This is absolutely right. We have a due process and do not need to resort to messageboard vigilantism.mobi wrote:No idea, but you miss the point. It does not matter if the accusations are true or false. We are not in a position to decide whether someone is guilty. You can't be sure that personal accusations are true therefore you cannot allow them, ever. The rule is universal, it applies to everyone and does not change depending on each case. No board would allow it!charlie wrote:One question mobi, are you aware of what DL5 does for a living? Simple yes or no answer is suffice because Botrash has my total support on this one
Posting pictures of someone has consequences, both private and public, and it may have repercussions way beyond the seriousness of the offence. Not for him, but maybe for the next person who is posted, and accused. Its fine until that person happens to be innocent. Nobody should ever end up being publically named or humilated for something they didn't do, and the only way to prevent that is to not allow accusations to be made against individuals on a public forum.
This Idiot
Re: This Idiot
Never argue with an idiot: The best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.
Re: This Idiot
Yeah DL5, why didn't you eh?Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Oh, and DL5, why didn't you nick him for urinating in public?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Re: This Idiot
Newspapers "get away with a tiny printed apology" and a million pound damages. Maybe have a read up on libel.botrash wrote:Newspapers print stuff all the time based on far less credibility than this post, then get away with as tiny printed apology, so not really the best analogy!mobi wrote:Err, no, I just understand the principle of fairness. Maybe I can see the wider principle here, rather than thinking "oh he obviously did it, so its OK".Free_Transfer wrote:Mobi are you the lad in question?? Or a relation maybe?
Get a grip man.
It appears the moderator is saying that we can say what we like about someone, post their photograph, and then if it turns out to be false? Its a bit like saying a newspaper can print anything they like and then ignore it if it dosen't turn out to be true. No harm done eh?
And I haven't once said that anyone can post anything, but when it's highly likely to be true, I really can't see what the issue is?
There's posts claiming "facts" without proof practically every day on here, should I delete them all?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Anyway, your argument is a complete straw man. We are talking about personal allegations accompanying a picture identifying an individual. This is not comparable to the other posts on this board that might state someone is a crap goalkeeper.
If you don't get the principle by now then I guess you never will.
Re: This Idiot
I agree that any old false rubbish can be posted. I could have posted a picture of you and said that you punched me in the face, it would have been nonsense but I could have posted it, I'd have then been wide open to any legal actionmobi wrote:No idea, but you miss the point. It does not matter if the accusations are true or false. We are not in a position to decide whether someone is guilty. You can't be sure that personal accusations are true therefore you cannot allow them, ever. The rule is universal, it applies to everyone and does not change depending on each case. No board would allow it!charlie wrote:One question mobi, are you aware of what DL5 does for a living? Simple yes or no answer is suffice because Botrash has my total support on this one
Posting pictures of someone has consequences, both private and public, and it may have repercussions way beyond the seriousness of the offence. Not for him, but maybe for the next person who is posted, and accused. Nobody should ever end up being publically named or humilation for something they didn't do, and the only way to prevent that is to not allow accusations to be made against individuals on a public forum.
I posted what I did as I know it to be FACT, the club could verify the BTFC part if needs be. As for the pissing well myself, DTID and a few others saw it, he then posed for the photo (I can actually be seen in the background of the other one where he's with his mates) unless his identical twin was there, pissed, acting the dick and wearing the same clothes then I'm quite sure it was him.
.
Re: This Idiot
What, a citizen's arrest? not sure how to do thatFatty eats roadkill wrote:Oh, and DL5, why didn't you nick him for urinating in public?
Not getting into that debate fella, not today
.
Re: This Idiot
I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't. The point is that the only way to avoid false and damaging allegations is to make sure personal accusations aren't allowed on the forum. The principle stands regardless of whether this accusation is true or not.DL5 wrote:I agree that any old false rubbish can be posted. I could have posted a picture of you and said that you punched me in the face, it would have been nonsense but I could have posted it, I'd have then been wide open to any legal actionmobi wrote:No idea, but you miss the point. It does not matter if the accusations are true or false. We are not in a position to decide whether someone is guilty. You can't be sure that personal accusations are true therefore you cannot allow them, ever. The rule is universal, it applies to everyone and does not change depending on each case. No board would allow it!charlie wrote:One question mobi, are you aware of what DL5 does for a living? Simple yes or no answer is suffice because Botrash has my total support on this one
Posting pictures of someone has consequences, both private and public, and it may have repercussions way beyond the seriousness of the offence. Not for him, but maybe for the next person who is posted, and accused. Nobody should ever end up being publically named or humilation for something they didn't do, and the only way to prevent that is to not allow accusations to be made against individuals on a public forum.
I posted what I did as I know it to be FACT, the club could verify the BTFC part if needs be. As for the pissing well myself, DTID and a few others saw it, he then posed for the photo (I can actually be seen in the background of the other one where he's with his mates) unless his identical twin was there, pissed, acting the dick and wearing the same clothes then I'm quite sure it was him.
Re: This Idiot
And miss the match? get realDTID wrote:Yeah DL5, why didn't you eh?Fatty eats roadkill wrote:Oh, and DL5, why didn't you nick him for urinating in public?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
.
-
- Posts: 3664
- Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 7:31 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: On top of a 29 year old big chested woman
Re: This Idiot
Doing that would mean the forum needs purging and sanitising from top to bottommobi wrote:I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't. The point is that the only way to avoid false and damaging allegations is to make sure personal accusations aren't allowed on the forum. The principle stands regardless of whether this accusation is true or not.DL5 wrote:I agree that any old false rubbish can be posted. I could have posted a picture of you and said that you punched me in the face, it would have been nonsense but I could have posted it, I'd have then been wide open to any legal actionmobi wrote:No idea, but you miss the point. It does not matter if the accusations are true or false. We are not in a position to decide whether someone is guilty. You can't be sure that personal accusations are true therefore you cannot allow them, ever. The rule is universal, it applies to everyone and does not change depending on each case. No board would allow it!charlie wrote:One question mobi, are you aware of what DL5 does for a living? Simple yes or no answer is suffice because Botrash has my total support on this one
Posting pictures of someone has consequences, both private and public, and it may have repercussions way beyond the seriousness of the offence. Not for him, but maybe for the next person who is posted, and accused. Nobody should ever end up being publically named or humilation for something they didn't do, and the only way to prevent that is to not allow accusations to be made against individuals on a public forum.
I posted what I did as I know it to be FACT, the club could verify the BTFC part if needs be. As for the pissing well myself, DTID and a few others saw it, he then posed for the photo (I can actually be seen in the background of the other one where he's with his mates) unless his identical twin was there, pissed, acting the dick and wearing the same clothes then I'm quite sure it was him.
Why don't you just trust the mods to use their judgement on what's acceptable and what's not?
.
Re: This Idiot
All our problems solved then, build a new stadium with our multi million payout from the Echo last week! It's a football forum, there's infinitely less chance of a payout than even that and, until such a point that there may be a legal challenge of some kind, I would much rather have helpful posts that help weed out the troublemaking element of our fanbase. There is enough proof for me that this is a totally legit claim, due to the credibility if the poster.mobi wrote:Newspapers "get away with a tiny printed apology" and a million pound damages. Maybe have a read up on libel.botrash wrote:Newspapers print stuff all the time based on far less credibility than this post, then get away with as tiny printed apology, so not really the best analogy!mobi wrote:Err, no, I just understand the principle of fairness. Maybe I can see the wider principle here, rather than thinking "oh he obviously did it, so its OK".Free_Transfer wrote:Mobi are you the lad in question?? Or a relation maybe?
Get a grip man.
It appears the moderator is saying that we can say what we like about someone, post their photograph, and then if it turns out to be false? Its a bit like saying a newspaper can print anything they like and then ignore it if it dosen't turn out to be true. No harm done eh?
And I haven't once said that anyone can post anything, but when it's highly likely to be true, I really can't see what the issue is?
There's posts claiming "facts" without proof practically every day on here, should I delete them all?
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Anyway, your argument is a complete straw man. We are talking about personal allegations accompanying a picture identifying an individual. This is not comparable to the other posts on this board that might state someone is a crap goalkeeper.
If you don't get the principle by now then I guess you never will.
And I'm certainly not comparing it to posts with people's opinions, but rather, as clearly stated, things passed off as facts. But if you don't get this now I guess you never will...
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
- Free_Transfer
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:35 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
- Location: Hartlepool
Re: This Idiot
But he did obviously do it...so what's the problem? If you want to defend the utter scum that follow our club then that's up to you, but don't expect anyone to agree with you.mobi wrote:Err, no, I just understand the principle of fairness. Maybe I can see the wider principle here, rather than thinking "oh he obviously did it, so its OK".Free_Transfer wrote:Mobi are you the lad in question?? Or a relation maybe?
Get a grip man.
It appears the moderator is saying that we can say what we like about someone, post their photograph, and then if it turns out to be false? Its a bit like saying a newspaper can print anything they like and then ignore it if it dosen't turn out to be true. No harm done eh?
Re: This Idiot
Because his smarmy little face on the photo was crying out for me to post about him, an ideal opportunity to share a photo of someone who is supposedly bannedFatty eats roadkill wrote:Then why start this thread?
.
Re: This Idiot
Why not? If someone can claim fact and someone else only conjecture, why should the first be stifled from posting about it?mobi wrote: I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't.
If someone I didn't trust the opinion of so much from experience reading the board was to throw something out there that was less likely to be able to be backed up, it certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.DL5 wrote:Doing that would mean the forum needs purging and sanitising from top to bottommobi wrote:I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't. The point is that the only way to avoid false and damaging allegations is to make sure personal accusations aren't allowed on the forum. The principle stands regardless of whether this accusation is true or not.DL5 wrote:I agree that any old false rubbish can be posted. I could have posted a picture of you and said that you punched me in the face, it would have been nonsense but I could have posted it, I'd have then been wide open to any legal actionmobi wrote:No idea, but you miss the point. It does not matter if the accusations are true or false. We are not in a position to decide whether someone is guilty. You can't be sure that personal accusations are true therefore you cannot allow them, ever. The rule is universal, it applies to everyone and does not change depending on each case. No board would allow it!charlie wrote:One question mobi, are you aware of what DL5 does for a living? Simple yes or no answer is suffice because Botrash has my total support on this one
Posting pictures of someone has consequences, both private and public, and it may have repercussions way beyond the seriousness of the offence. Not for him, but maybe for the next person who is posted, and accused. Nobody should ever end up being publically named or humilation for something they didn't do, and the only way to prevent that is to not allow accusations to be made against individuals on a public forum.
I posted what I did as I know it to be FACT, the club could verify the BTFC part if needs be. As for the pissing well myself, DTID and a few others saw it, he then posed for the photo (I can actually be seen in the background of the other one where he's with his mates) unless his identical twin was there, pissed, acting the dick and wearing the same clothes then I'm quite sure it was him.
Why don't you just trust the mods to use their judgement on what's acceptable and what's not?
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
Re: This Idiot
You missed the point by about as far as is possible. Have you any idea what principle I am arguing about? Oh, and people do agree with me, read the thread.Free_Transfer wrote:But he did obviously do it...so what's the problem? If you want to defend the utter scum that follow our club then that's up to you, but don't expect anyone to agree with you.mobi wrote:Err, no, I just understand the principle of fairness. Maybe I can see the wider principle here, rather than thinking "oh he obviously did it, so its OK".Free_Transfer wrote:Mobi are you the lad in question?? Or a relation maybe?
Get a grip man.
It appears the moderator is saying that we can say what we like about someone, post their photograph, and then if it turns out to be false? Its a bit like saying a newspaper can print anything they like and then ignore it if it dosen't turn out to be true. No harm done eh?
Re: This Idiot
If the principle is all important, why do you want to draw the line at only posts with a photo of the accused? It's either "libel" or not, that's why the board would need a full sanitising to be consistent if we were to go down that route.mobi wrote: I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
Well briefly picking a couple of threads Boydy is in the pub and Davey is a Twat, do we have proof of these? no so they shouldn't be allowed playing by your rules.mobi wrote:
I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
If people over step the mark then the mods step in, that's what they're there for.
.
Re: This Idiot
So much flapping over a total non-event in this thread.
DL5 posts a publicly hosted photo taken of an obviously willing participant in a public place. He (and others it would seem) have seen the lad in the photo doing the things described and he's outing him as a fuckwit, which he clearly is.
No idea where all this 'he might not get a job because of this' or 'DL5 could be taken to court' protector-of-the-weak bollocks has come from, but that's exactly what it is.
DL5 posts a publicly hosted photo taken of an obviously willing participant in a public place. He (and others it would seem) have seen the lad in the photo doing the things described and he's outing him as a fuckwit, which he clearly is.
No idea where all this 'he might not get a job because of this' or 'DL5 could be taken to court' protector-of-the-weak bollocks has come from, but that's exactly what it is.
Jazz Maverick wrote:If I win the 50/50 draw I'm going to use the money to pay a tramp to throw dog s*** at you.
Re: This Idiot
Again, you are declaring yourself judge and jury. You are not in the position to make this decision. I do not trust you or anyone else to make a decision over whether a personal allegation is true or false. You simply remove personal allegations as they can damage people's lives. If you don't understand this principle then you appear to be in a position that is above your capabilities.botrash wrote:Why not? If someone can claim fact and someone else only conjecture, why should the first be stifled from posting about it?mobi wrote: I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't.
If someone I didn't trust the opinion of so much from experience reading the board was to throw something out there that was less likely to be able to be backed up, it certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
You (deliberately) ignored the bit where I specifically said "accusations of criminal behaviour". You also can't seem to answer the question I keep putting. Do you agree with the point of principle I am making, and if not, why not?DL5 wrote:Well briefly picking a couple of threads Boydy is in the pub and Davey is a Twat, do we have proof of these? no so they shouldn't be allowed playing by your rules.mobi wrote:
I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
If people over step the mark then the mods step in, that's what they're there for.
Re: This Idiot
Well if you gave someone's name it would be libel. But I am not aware of threads where an individual is named and criminal allegations are made about them. If there are then you are not doing your job correctly. The "sanitising" whinge is an excuse to do nothing.botrash wrote:If the principle is all important, why do you want to draw the line at only posts with a photo of the accused? It's either "libel" or not, that's why the board would need a full sanitising to be consistent if we were to go down that route.mobi wrote: I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
I haven't deliberately ignored anything. If you want this forum sqeaky clean and sanitised then we do it all or nothing, not just what you think shouldn't be posted.mobi wrote:You (deliberately) ignored the bit where I specifically said "accusations of criminal behaviour". You also can't seem to answer the question I keep putting. Do you agree with the point of principle I am making, and if not, why not?DL5 wrote:Well briefly picking a couple of threads Boydy is in the pub and Davey is a Twat, do we have proof of these? no so they shouldn't be allowed playing by your rules.mobi wrote:
I really don't see why the site would require "purging and sanitising top to bottom". Are there any other threads that contain photographs of individuals with accusations about their criminal behaviour? This relates to a specific type of post and I am not aware of other forums where such posts are acceptable.
It does not require a huge upheavel or massive legal enquiries. I simply expressed my view on a point of principle, either you agree with that principle or you don't.
If people over step the mark then the mods step in, that's what they're there for.
In fact this is getting silly now the focus of this thread has shifted too much, maybe it's best just to lock it as it's getting stupid. I bet the idiot is beginning to have a chuckle at this by now. If anyone at the club wants any futher info from me about him they can PM me.
.
Re: This Idiot
Still missing the explanation as to why we wouldn't need to review all posts in the forum for libellous material then?mobi wrote:Again, you are declaring yourself judge and jury. You are not in the position to make this decision. I do not trust you or anyone else to make a decision over whether a personal allegation is true or false. You simply remove personal allegations as they can damage people's lives. If you don't understand this principle then you appear to be in a position that is above your capabilities.botrash wrote:Why not? If someone can claim fact and someone else only conjecture, why should the first be stifled from posting about it?mobi wrote: I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't.
If someone I didn't trust the opinion of so much from experience reading the board was to throw something out there that was less likely to be able to be backed up, it certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
Ongoing monitoring for libellous material is kind of what a moderator does. What did you think you were supposed to be doing?botrash wrote:Still missing the explanation as to why we wouldn't need to review all posts in the forum for libellous material then?mobi wrote:Again, you are declaring yourself judge and jury. You are not in the position to make this decision. I do not trust you or anyone else to make a decision over whether a personal allegation is true or false. You simply remove personal allegations as they can damage people's lives. If you don't understand this principle then you appear to be in a position that is above your capabilities.botrash wrote:Why not? If someone can claim fact and someone else only conjecture, why should the first be stifled from posting about it?mobi wrote: I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't.
If someone I didn't trust the opinion of so much from experience reading the board was to throw something out there that was less likely to be able to be backed up, it certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
DL5 has not posted anything libelous, therefore the mods need do nothing! Jesus, are you still going on?
Re: This Idiot
I monitor the forum for many things, thanks, but don't let that stop you having a little dig each post you make!mobi wrote:botrash wrote:Still missing the explanation as to why we wouldn't need to review all posts in the forum for libellous material then?mobi wrote:Again, you are declaring yourself judge and jury. You are not in the position to make this decision. I do not trust you or anyone else to make a decision over whether a personal allegation is true or false. You simply remove personal allegations as they can damage people's lives. If you don't understand this principle then you appear to be in a position that is above your capabilities.botrash wrote:Why not? If someone can claim fact and someone else only conjecture, why should the first be stifled from posting about it?mobi wrote: I know you know it to be fact, but if you can post this then anyone can do it, and that means anyone can post any old false rubbish, as you said. We can't have a situation where some people are allowed to make personal accusations, because they are somehow trustworthy, while others aren't.
If someone I didn't trust the opinion of so much from experience reading the board was to throw something out there that was less likely to be able to be backed up, it certainly wouldn't have lasted this long.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Ongoing monitoring for libellous material is kind of what a moderator does. What did you think you were supposed to be doing?
I'm asking the question (repeatedly) as you earlier claimed only the post with the photo should be looked at, and that the whole board didn't need looking through. Then you're arguing a completely different point and decided only accusing people of illegal acts needs looking at. Then once again change to all potential libellous accusations.
So which is it? And if not the entire board, then what, bearing in mind the principle is the important factor?
And where you're right that it's not my place to decide what is and isn't a true fact, it's very much my place to make a judgement on behalf of the board admin over what is acceptable content, and that includes making judgements on how likely something is to have its basis in truth or in unfounded accusation. Consistently. Across the whole board.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6772
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: This Idiot
Wow, this is the thread that just keeps on giving.
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Re: This Idiot
You agree that you aren't in a position to decide what is or isn't true, but then contradict yourself in the same sentence by claiming that you are in a position to make a decision on whether something is based in truth or not. In other words, if you think its true then you allow it! The only acceptable way to operate is to not allow these type of personal accusations to be made at all, criminal or libellous or both. It's not difficult, doesn't take time, and its fair.botrash wrote:I monitor the forum for many things, thanks, but don't let that stop you having a little dig each post you make!
I'm asking the question (repeatedly) as you earlier claimed only the post with the photo should be looked at, and that the whole board didn't need looking through. Then you're arguing a completely different point and decided only accusing people of illegal acts needs looking at. Then once again change to all potential libellous accusations.
So which is it? And if not the entire board, then what, bearing in mind the principle is the important factor?
And where you're right that it's not my place to decide what is and isn't a true fact, it's very much my place to make a judgement on behalf of the board admin over what is acceptable content, and that includes making judgements on how likely something is to have its basis in truth or in unfounded accusation. Consistently. Across the whole board.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I would politely request you discuss this issue with the other moderators as I do not agree with your judgement.
Re: This Idiot
You're very good at telling me what you think I meant instead of reading what I actually said. There's no contradiction, I accept I can't say what is 100% true as I haven't personally seen evidence that confirms or refutes the facts, but I can make a judgement on what is most likely true based on the reliability of the source.mobi wrote:You agree that you aren't in a position to decide what is or isn't true, but then contradict yourself in the same sentence by claiming that you are in a position to make a decision on whether something is based in truth or not. In other words, if you think its true then you allow it! The only acceptable way to operate is to not allow these type of personal accusations to be made at all, criminal or libellous or both. It's not difficult, doesn't take time, and its fair.botrash wrote:I monitor the forum for many things, thanks, but don't let that stop you having a little dig each post you make!
I'm asking the question (repeatedly) as you earlier claimed only the post with the photo should be looked at, and that the whole board didn't need looking through. Then you're arguing a completely different point and decided only accusing people of illegal acts needs looking at. Then once again change to all potential libellous accusations.
So which is it? And if not the entire board, then what, bearing in mind the principle is the important factor?
And where you're right that it's not my place to decide what is and isn't a true fact, it's very much my place to make a judgement on behalf of the board admin over what is acceptable content, and that includes making judgements on how likely something is to have its basis in truth or in unfounded accusation. Consistently. Across the whole board.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I would politely request you discuss this issue with the other moderators as I do not agree with your judgement.
Also there's been one other mod in here backing me up and I've openly stated that the site admins can ultimately override me and I will accept their decision. I'm not sure what more you want other than for me to delete a one off post that has a small chance of being untrue, while ignoring every other post on the board that includes a personal accusation that I also haven't been privy to any evidence of.
Sorry but it's got to be fair and consistent treatment for all posts.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
Re: This Idiot
If somebody complains about another potentially libellous post then you can look into it, if not, then you shouldn't have any worries. As it is, I am requesting you remove one potentionally libellous post. If you insist that you can't do that because it means you'd have to remove all potentially libellous posts then so be it. I am sure the admins will decide if that is a valid reason for doing nothing. If so, then I will accept their judgement and that's the end of it.botrash wrote:You're very good at telling me what you think I meant instead of reading what I actually said. There's no contradiction, I accept I can't say what is 100% true as I haven't personally seen evidence that confirms or refutes the facts, but I can make a judgement on what is most likely true based on the reliability of the source.mobi wrote:You agree that you aren't in a position to decide what is or isn't true, but then contradict yourself in the same sentence by claiming that you are in a position to make a decision on whether something is based in truth or not. In other words, if you think its true then you allow it! The only acceptable way to operate is to not allow these type of personal accusations to be made at all, criminal or libellous or both. It's not difficult, doesn't take time, and its fair.botrash wrote:I monitor the forum for many things, thanks, but don't let that stop you having a little dig each post you make!
I'm asking the question (repeatedly) as you earlier claimed only the post with the photo should be looked at, and that the whole board didn't need looking through. Then you're arguing a completely different point and decided only accusing people of illegal acts needs looking at. Then once again change to all potential libellous accusations.
So which is it? And if not the entire board, then what, bearing in mind the principle is the important factor?
And where you're right that it's not my place to decide what is and isn't a true fact, it's very much my place to make a judgement on behalf of the board admin over what is acceptable content, and that includes making judgements on how likely something is to have its basis in truth or in unfounded accusation. Consistently. Across the whole board.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
I would politely request you discuss this issue with the other moderators as I do not agree with your judgement.
Also there's been one other mod in here backing me up and I've openly stated that the site admins can ultimately override me and I will accept their decision. I'm not sure what more you want other than for me to delete a one off post that has a small chance of being untrue, while ignoring every other post on the board that includes a personal accusation that I also haven't been privy to any evidence of.
Sorry but it's got to be fair and consistent treatment for all posts.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD