Closing Threads

miller82

I've noticed two race threads have been closed in the last month or two (Skerries and Kilkenny) . Fair enough if there is a reason, but not all of us are in the loop when it comes to this, so could you at least put some sort of explanation as to why a race thread is being closed.

mloc123

There is a ban on discussion of races run by a certain 'race director'.

The idea behind the ban is... if you are not allowed say anything negative about a race without being threatened with 'legal letters' or defamed on his website then you should not be able to say anything positive either.

miller82

like i said, if there is a reason fine, but surely the above should be posted as the last message on the closed threads

tunney

miller82 wrote: »

like i said, if there is a reason fine, but surely the above should be posted as the last message on the closed threads

Feck all use posting it as the last message on a thread if the next step is to delete the thread

Whenever a thread is deleted 9 times out of 10 the mods PM everyone who posted on the thread explaining why the thread was deleted. I think that that is the approach to take as I for one do not want the board littered with all the closed threads - there are alot of races on the no fly list.

Izoard

tunney wrote: »

Feck all use posting it as the last message on a thread if the next step is to delete the thread

Whenever a thread is deleted 9 times out of 10 the mods PM everyone who posted on the thread explaining why the thread was deleted. I think that that is the approach to take as I for one do not want the board littered with all the closed threads - there are alot of races on the no fly list.

So, how does one find out what is on the "no fly" list?

One for the charter, no?

Johnny86

Yeah, I created the kilkenny one but had done a search to see if there was a previous thread set up but i got no results. If there was a thread with a list of the 'no fly' ones i wouldnt have created it.

tunney

Izoard wrote: »

So, how does one find out what is on the "no fly" list?

One for the charter, no?

An enumerated list of races that cannot be discussed and the reason why?

I suspect thats one that would have to go even above the heads of the admins.

tunney

Johnny86 wrote: »

Yeah, I created the kilkenny one but had done a search to see if there was a previous thread set up but i got no results. If there was a thread with a list of the 'no fly' ones i wouldnt have created it.

and hopefully not entered

Izoard

tunney wrote: »

An enumerated list of races that cannot be discussed and the reason why?

I suspect thats one that would have to go even above the heads of the admins.

Well, it seems the list, and the reasons why, is known to an inner circle - would seem reasonable to flag these races up front as not-for-discussion, a la medical advice etc...

RayCun

Izoard wrote: »

Well, it seems the list, and the reasons why, is known to an inner circle - would seem reasonable to flag these races up front as not-for-discussion, a la medical advice etc...

The list, and the reasons why, are known to those who've had some involvement in the issue - and believe me, you don't want to be one of those people.

We're not going to put up a list or explanation (though shotgun can change that if he wants when hell freezes over the new forum goes live).
I'll send some PMs now...

sconhome

Tis all very fight clubby..

elvis jones

My cats breath smells like cat food.

shotgunmcos

I have the provisional charter for this "forum" done and will post it when hell freezes over as Raycun put it. I toyed with the idea of linking to a list of races within the charter. However that list would change too frequently to manage and it only opens boats to unwelcome speculation. As such a general statement will apply in the charter. I understand its ambiguous to most but due to the nature of the reason to close the threads it must be done. Trust me if one of the mods didn't do it a boards staff member will pop along and do so. Also remember that Mods are volunteers and have also got a charter to follow. If a thread is closed or deleted and you want to know why PM a mod and we will be happy to explain.

tunney

A simple way to figure out if the race can be discussed or not - if its on the IT calendar and not on the TI calendar prob best to avoid (discussion and IMHO the race)

Izoard

tunney wrote: »

A simple way to figure out if the race can be discussed or not - if its on the IT calendar and not on the TI calendar prob best to avoid (discussion and IMHO the race)

Ouch!

There are a stack of very well run events that don't feature on TI for a variety of reasons...a rogue RD or two, can't be extrapolated onto the entire non-TI universe.

DaveR1

But Kilkenny is on the TI calander???

Johnny86

DaveR1 wrote: »

But Kilkenny is on the TI calander???

Yep it's on the calender but there isn't a thread about it here...thus it must be "no fly" list and not to be discussed!

Oryx

Are the WAR series of races excluded?

mloc123

Oryx wrote: »

Are the WAR series of races excluded?

They are on the list.

hardCopy

Can somebody PM me the list, or some algorithm I can use to identify such races?

Maybe a brief explanation of what the problems are, are we talking poor organisation, bad draft marshalling, dangerous course, cheap goodie bag?

Oryx

mloc123 wrote: »

They are on the list.

Thought so. There is at least one thread here about WAR glenmalure.

mloc123

Oryx wrote: »

Thought so. There is at least one thread here about WAR glenmalure.

Report it and see it disappear

griffin100

hardCopy wrote: »

Can somebody PM me the list, or some algorithm I can use to identify such races?

Maybe a brief explanation of what the problems are, are we talking poor organisation, bad draft marshalling, dangerous course, cheap goodie bag?

That's the point, we can't talk about those issues as they'll result in an interesting call from the race director.

hardCopy

griffin100 wrote: »

hardCopy wrote: »

Can somebody PM me the list, or some algorithm I can use to identify such races?

Maybe a brief explanation of what the problems are, are we talking poor organisation, bad draft marshalling, dangerous course, cheap goodie bag?

That's the point, we can't talk about those issues as they'll result in an interesting call from the race director.

I think I've figured out enough to identify at least some of the races involved, and think I may have done one a couple of weeks ago. But I can't figure out if the problems stem from poor races or an overly litigious RD.

Kurt Godel

hardCopy wrote: »

I think I've figured out enough to identify at least some of the races involved, and think I may have done one a couple of weeks ago. But I can't figure out if the problems stem from poor races or an overly litigious RD.

If you were to organize races yourself, and found people discussing your races on an online forum, in a way that you didn't agree with, would you:

A) Respond constructively to the points you disagreed with online, or:

Find out where some of those posters worked, and phone up their boss to let them know an employee was posting during 9 to 5 hours, then threaten seven shades of legal sh*t on anyone else posting in the thread; and that's just the beginning.

Hypothetical question. But I know I'd enter your races if you did A), and avoid them like the plague if you did .

Oryx

Hypothetically, I know I would avoid such races too if that was the attitude. Even if I'd done them before and thought they were good races.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

A simple way to figure out if the race can be discussed or not - if its on the IT calendar and not on the TI calendar prob best to avoid (discussion and IMHO the race)

is there an actual statisc of accidnets comparasion between TI and non TI santioned races ?

pc11

Kurt Godel wrote: »

If you were to organize races yourself, and found people discussing your races on an online forum, in a way that you didn't agree with, would you:

A) Respond constructively to the points you disagreed with online, or:

Find out where some of those posters worked, and phone up their boss to let them know an employee was posting during 9 to 5 hours, then threaten seven shades of legal sh*t on anyone else posting in the thread; and that's just the beginning.

Hypothetical question. But I know I'd enter your races if you did A), and avoid them like the plague if you did .

Sorry, are you saying this B has actually happened or are you using hyperbole to make a point? This whole thread is confusing me with its indirect references and hints.

tunney

pc11 wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying this B has actually happened or are you using hyperbole to make a point? This whole thread is confusing me with its indirect references and hints.

It happened and then some. People nearly lost their jobs.

Oryx

pc11 wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying this B has actually happened or are you using hyperbole to make a point? This whole thread is confusing me with its indirect references and hints.

I wish there werent the need for hints and references. But that in itself is the problem. All the answers to whats wrong and why there is a no fly list, is in this thread. But it cannot be put any more directly than this.

shotgunmcos

Folks there are very valid reasons for the no fly zone. Explicit detailing of it puts Boards in a potentially tricky spot. One post on this thread already came close to being snipped. The poster knows exactly why too. I let it go this time. On behalf of the Mods all I can do is apologise for the ambiguity. It just has to be that way for now.

pc11

Oryx wrote: »

I wish there werent the need for hints and references. But that in itself is the problem. All the answers to whats wrong and why there is a no fly list, is in this thread. But it cannot be put any more directly than this.

I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?

RayCun

pc11 wrote: »

Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action?

Do you remember the McLibel case from a few years back? A couple of activists were giving out leaflets talking about how McDonalds were unhealthy, bad employers, things like that. McDonalds threatened to sue. McDonalds didn't make that threat because they knew the claims were false and were really libellous. They made the threat because they figured that the activists would back down rather than get into a time-consuming and expensive legal battle.

(as it turned out the McLibel defendants won. Yay! But it did take up years of their lives)

tunney

pc11 wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?

I have a two and a half year old daughter. Sometimes, despite it being bed time, she will refuse to go. It is her bed time, we stick to the facts of the situation but trying to use logic and discussion with her just doesn't work. She will not entertain it and will sometimes throw a huge tantrum.

Now imagine a 6 foot version of her.
Now replace tantrum with "late night threatening calls to your home place and your employer".

Doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, doesn't matter if legally you will win or not. You still have the fight and its not fun.

Oryx

pc11 wrote: »

I'm gobsmacked by this. I think I've done one of the events referred to. What bothers me more is that we're accepting it. Surely if we stick to facts and fair opinion, we are immune to any legal action? This individual can threaten all they like but it would be an empty threat, and probably a malicious threat in fact, which would expose him to legal action himself?

Maybe this hypothetical person does not care, who knows. The nub of the thing is this: boards, and any of the posters here, do not need this kind of hassle and venom aimed their way. This is the easiest way to deal with the whole issue.

rom

Personally I would read word for word this to both my boss and this guy when he rings me and I think the problem would soon be solved.

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0010.html# PS: this is NOT legal advise but just a method to put a line under it all.

Oryx

Back in the day, there was a sitewide ban on discussing a certain music promoter or any acts associated with them. There were legal reasons behind it. This is not a first.

sconhome

Its ironic that this thread hasn't been locked yet. Vicarious discussion through non-discussion of topic.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

I have a two and a half year old daughter. Sometimes, despite it being bed time, she will refuse to go. It is her bed time, we stick to the facts of the situation but trying to use logic and discussion with her just doesn't work. She will not entertain it and will sometimes throw a huge tantrum.

Now imagine a 6 foot version of her.
Now replace tantrum with "late night threatening calls to your home place and your employer".

Doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong, doesn't matter if legally you will win or not. You still have the fight and its not fun.

you are not 6 foot tall dont lie ;-)

hardCopy

Oryx wrote: »

Back in the day, there was a sitewide ban on discussing a certain music promoter or any acts associated with them. There were legal reasons behind it. This is not a first.

The difference is that the name of said Music Promoter was mentioned in a sticky on every single forum.

Couldn't we have a paragraph in the charter to say, "The following events must not be discussed:...." or "Races organised by this promoter must not be discussed"?

tunney

hardCopy wrote: »

The difference is that the name of said Music Promoter was mentioned in a sticky on every single forum.

Couldn't we have a paragraph in the charter to say, "The following events must not be discussed:...." or "Races organised by this promoter must not be discussed"?

This has been eluded to if you can read between the lines. But yes there is an organiser, whose company, and an associated club whose events he runs cannot be discussed.

pc11

Ok, let me get this straight for I am slow.

Someone, who may be a race organiser, has been known to ring people at home late at night and berate them for having the temerity to criticise an event?

And our response is to just accept this? He's been bullying people, very possibly harassing them or worse, and our response is this is it's too much hassle?

I just don't know what to say, I really don't.

RacoonQueen

pc11 wrote: »

Ok, let me get this straight for I am slow.

Someone, who may be a race organiser, has been known to ring people at home late at night and berate them for having the temerity to criticise an event?

And our response is to just accept this? He's been bullying people, very possibly harassing them or worse, and our response is this is it's too much hassle?

I just don't know what to say, I really don't.

They've also threatened to sue the people who have written negative comments about them, sue boards and have tried to destroy careers over comments posted on boards.

RayCun

pc11 wrote: »

our response is this is it's too much hassle?

No, the response of Boards is to ban discussion of those events - and the situation, so I'm closing this thread now. We won't be giving the events any publicity, and we don't want people (or boards.ie) getting in trouble for comments posted here.