Boards being used as a platform to attack a business.

SugarHigh

I thought this sort of thing wasn't accepted here?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056179311

Basically she has an issue because the dog trainer demands her dog wears a muzzle. The way I see it she has 2 choices.

1) Accept it and put a muzzle on her dog.

2) Simply don't go to that trainer anymore

Instead of doing either of these she decides to use boards to rally a bunch of people together. They then proceed to post quite abusive messages on the businesses Facebook page resulting in it being taken down. It now also seems as if the business is likely to close down.

Is this sort of thing really tolerated?

Wolfe Tone

I thought that was terrible too.

Insect Overlord

SugarHigh wrote: »

I thought this sort of thing wasn't accepted here?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056179311

Basically she has an issue because the dog trainer demands her dog wears a muzzle. The way I see it she has 2 choices.

1) Accept it and put a muzzle on her dog.

2) Simply don't go to that trainer anymore

Instead of doing either of these she decides to use boards to rally a bunch of people together. They then proceed to post quite abusive messages on the businesses Facebook page resulting in it being taken down. It now also seems as if the business is likely to close down.

Is this sort of thing really tolerated?

Did you report any of the posts in that thread or try in any way to contact a moderator from the Animals & Pet Issues Forum? Because there's feck all that can be done unless you actually alert those who can help to the problem at hand.

SugarHigh

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Did you report any of the posts in that thread or try in any way to contact a moderator from the Animals & Pet Issues Forum? Because there's feck all that can be done unless you actually alert those who can help to the problem at hand.

I have only just read the thread and since it was made almost 2 days ago I assumed the mods were already aware of it.

Reported it now.

I wasn't even sure if I should report it because I wasn't sure it was actually against any boards.ie rules.

Insect Overlord

One of my dad's favourite clichés starts with the words "Never assume"

For what it's worth, this is the message that comes up when you go to report a post:

This is used to report a post that needs to be brought to the attention of a forum moderator. Please say briefly why you reported this post, and the relevant moderators will consider if the post warrants any further action. All reported posts are recorded, reviewed and considered.

Thank you for helping to make boards.ie a better place.

If something strikes you as dodgy then there's no harm in flagging it just in case.

Wolfe Tone

Terrific the wording was changed

ToniTuddle

SugarHigh wrote: »

Basically she has an issue because the dog trainer demands her dog wears a muzzle. The way I see it she has 2 choices.

1) Accept it and put a muzzle on her dog.

2) Simply don't go to that trainer anymore

1) Muzzles are not allowed at agilities classes OR shows as it could lead to serious injury to the dog. As a trainer he should know this.

2) The trainer had no issue with the dogs the first night they were there. She signed a contract with him. All of a sudden the night before the second class a week later begins, he demands she muzzle the dogs. She demands her money back and he refuses and hangs up the phone.

Instead of doing either of these she decides to use boards to rally a bunch of people together. They then proceed to post quite abusive messages on the businesses Facebook page resulting in it being taken down. It now also seems as if the business is likely to close down.

Is this sort of thing really tolerated?

-She was angry and upset by the discrimination against her dogs because of their breed when there was no basis for it and no legal right for it due to the contract she signed with the trainer.

-She did not use boards to rally anyone. People agreed it was wrong. People are big and bad enough to voice their opinions alongside her or against her.

-Only 1 person posted abusive stuff on his page. Saying he should only train "dead goldfish". Everybody else calmy and sensibly voiced how they thought it was wrong and left links to articles and videos showing how wearing muzzles at these events are NOT allowed.

-They asked him to give the reason behind him asking for the dogs to wear muzzles.

-They also urged him to use this opportunity to learn and not be biased against certain breeds and break his own legal contract just because someone whispers in his ear.

-It wasn't just with her he breached his contract, but another female too with a certain type of dog.

-Facebook page had only been set up recently so doubt there will be much damage except for the fact friends of this woman who live possibly nearby will not be giving their money to a trainer who asks them to put their dogs in danger.

-I doubt he will go out of business, probably take a few weeks break and then start up again.

-Many, if not all of the people who posted on the agility class page were already "friends" on Facebook with the woman/shelter and so saw all this unfolding there more so than Boards.

EDIT: Just to add I've no idea what this mans name is and I'm sure a good few others don't either. Facebook page was under the name of the agility class itself. So he can set up again no doubt under a different name(!) and hopefully this time do it by the books properly.

Beruthiel

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is this sort of thing really tolerated?

SugarHigh

Did you report the post?

Have you discussed it with the Mods as they are the most knowledgeable with regards to that forum?

seamus

SugarHigh wrote: »

Instead of doing either of these she decides to use boards to rally a bunch of people together. They then proceed to post quite abusive messages on the businesses Facebook page resulting in it being taken down. It now also seems as if the business is likely to close down.

Actually they had used facebook a few hours before posting on boards and all of those who posted on boards had previously commented on facebook. So I didn't see boards as having been "used" for anything except maybe an outlet for anger.

The actions in that thread couldn't possibly have a business shut down. That's up to the business to decide.

Can you explain to me what's wrong with a poster saying, "This business is engaging in practices completely at odds with the nature of their business?". What's wrong with using boards to "attack" a business, provided that the information posted on boards is both fair and accurate?

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

.... What's wrong with using boards to "attack" a business, provided that the information posted on boards is both fair and accurate?

Who decides the above, i.e. that the information is both fair and accurate?

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Who decides the above, i.e. that the information is both fair and accurate?

The moderators.

Case-by-case basis, taking everything into account, etc etc.

SugarHigh

seamus wrote: »

The moderators.

Case-by-case basis, taking everything into account, etc etc.

I don't see how a mod could possibly judge if the information was accurate.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

The moderators.

Case-by-case basis, taking everything into account, etc etc.

I appreciate that, but it's far from subjective now, is it? Taking "everything into account" could, and probably will lead to inconsistent moderation, and will end up with cries of bias etc..

Is this a site-wide policy? i.e. that businesses that provide a shoddy or unprofessional service (in the posters opinion) are open to criticism once the comment is fair and accurate?

SugarHigh

Beruthiel wrote: »

SugarHigh

Did you report the post?

Have you discussed it with the Mods as they are the most knowledgeable with regards to that forum?

Yes the post was reported. I haven't discussed it with the mods of that forum because I don't think it's an issue exclusive to that forum. I have seen threads in the regional forum where people were bad mouthing a business be closed so I thought it was a site wide policy.

seamus

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't see how a mod could possibly judge if the information was accurate.

Perhaps the mod is privvy to more information than you can see? There are also things to take into account such as the credibility of the person posting it, whether you could percieve any gain or malicious intent from that poster (do they stand to gain by badmouthing the business in question?) and so forth. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I appreciate that, but it's far from subjective now, is it? Taking "everything into account" could, and probably will lead to inconsistent moderation, and will end up with cries of bias etc..

It's extremely subjective
Every mod action on the site is a judgement call, you know that.

Is this a site-wide policy? i.e. that businesses that provide a shoddy or unprofessional service (in the posters opinion) are open to criticism once the comment is fair and accurate?

Posters are permitted to give their opinion on any matter. That's the site wide policy.

There is no policy in regards to discussing businesses except that the moderators should use their best judgement to decide what is and isn't fair and what is and isn't best for boards.

If an admin or one of the community managers decides that they're not happy with the discussion, I will comply with any request to close or delete it, but the thread has been seen and reviewed by me and I am happy that it poses no legal problems for boards and nothing unfair has taken place.

Boards should never become a place where businesses are free from fair and accurate criticism.

SugarHigh

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps the mod is privvy to more information than you can see? There are also things to take into account such as the credibility of the person posting it, whether you could percieve any gain or malicious intent from that poster (do they stand to gain by badmouthing the business in question?) and so forth. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.

You really have very little to go on. I don't think posting history can tell you someones credibility in the real world.

you could percieve any gain or malicious intent from that poster (do they stand to gain by badmouthing the business in question?)

You can't really perceive any of this because you don't know who the poster actually is. How do you know if they gain anything and their true intent could be easily hidden?

Maybe it's just someone who had personal problem with a business owner and decided to make up a story.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

Perhaps the mod is privvy to more information than you can see? There are also things to take into account such as the credibility of the person posting it, whether you could percieve any gain or malicious intent from that poster (do they stand to gain by badmouthing the business in question?) and so forth. Each case is different and needs to be judged on its own merits.
It's extremely subjective
Every mod action on the site is a judgement call, you know that.
Posters are permitted to give their opinion on any matter. That's the site wide policy.

There is no policy in regards to discussing businesses except that the moderators should use their best judgement to decide what is and isn't fair and what is and isn't best for boards.

If an admin or one of the community managers decides that they're not happy with the discussion, I will comply with any request to close or delete it, but the thread has been seen and reviewed by me and I am happy that it poses no legal problems for boards and nothing unfair has taken place.

Boards should never become a place where businesses are free from fair and accurate criticism.

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that fair comment from a poster is accepted and that court room tight proof is no longer needed? I'm referring to this post from DeVore, and many others on the subject. If that is the case, and your guidelines above are now policy, I can honestly say it's a welcome change.

seamus

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe it's just someone who had personal problem with a business owner and decided to make up a story.

I know for a fact that this isn't the case. If I suspected it to be so, the thread would be closed.

I (and other moderators) do appreciate such things being reported, but moderators often are privvy to more information than posters are.

Just for my own clarification, are you saying that fair comment from a poster is accepted and that court room tight proof is no longer needed? I'm referring to this post from DeVore, and many others on the subject. If that is the case, and your guidelines above are now policy, I can honestly say it's a welcome change.

You can try and get clarification all you like Hobart, maybe PM DeV and ask him.

I'm not an admin, so whatever I post cannot be taken as policy. Fair comment is acceptable provided that the poster has court room tight proof, which I (and indeed the poster in question) would be happy to stand by in this case.
DeV was being somewhat facetious in his post - if we were to require court of law to rule on everything, we may as well shut down the site.

As I say, if someone feels this needs input from a higher-up, then feel free to escalate and I will comply with their decision. But I am satisfied that there is nothing unethical, illegal or immoral taking place here.

IITYWYBMAD

seamus wrote: »

I know for a fact that this isn't the case. If I suspected it to be so, the thread would be closed.

I (and other moderators) do appreciate such things being reported, but moderators often are privvy to more information than posters are.
You can try and get clarification all you like Hobart, maybe PM DeV and ask him.

I'm not an admin, so whatever I post cannot be taken as policy. Fair comment is acceptable provided that the poster has court room tight proof, which I (and indeed the poster in question) would be happy to stand by in this case.
DeV was being somewhat facetious in his post - if we were to require court of law to rule on everything, we may as well shut down the site.

As I say, if someone feels this needs input from a higher-up, then feel free to escalate and I will comply with their decision. But I am satisfied that there is nothing unethical, illegal or immoral taking place here.

I used the post from Dev as an example, I thought I made that clear. Your current lack of Admin status did not prevent you from posting site policy some 30 odd minutes ago, nor has it prevented you in the past...As usual your stock answer will suffice, thanks for your opinions etc....

seamus

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

I used the post from Dev as an example, I thought I made that clear. Your current lack of Admin status did not prevent you from posting site policy some 30 odd minutes ago, nor has it prevented you in the past...As usual your stock answer will suffice, thanks for your opinions etc....

Likewise

Gunsfortoys

I hate to post in the feedback thread as it should only be mods and admin but I feel I should comment on this.

I read this and while I am always critical of businesses being shut down, jobs being lost etc. I read that the owner had indeed broken contractual obligations. He was acting on the requests of a few people who simply did not like the dog and not the rules.

I welcome this kind of freedom to express opinion on how a certain business is run otherwise how else can we know what possible way the business operates?

People seem to freely express opinions on how banks etc operate why not businesses?

Hank_Jones

Funny thing is that if the person who owned the business posted about their business in that section, they would be banned.

But the poster can use boards in order to defame the business.

Seems like a bit of a double edged sword really.

seamus

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Funny thing is that if the person who owned the business posted about their business in that section, they would be banned.

But the poster can use boards in order to defame the business.

Seems like a bit of a double edged sword really.

Did you read the thread? The thread was not created purely to talk about the business. Criticism of such came out as a side-topic of that thread.

If the guy came on to defend his business, he most certainly wouldn't be banned. More to the point if someone had in that thread asked for a recommendation for such and the business owner declared his own business as a possibility, he wouldn't be banned.

As I say, people are permitted to give their opinion on a business, good or bad, provided that the comments are fair and accurate. There's no double standard here. "Come and give me business" is not the opposite of, "This business has mistreated me".

People who post purely to defame a business are not tolerated. Those who post with a genuine grievance are.

Tom Dunne

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Funny thing is that if the person who owned the business posted about their business in that section, they would be banned.

But the poster can use boards in order to defame the business.

Seems like a bit of a double edged sword really.

That is not true.

If a business owner/employee comes on to Boards.ie and pretends to be a "satisfied customer", the ban hammer will come down swiftly.

If, however, they want to reply to a thread about their business and openly declare their interest, I have no problem with that.

SugarHigh

seamus wrote: »

People who post purely to defame a business are not tolerated. Those who post with a genuine grievance are.

This isn't as easy to differentiate as you are claiming.

Reading back over a users past posts tells you nothing as to whether they making it up or not. It tells you that they haven't created their account for the sole purpose of defaming the business but it's doesn't tell you they are being truthful. I'm not just talking about this instance as you seem to have some other reason to believe this but just in general.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055525605

How do we really know that business told someone to fúck off?

The fact the thread was made by a long time user really doesn't give them any creditability despite what you claim.

seamus

SugarHigh wrote: »

The fact the thread was made by a long time user really doesn't give them any creditability despite what you claim.

Of course it does. Well OK, their tenure isn't relevant quite so much as their reputation.
A poster with a good reputation is unlikely to be telling tall tales and posters who are known have usually gained trust and credibility from all members, not just the mods.

Funnily enough I was going to use the cyclelogical thread as an example of where a new poster would have the thread locked, but an established poster, known to the mods and with a good reputation is allowed the thread because they are trusted enough to not be making stuff up.

That's not to say that such a person may not "turn" and abuse their credibility, but that's a judgement call issue. In most cases, any poster who has earned credibility is not the type of person to abuse it.

In the above case from the cycling forum, the poster is at least known to one of the mods, and may even be a friend. Therefore they have more credibility than a new or generally unknown poster.

SugarHigh

I think you are giving internet forum credibility a little too much credit.:D

Even if it was a mod who made the thread it still doesn't make it trust worthy and the fact they happen to know other people here in real life also doesn't give them credibility. You think people don't make up stuff like this in real life?

Someone has long history of posting on an internet forum is not any less likely to lie even if their posts have all been well structured and on topic. The trust of the community also doesn't hold much weight as to whether someone is lying or not.

If status in real life doesn't prevent people from acting immorally(Guards, Dr's, Priests etc) than I doubt imaginary status on a message board is going to have any impact.