's Clik or the Trust who would be sued, not the individual. I believe there's a precedent for this.

People use the anonymity of the internet to post allegations without fear of being called to account personally. The person recently making accusations of assault on this forum being a prime example of that.

It is a very difficult situation for us and it's easier all round if people adopt your stance and post with responsibility and appreciation of the position it places us in if it's posted.

Ultimately, if people insist on posting allegations anonymously and without evidence, the forum will become too difficult to moderate and could be shut down. I can't imagine Clik will continue to host it if it's more trouble than it's worth, and I can't imagine the Trust will continue to fund it if it puts them in an impossible situation.

I do appreciate your points, I really do. But a bit of common sense and forethought, as you've outlined above, goes a long way towards making things easier all round.

At which point, contained within your post above, we get to the core of the problem.

Which in my view isnt the comments that are being posted, but the anonymity issue.

The difference an internet forum has compared with the press, to answer my own question, is that the press are accountable, both as a company and as individuals, as many editors have found out.

Whereas any fool can take advantage of a relatively simple registration process to come on here and say anything they like without any fear whatever that they will be called to account, if they remain anonymous.

In my view it should be a condition of registration on this forum that a user should be readily identifiable by any other user, even if they want to use some wacky username. And to stop people adopting pseudonyms or adopting somebody else's identity, or whatever, the security should be tighter, requiring ID to be provided at registration - possibly in the form of credit card details which would also have the advantage of providing the opportunity for the forum to receive a modest registration charge to go towards the running costs.

As you say, the forum administrators could possibly be sued in the event of libellous comments, however if the posters were aware that they are identifiable as individuals - and probably the likelihood of action being taken against them primarily with action against the administrators only as a secondary resort - I think the possibility of malicious comments with no substance would be significantly reduced.

[samo]

Interesting discussion between you both yourselves Edson and NickJ; exactly what a forum is for!

[edson]

At which point, contained within your post above, we get to the core of the problem.

Which in my view isnt the comments that are being posted, but the anonymity issue.

The difference an internet forum has compared with the press, to answer my own question, is that the press are accountable, both as a company and as individuals, as many editors have found out.

Whereas any fool can take advantage of a relatively simple registration process to come on here and say anything they like without any fear whatever that they will be called to account, if they remain anonymous.

In my view it should be a condition of registration on this forum that a user should be readily identifiable by any other user, even if they want to use some wacky username. And to stop people adopting pseudonyms or adopting somebody else's identity, or whatever, the security should be tighter, requiring ID to be provided at registration - possibly in the form of credit card details which would also have the advantage of providing the opportunity for the forum to receive a modest registration charge to go towards the running costs.

As you say, the forum administrators could possibly be sued in the event of libellous comments, however if the posters were aware that they are identifiable as individuals - and probably the likelihood of action being taken against them primarily with action against the administrators only as a secondary resort - I think the possibility of malicious comments with no substance would be significantly reduced.

Couldn't agree more, Nick.

We've actually spoken about all the moderators having their usernames in the form you have yours, in order to set a standard, but have held back so far as we felt it may cause confusion with so many of the mods having had their usernames established for a long time.

[Guest MaloneFM]

The problems I found with recent events is that it became acrimonious. There were accusations of lies and what appeared at first sight to be a very poor attempt at a cover up.

I don't tend to become involved in the rumors business but I still stand by what I saw and heard. There is no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, this is what the forum is for, debate. But when it descends into a moderator suggesting a poster is plain lying because there is a suspicion that his sign in name may or may not match his whole identity then its plain laughable.

No one on here has to explain themselves to anyone at all, I could log in as Jesus Christ and I really don't care if you have no faith in my ability to walk across the Malago. Would you say, for example, that Lee Peacocks 50p Shaped Head is a liar just for his sign in name? And if he has such a cranial deformity then let me offer my apologies straight away Mr Peacock. However no one should have the things they post measured by it.

The basis of the defamation law is slander. In the case of Smith v ADVFN 2008 where Mr Justice Eady held that 'Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held.' The opinion I held was honestly held. I was not slandering anyone or defaming them. No one was called anything outside of their name or accused of acts I did not honestly believe to be true. And my honesty was questioned with very flimsy evidence and comparison.

On a similar topic I have reported a post which contains abusive comments directed at me contravening three rules of this forum. Its still there and I still find it offensive. So, is there a valid case of defamation here? The opinion cannot be honestly held as it is just name calling.

The subject of using pseudonyms that can be correctly identified to an individual user would in my opinion be the death of the forum. I really don't want some berk lumbering up to me and starting a row over the things they read on here. Some posters have put on pictures of themselves. And very nice too. But thats up to them. The loss of anonymity will turn another screw on the freedom of speech we are allowed on here up to a point.

It is a legal minefield and this is a litigious society where ambulance chasers are around every corner promising free money so I understand the position that Clik are defending. However in my this whole situation could have been handled in a very much better way.

And can somebody PLEASE now remove the offending post?

[edson]

The problems I found with recent events is that it became acrimonious. There were accusations of lies and what appeared at first sight to be a very poor attempt at a cover up.

I don't tend to become involved in the rumors business but I still stand by what I saw and heard. There is no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, this is what the forum is for, debate. But when it descends into a moderator suggesting a poster is plain lying because there is a suspicion that his sign in name may or may not match his whole identity then its plain laughable.

No one on here has to explain themselves to anyone at all, I could log in as Jesus Christ and I really don't care if you have no faith in my ability to walk across the Malago. Would you say, for example, that Lee Peacocks 50p Shaped Head is a liar just for his sign in name? And if he has such a cranial deformity then let me offer my apologies straight away Mr Peacock. However no one should have the things they post measured by it.

The basis of the defamation law is slander. In the case of Smith v ADVFN 2008 where Mr Justice Eady held that 'Opinions may be expressed in exaggerated and strident terms; the only requirement is that they be honestly held.' The opinion I held was honestly held. I was not slandering anyone or defaming them. No one was called anything outside of their name or accused of acts I did not honestly believe to be true. And my honesty was questioned with very flimsy evidence and comparison.

On a similar topic I have reported a post which contains abusive comments directed at me contravening three rules of this forum. Its still there and I still find it offensive. So, is there a valid case of defamation here? The opinion cannot be honestly held as it is just name calling.

The subject of using pseudonyms that can be correctly identified to an individual user would in my opinion be the death of the forum. I really don't want some berk lumbering up to me and starting a row over the things they read on here. Some posters have put on pictures of themselves. And very nice too. But thats up to them. The loss of anonymity will turn another screw on the freedom of speech we are allowed on here up to a point.

It is a legal minefield and this is a litigious society where ambulance chasers are around every corner promising free money so I understand the position that Clik are defending. However in my this whole situation could have been handled in a very much better way.

And can somebody PLEASE now remove the offending post?

It was removed as soon as it was reported several hours ago.

Your smiling face is thanks enough.

Once again, you fail to understand the difference between having the log in name 'Gary Johnson' (for example) and actually pretending to be that person.

Why would you not want to have your own name on the forum? I can't think of a single good reason.