Inconsistant modding...?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

More out of curiosity than complaint, but in the armed gardai thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055377252

Two people called each other idiots but only one got infracted/banned (not sure which)

First incident: Tefri in post no. 15, no action
Second incident: Steyr in post no. 20, infracted (yellow card was infraction, red was ban, no?)

Both using the exact same phrase too...

Overheal

Um... I was responded to in Number 15. What are you talking about

methinks the offending posts were deleted.

Karoma

They didn't call each other idiots, they called the OP and idiot. Or, at least, tried to.
Secondly, they wer both infract. They were both banned.
In my post in that thread: "They.."
So, um, with all due respect: what are you on? Try hitting refresh before hitting the big shiny buttons that create new thread. Hell, maybe even hit the report post button.

ED: Those posts were soft-deleted a short while back.

Alanstrainor

I think the posts have been removed/deleted? if not i'm just very confused

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Posts have indeed been deleted.

Karoma - the posts were replied in post no.52, having been up there for five hours. I posted this eight minutes later. What's the point of hitting the refresh button if the posts are deleted after I post this? As I said, I was curious, not complaining. One of them had a red infraction card at the time and had not been banned.

Less of the condescending attitude, please, Sir.

Karoma

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Posts have indeed been deleted.

Karoma - the posts were replied in post no.52, having been up there for five hours. I posted this eight minutes later. What's the point of hitting the refresh button if the posts are deleted after I post this? As I said, I was curious, not complaining. One of them had a red infraction card at the time and had not been banned.

Less of the condescending attitude, please, Sir.

The infractions were given before your thread. The posts were deleted at the 22:29, not in response to this thread. I don't give a toss for these knee-jerk threads.
You posted a Feedback thread before your reported a post? You couldn't wait a few minutes for me to read the thread, and finish writing the messages in the infractions and bans? It's not a "condescending attitude".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Karoma wrote: »

You posted a Feedback thread before your reported a post? You couldn't wait a few minutes for me to read the thread, and finish writing the messages in the infractions and bans? It's not a "condescending attitude". Shut up or you'll get an attitude.. I'm soooo sorry: Have a smiley:

The post had already been reported and infracted - what was the point in reporting it again?

Karoma

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The post had already been reported and infracted - what was the point in reporting it again?

The one that you say wasn't infracted...? (Which it was.)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Karoma wrote: »

The one that you say wasn't infracted...? (Which it was.)

I didn't find them particualrly offensive, to be honest. But only one of them had a card beside it which led me to beleive only one of them had been infracted.

VH

Karoma wrote: »

They didn't call each other idiots, they called the OP and idiot. Or, at least, tried to.
Secondly, they wer both infract. They were both banned.
In my post in that thread: "They.."
So, um, with all due respect: what are you on? Try hitting refresh before hitting the big shiny buttons that create new thread. Hell, maybe even hit the report post button.

ED: Those posts were soft-deleted a short while back.

bit in bold is now irrelevant isnt it - you could have removed it when you editted to put in the bit about the soft delete - no need for that attitude

KhanTheMan

Another stupid decision here from Mellor.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055377715

And not only that but he searches my posts and finds another one where i am asking for advice on a product earlier today, which didnt seem to deserve any warnings at the time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57252124#post57252124

I cant find it now, i guess he deleted it too.

This is exactly what it said

---

My Dad is looking for a nice cheap, green alternative (or even supplement) to oil (no gas where he lives either) for heating.

This unit can be installed for €2500, and will fit his house size nicely, but i cant find any details at all on it on the web in English.

Has anyone here bought one and could you please let us know your experiences with it.

http://heatpumps.scanhome.ie/catalogue/

---

I was in fact looking for advice on the same product that i found on boards , here in this post below today, that someone else posted back in early '07 and he gives me an infraction for it. Just for asking if anyone who bought it could post their experiences with it.

http://santa.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52868119&postcount=115

I've never seen anyone act so childish as Mellor did tonight.

Bob the Builder

KhanTheMan wrote: »

...meh...

For pretty much all of what you said there, it's a job for the helpdesk, or at least to PM an SMod or an Admin, or even that categories' CMod...

We can't read no deleted information, but they can...

KhanTheMan

nevf wrote: »

For pretty much all of what you said there, it's a job for the helpdesk, or at least to PM an SMod or an Admin, or even that categories' CMod...

We can't read no deleted information, but they can...

you can read the deleted post above. I posted it word for word in my post. Anyway ok not bothered getting a mid involved. Just wanted to highlight the childishness of mellor some stupid modding.

Kintarō Hattori

KhanTheMan wrote: »

you can read the deleted post above. I posted it word for word in my post. Anyway ok not bothered getting a mid involved. Just wanted to highlight the childishness of mellor some stupid nodding.

I haven't read what you posted but I agree, awful awful nodding.

brendansmith

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I haven't read what you posted but I agree, awful awful nodding.

BOOO YAAAAA!!! Take that typo!

Mellor

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Another stupid decision here from Mellor.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055377715

Stupid decision, or stupid post.
The charter stats not to name companies, recomendations etc. As we have a huge shill problem in C&P. Muffler re-stated this on the thread and you went and posted info on company, and also siad they are at least 3 times as dear as others. Are you familar with libel? Not generally a good practise to get involved in.

And not only that but he searches my posts and finds another one where i am asking for advice on a product earlier today, which didnt seem to deserve any warnings at the time.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=57252124#post57252124

I cant find it now, i guess he deleted it too.

Believe me, I have better things to do than check up on you. Even if you have difficulty in posting inline with the charter.

Once you start making up lies about a mod, it really takes away from your arguement. Why would you do this?

And before you play dumb. All the mods can see all the infractions, so they can all see that I certainly didn't search for another post to infract.

Besides, your second post is also dis-obeying rules. So if you were infracted for it, there is little case here also.

This is exactly what it said

---

My Dad is looking for a nice cheap, green alternative (or even supplement) to oil (no gas where he lives either) for heating.

This unit can be installed for €2500, and will fit his house size nicely, but i cant find any details at all on it on the web in English.

Has anyone here bought one and could you please let us know your experiences with it.

http://heatpumps.scanhome.ie/catalogue/

---

That message has been deleted, for reasons above.
But, I have no idea why you would publicaly state that I did it

I case you don't get it. I never seen that post until after it was deleted.

I was in fact looking for advice on the same product that i found on boards , here in this post below today, that someone else posted back in early '07 and he gives me an infraction for it. Just for asking if anyone who bought it could post their experiences with it.

http://santa.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52868119&postcount=115

Firstly, I wasn't a mod back in early 2007. But thats probably my fault again.
Secondly, the charter of C&P, changes all the time. We have to do this to deal with emerging problems. The biggest problem is shill posts.
They go something like;

shill wrote:

I am looking for blah blah for my new house.
I have looked around and this one looks like the best on the net.
www.link-to-product.com

What do you think?

Now can you see the similarities with post above. (The one that you said I search for and infracted, again I didn't).
I'm not saying you are, or aren't a shill. For the record I don't believe you are. But those typr of posts aren't allowed simply due to the fact that it gets abused and most are not legitimate requests.

I've never seen anyone act so childish as Mellor did tonight.

Sigh.

Ludo

From reading this thread, am I to take it that no companies or opinions about companies may be mentioned on boards.ie?
This is crazy and would make numerous forums obsolete. Companies and product recommendations are commonplace throughout boards.ie.

Just look at the following forums I regularly visit and you will find loads of people giving out about or praising various companies: broadband, satellite, television, parenting, etc, etc. How can this kind of post be banned from one particular forum but not from all others?

smashey

Ludo wrote: »

From reading this thread, am I to take it that no companies or opinions about companies may be mentioned on boards.ie?
This is crazy and would make numerous forums obsolete. Companies and product recommendations are commonplace throughout boards.ie.

Just look at the following forums I regularly visit and you will find loads of people giving out about or praising various companies: broadband, satellite, television, parenting, etc, etc. How can this kind of post be banned from one particular forum but not from all others?

We have a strict policy of not naming companies in Construction & Planning except for the obvious ones like Kingspan, Tegral etc. This stems from having people sign up to pimp their company and also prevents any chance of disparaging comments about certain companies.

Each forum has its own charter.

Ludo

I understand that but I am wondering why one forum is so special. Surely this should either be a site wide ban (would be rediculous) or be allowed everywhere.

smashey

Ludo wrote: »

I understand that but I am wondering why one forum is so special. Surely this should either be a site wide ban (would be rediculous) or be allowed everywhere.

I don't think it is specific to one forum. Remember, there are more than 1000 fora here.

Also, in C&P, there are just too many potentially dodgy posts if somebody was to come on and say they bought wondows from X and they are sh1t.

KhanTheMan

Here you forgot some

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376663

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055372849

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055368129

and thats after only 1 minute of looking.

Wouldnt want to be living up to the title of this thread now would we.

Ludo

smashey wrote: »

I don't think it is specific to one forum. Remember, there are more than 1000 fora here.

Also, in C&P, there are just too many potentially dodgy posts if somebody was to come on and say they bought wondows from X and they are sh1t.

Same applies to every other forum which deals with services and products. I can go onto the laptops forum, for example, and say I bought a XXX brand laptop and it was ****/great without a problem.

smashey

Eh, I'm not getting into a pi$$ing contest here. Each forum has its own rules along with general site-wide rules.

KhanTheMan, if you see something that breaches the charter, report it.

KhanTheMan

smashey wrote: »

Eh, I'm not getting into a pi$$ing contest here. Each forum has its own rules along with general site-wide rules.

KhanTheMan, if you see something that breaches the charter, report it.

Just pointing out some inconsistent modding as the thread title says.

smashey

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Just pointing out some inconsistent modding as the thread title says.

Nothing to do with falling foul of mellor last night then?

KhanTheMan

smashey wrote: »

Nothing to do with falling foul of mellor last night then?

If you mean Falling foul of inconsistent modding then yes. Whats your excuse?

Bob the Builder

Until you show a small bit of respect towards the mods, you ain't going to get nothing sorted.

KhanTheMan wrote: »

If you mean Falling foul of inconsistent modding then yes. Whats your excuse?

Dropped at birth.
What's yours?

r3nu4l

Mods are human, they are also doing the mod job voluntarily. They are prone to mistakes or being inconsistent on occasion like all human beings.

Help them out by reporting anything you see that may breach the charter for that particular forum. There's no need for users to fight the power or for mods to come down with the heavy hand in a lot of cases. With a bit of tact and diplomacy most instances can be resolved without the need for a feedback thread.

smashey

KhanTheMan wrote: »

If you mean Falling foul of inconsistent modding then yes. Whats your excuse?

/Deep breath...

...counts to 10...

...walks away without taking the bait.

Bob the Builder

smashey wrote: »

/Deep breath...

...counts to 10...

...walks away without taking the bait.

It's okay, I've already told him you were dropped at birth. Thats your excuse and i'm sticking to it..

faceman

Ludo wrote: »

Same applies to every other forum which deals with services and products. I can go onto the laptops forum, for example, and say I bought a XXX brand laptop and it was ****/great without a problem.

Not necessarily. Every industry is different. Every company treat negative online feedback differently. Some companies even registered on boards to deal with online complaints.

Shilling is the lowest of the low and because of the anomity of the internet, everyone is open to abuse. Things must have been pretty bad for the C&P mods to put a ban on it in place but if it eliminates shillers then IMO its bestti stays to avoid the forum losing any credibility it carries.

Anyway we dont get many C&P shillers posting the Film forum instead so we dont need a ban there too!

Mellor

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Here you forgot some

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055376663

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055372849

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055368129

and thats after only 1 minute of looking.

Wouldnt want to be living up to the title of this thread now would we.

I never claimed to being a super-mod that caught every occurance of it.
I just claimed that what you did was not allowed. Did you even read the charter?

Also, I see you ignored the fact that I called you on posting lies about me in feedback. Kudos

faceman wrote: »

Things must have been pretty bad for the C&P mods to put a ban on it in place but if it eliminates shillers then IMO its bestti stays to avoid the forum losing any credibility it carries.

It got pretty bad.
And considering that a house is the most valuable thing that most of us will own. I am happy to do it if it prevents anyone getting screwed over.

Besides shilling, there was also the slanderous comments of the sort Khan posted. They got pretty bad, and it wouldn't be shocking if a small company like sheomra took legal action.

KhanTheMan

Mellor wrote: »

I never claimed to being a super-mod that caught every occurance of it.
I just claimed that what you did was not allowed. Did you even read the charter?

Also, I see you ignored the fact that I called you on posting lies about me in feedback. Kudos


It got pretty bad.
And considering that a house is the most valuable thing that most of us will own. I am happy to do it if it prevents anyone getting screwed over.

Besides shilling, there was also the slanderous comments of the sort Khan posted. They got pretty bad, and it wouldn't be shocking if a small company like sheomra took legal action.

.

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

Bob the Builder

KhanTheMan wrote: »

.

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

No, both moderators just agreed with the decision. Nobody is ganging up on you at all.

Fysh

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Yep you missed some pretty easy ones there alright. Incinsistent moderating alright. Funny how the moderators gang up on people so quickly after one has a disagreement with with a poster. And please, spare me the guff about legal action. There is far far worse said about companies throughout boards than I said about said company (which is easily verified if you bothered to check that companies and any other companieS prices).

Regarding the legal action aspect : the unfortunate truth of the current state of affairs is that, whether or not others have made more damning comments regarding particular companies or individuals than you have, boards.ie and its administrators are the ones who will carry the can should any legal challenge arise. Thus they have to decide how much lenience is allowable and which areas require particularly careful moderation.

As Mellor says, accomodation is probably the most expensive area of personal property across the board - thus, for companies working within the construction and accomodation field, the potential losses due to libelous remarks are arguably higher and thus the legal risks more significant than for other areas.

A quick look at the Construction & Planning Charter shows the following:

"C&P wrote:

Any threads naming specific companies/traders will be deleted.

Threads looking for recommendations in a certain area will be allowed but any recommendations should be given by pm only.
(...)
Lastly, any defamation found in this forum will result in the thread/post being edited or deleted. Defamation is when something is said about another person (legal, natural or otherwise, that means companies can be defamed) that is untrue and damaging.

That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

On a more general point regarding moderation and post-reporting; I can see how confusion can arise regarding exactly what is or is not allowed if other posts of a similar nature are perceived to be allowed (ie they aren't deleted/edited and locked by the mods) but if you do find other posts that are in breach of the same rule that has been cited as the cause for your warning/infraction then you should report them. It's easier than you might think for bad posts to be missed in a moderately busy forum, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. I can see how it would look inconsistent, but at the same time the existence of other threads that break the same rule you were infracted for doesn't mean the rule isn't there.

KhanTheMan

Fysh wrote: »

Regarding the legal action aspect : the unfortunate truth of the current state of affairs is that, whether or not others have made more damning comments regarding particular companies or individuals than you have, boards.ie and its administrators are the ones who will carry the can should any legal challenge arise. Thus they have to decide how much lenience is allowable and which areas require particularly careful moderation.

As Mellor says, accomodation is probably the most expensive area of personal property across the board - thus, for companies working within the construction and accomodation field, the potential losses due to libelous remarks are arguably higher and thus the legal risks more significant than for other areas.

A quick look at the Construction & Planning Charter shows the following:



That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

On a more general point regarding moderation and post-reporting; I can see how confusion can arise regarding exactly what is or is not allowed if other posts of a similar nature are perceived to be allowed (ie they aren't deleted/edited and locked by the mods) but if you do find other posts that are in breach of the same rule that has been cited as the cause for your warning/infraction then you should report them. It's easier than you might think for bad posts to be missed in a moderately busy forum, and it's always better to be safe than sorry. I can see how it would look inconsistent, but at the same time the existence of other threads that break the same rule you were infracted for doesn't mean the rule isn't there.

I understand your point. But the moderator should either moderate properly or not. So since any company can read threads that they missed at any time, maybe the mods who missed other offending posts should go back and find the offending threads and delete them all or else let boards be open to libel because of their inability to mod consistently.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

That's pretty clear-cut, imo. I understand the frustration of not being able to air an opinion about a company if you've had bad experiences with them before, because obviously you want to try and help other people avoid having that same bad experience. Nonetheless, the rules say that for legal reasons you can only do so via PM, not in the main discussion area - and you broke them, hence the infraction.

If it is legal reasons that means in companies are not allowed to be named in ANY way, then this should apply to ALL forums on boards and not just this forum. Same logic applies to all other areas also. Don't see why this is different to others. This would then make modding and posting clear cut across all forums.

Fysh

KhanTheMan wrote: »

I understand your point. But the moderator should either moderate properly or not. So since any company can read threads that they missed at any time, maybe the mods who missed other offending posts should go back and find the offending threads and delete them all or else let boards be open to libel because of their inability to mod consistently.

Without wanting to speak for Mellor or any of the other mods on C&P, I would expect that the posts you highlighted will be checked and amended/deleted as required. That said, us moderators are only human, as r3nu4l points out, and to expect infallibility from us is to set yourself up for disappointment, unfortunately. This is why you see so many posts asking people to report anything that they think may be in breach of the charter.

Ludo wrote: »

If it is legal reasons that means in companies are not allowed to be named in ANY way, then this should apply to ALL forums on boards and not just this forum. Same logic applies to all other areas also. Don't see why this is different to others. This would then make modding and posting clear cut across all forums.

I'm not an admin, so please bear in mind that this is only my own opinion on the matter, but:

a) what you're suggesting here goes beyond libel and slander laws, as I understand them, and
b) plenty of fora on boards would become utterly pointless if such a draconian rule were put in place.

Consider all culture-related fora on boards. The Film forum would struggle to have any interesting discussions if you couldn't name any individuals, films, or studios when discussing films. Likewise TV, Comics, Literature, and plenty of others. The problem comes when talking about products or company in a specific consumer context, and the admins & moderators of C&P have apparently determined that the charter rules as quoted above are the response they are happy with for the issues as they apply to that forum. If they want to impose the restriction you suggest, it's their right. They own the company and the hardware which boards runs on, they have to shoulder the responsibility for any legal matters that may arise as a result, so it's up to them. We can disagree with their decisions, but ultimately how we as posters feel about those decisions has to be less important to the admins than making sure that their legal position is sound; otherwise the existence of boards as a whole is threatened.

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not an admin, so please bear in mind that this is only my own opinion on the matter, but:

a) what you're suggesting here goes beyond libel and slander laws, as I understand them, and
b) plenty of fora on boards would become utterly pointless if such a draconian rule were put in place.

Consider all culture-related fora on boards. The Film forum would struggle to have any interesting discussions if you couldn't name any individuals, films, or studios when discussing films. Likewise TV, Comics, Literature, and plenty of others. The problem comes when talking about products or company in a specific consumer context, and the admins & moderators of C&P have apparently determined that the charter rules as quoted above are the response they are happy with for the issues as they apply to that forum. If they want to impose the restriction you suggest, it's their right. They own the company and the hardware which boards runs on, they have to shoulder the responsibility for any legal matters that may arise as a result, so it's up to them. We can disagree with their decisions, but ultimately how we as posters feel about those decisions has to be less important to the admins than making sure that their legal position is sound; otherwise the existence of boards as a whole is threatened.

I fully agree...it would be rediculous. That is why I cannot understand why that restriction exists on the C+P forum and causes hassle for the mods.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I fully agree...it would be rediculous. That is why I cannot understand why that restriction exists on the C+P forum and causes hassle for the mods.

Well, the long-standing legal wrangle concerningThe Festival That Must Not Be Named and the company behind it is probably the biggest single factor for such caution. I would imagine, however, that the admins have taken some form of legal advice on how best to protect themselves, since the site they run is legally considered to be analogous to a newspaper if I understand correctly (with them as the publishers and thus liable for whatever comments are published on here).

I would also imagine that the presence of moderators on the site would count in their favour if and when legal complications develop. With the present setup, even if a libelous comment is posted by someone and remains visible for several hours, there are still processes in place to deal with it. Allowing anyone to say what they like would be irresponsible, since the law does not allow the admins to also pass on the legal responsibility for those comments onto the poster.

Ludo

I understand fully where you are coming from but that is still no reason to allow comments on specific companies on one forum but not on another. This kind of rule would be site wide if the owners were afraid of legal action. The only conclusion I can come to is that the C+P forum mods have decided on this rule to make their own life easier...and fair enough. But to claim it is for legal reasons does not make sense when anyone can pass comment on other forums on this site.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I understand fully where you are coming from but that is still no reason to allow comments on specific companies on one forum but not on another. This kind of rule would be site wide if the owners were afraid of legal action. The only conclusion I can come to is that the C+P forum mods have decided on this rule to make their own life easier...and fair enough. But to claim it is for legal reasons does not make sense when anyone can pass comment on other forums on this site.

It makes sense if you consider that:

a) different companies may well have different approaches to managing public relations - for instance as pointed out earlier in the thread, some companies have approached boards to create hosted fora for customer interactions,
b) different industries will have different values for individual purchases, with corresponding different potential losses as a result of libelous remarks, and
c) the admins of this site have, in all probability, taken private legal advice which we are not privy to and thus unable to properly judge.

To put the above in context : neither you nor I are, to my knowledge, currently embroiled in a lawsuit with a major events promoter over comments posted by people on boards.ie about a festival event 2 years ago. In light of this, I think neither of us are really in any position to start telling the admins how they should run the site as a whole, or to claim that mods in a particular forum are lying if they say that a particular rule has been imposed to offset potential legal issues.

Mellor

I can guarantee you it does not make life easier.
90% of all the bull**** we deal with stems from that.
Mostly shill type posts. For obvious reason we can't allow that to happen.
I suppose I better spell it out as some people are apparently blind to common sense.
A house is the most valuable that most if not all of us buy. Alot of people use the C&P forum as a resource to find various info on planning building, different options and technologies etc.
Now say we let it run its course, anything that was to be named, could be named.
Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?
Roughly, 95% of posts that start of with a problem, and in the same post mention a company are shills. We lock them. Sometimes honest posts get lock, a quick pm and a edit sorts it out.
This is not a C&P rule btw. Shilling is pretty much banned accross the whole site. There is one semi exception that I know of.

As for the legal issue. And slanderous comments being banned. That was pretty well covered before. We are all aware of the major case involving boards. There have been others, there have been threats of legal action. There have been some very dangerous posts that luckily got away with it. The posters of boards have incredible power. They may not relise it,
When somebody shows up randomly, saying company X are rip-offs merchants. And posts what I know to be a lie. Surely, it looks suspect. Maybe its just an exageration, but maybe theres mallice behind it.

Ludo

Thank you mellor for trying to point out (in a condescending way) your point of view (the common sense comment).

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one. And the comments about the company that shall not be named is not relevant here.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.
I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

I guess we will just agree to disagree.

smashey

Ludo wrote: »

Thank you mellor for trying to point out (in a condescending way) your point of view (the common sense comment).

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one. And the comments about the company that shall not be named is not relevant here.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.
I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

I guess we will just agree to disagree.

Every forum has its own rules and that is what we decided to apply in C&P. No big conspiracy.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

I simply fail to see how boards are leaving themselves open to legal action for these type of comments on one forum but not on others. Maybe I should post the question on the legal forum...oh hang on, you can't post legal questions there

It boils down to this:

You're not the owner of the site.
You're not, as far as I know, a lawyer involved in any current litigation involving boards.ie and its owners.
Thus, while you are entitled to ask the question above, you have no guarantee of any answer more detailed than "because the admins say so". I can't imagine anyone will actually stop you asking this question (unless the thread gets locked), but at the end of the day the admins owe you nothing and are quite entitled to ignore you on an on-going basis.

javaboy

Ludo wrote: »

I do see your point about shilling and it is a pain, but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one.

If I post in C&P and say Bob's Plumbing are the best thing since sliced bread and they subsequently wreck your house and have your toilet flush backflowing up your sink, you'll probably be a bit pissed off since your home is a €400,000 investment and some cowboy has just arsed it up.

You might even be pissed off enough to attempt to sue the place that recommended it i.e. boards.ie.

If I post in the Sweets forum and say Starbars are lovely and you buy one based on that advice only to discover that there not in fact lovely at all, you're not likely to come knocking on Boards.ie's door with a solicitor's letter are you?

I know that's a stupid example but the difference of scale is important. People are more likely to go down the legal route if something impacts their expensive home. You might notice also that on the motors forum, car brands can be named, but the naming of garages is carefully controlled to protect boards.ie from legal repercussions.

A general across the board ban on company names would eliminate the problem but it would also stifle discussion. The current setup is a compromise where we get a reasonably good balance of discussion but certain high-risk forums have to have more restrictive policies to keep legal trouble at bay.

Mellor

Ludo wrote: »

.............. but no-one has given any reason why it is ok to post this exact type of comment on some forums but not on this one.
If I go onto forum XX and say product AAA is complete turd and they are a rip-off it is perfectly acceptable (or the opposite saying they are brilliant and great technology or something). On the C+P forum this comment is not allowed for legal reasons.

I posted the reason above, its not just legal, its also user protection,

Mellor wrote: »

Now say we let it run its course, anything that was to be named, could be named.
Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?

Ludo

Fysh wrote: »

It boils down to this:

You're not the owner of the site.
You're not, as far as I know, a lawyer involved in any current litigation involving boards.ie and its owners.
Thus, while you are entitled to ask the question above, you have no guarantee of any answer more detailed than "because the admins say so". I can't imagine anyone will actually stop you asking this question (unless the thread gets locked), but at the end of the day the admins owe you nothing and are quite entitled to ignore you on an on-going basis.

What a nonsensical post...why bother!

javaboy wrote: »

If I post in C&P and say Bob's Plumbing are the best thing since sliced bread and they subsequently wreck your house and have your toilet flush backflowing up your sink, you'll probably be a bit pissed off since your home is a €400,000 investment and some cowboy has just arsed it up.

You might even be pissed off enough to attempt to sue the place that recommended it i.e. boards.ie.

If I post in the Sweets forum and say Starbars are lovely and you buy one based on that advice only to discover that there not in fact lovely at all, you're not likely to come knocking on Boards.ie's door with a solicitor's letter are you?

I know that's a stupid example but the difference of scale is important. People are more likely to go down the legal route if something impacts their expensive home. You might notice also that on the motors forum, car brands can be named, but the naming of garages is carefully controlled to protect boards.ie from legal repercussions.

A general across the board ban on company names would eliminate the problem but it would also stifle discussion. The current setup is a compromise where we get a reasonably good balance of discussion but certain high-risk forums have to have more restrictive policies to keep legal trouble at bay.

Fair points and well put (unlike the previous useless post). But I don't believe anyone who makes a decision based solely on something they read in a thread on boards.ie is in a position to sue them for giving bad advice though. They would be laughed out of court for being so stupid. I would imagine the ban is more aimed at preventing a situation where a companies reputation may be adversely affected by chatter here and the company seeking compensation and this scenario surely applies to all or no forums.

Anyhow, I'm not bothered about it in the slightest. I only asked out of curiosity as it seemed a very strange inconsistency.

Ludo

Mellor wrote: »

Now, a poster, who is a layperson, posts asking about a certain area, say water proofing.
Some "poster A" recommends "Company X", saying their new technology in liquid DPC is the best on the market. But turns out they are using inferiour products, not approved etc. Resulting in huge water damage. The original poster is in pretty bad shape.
Could it of been prevented?

Anyone silly enough to rely solely on posts on the internet without doing their own proper research shouldn't really be allowed anywhere near construction unless it is meccano

And sorry, I don't mean to argue with you...as I said in my previous post, I was just curious.

Fysh

Ludo wrote: »

What a nonsensical post...why bother!

You seem to be under some illusion that there's legislation somewhere which gives you rights and entitlements when it comes to this website. The fact is, you don't.

The admins of this site have been very open a lot of their reasons for running things as they do, which is quite nice. However, they have to assume all legal responsibility for the contents of the site and thus they are entitled to impose what rules they wish, however arbitrary the rest of us may think they are. I really can't stress that last bit enough.

The only people actually entitled to question those rules are the admins themselves, or lawyers actively involved in some form of legal undertaking that concerns boards.ie. The rest of us can ponder, criticise or otherwise question them as much as we want, but the fact remains - they don't have to answer us.

My opinion, your opinion, the opinion of that weird guy in the smelly overcoat in the corner who keeps muttering under his breath and touching himself - in legal terms, they're all worth the same thing, i.e. nothing. The only people whose opinions matter on the finer legal points concerning boards.ie and potential libel are solicitors, whether they are those contacted by the admins to make sure they're on safe grounds or those contacted by companies who aren't happy about what they see said about them on boards.ie.

Don't get me wrong here - I do agree with you that anyone dumb enough to take a post on the internet at face value should not be able to use that as a defence and a basis to claim recompense from anyone else, but that's not necessarily how the law works (also, see my previous comment about the value of our respective opinions). No solicitor in the world would be daft enough to suggest that you mount your libel defence case based entirely on "how you think the world should work".