Cage Contender Payments Threads

Dav

I have had to delete the main thread that was resurrected tonight as well as another that was posted after I deleted it due to legal issues arising from the latest comments.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave this particular topic alone whilst it's at this stage - I'm sure you'll understand that I can't comment too much on what is a legal issue.

Thank you for your time and understanding folks.

Paddykellyuk

As I was the last person that posted on the main thread then started another one I can only assume something I said you don't agree with.

Everything I put on was 100% factual, it seems that Mr Ferguson is getting protected on this forum.

darced

This post has been deleted.

scudzilla

How come it's illegal now but wasn't 3 months ago?? All names have been used and all f2f laimants appear to be genuine, smells like a cover up to me

Mr. Manager

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Link? Can't find it on the site...EDIT: Found it

http://www.cagewarriors.com/forums/showthread.php?82522-Cage-Contender-John-Ferguson-not-paying-Fighters-amp-Staff/page7

nino1

Boards really losing its credibility for deleting that thread especially after Tom declared his interest in CC

CliffyClaven

As a long time lurker I felt compelled to register and comment on this thread. By deleting the thread boards is enforcing a form of censorship that compromisises its position as a forum to comment on MMA issues. It appears that this particular issue is not being handled in a clear and transparent way becauce of the owners involvement in CC.
Would the thread have been deleted if it was another promotion unrelated to the owner of boards?
Is deleting threads normal form in these cases? Could the thread not have been locked and any offending comments removed? By deleting a thread you are not making a serious problem go away.

garhjw

I don't think it's fair to pass judgement on why the thread was deleted without knowing all the facts. If there are legal issues, it could well be necessary to delete the thread even if all comments are factual.

pablohoney87

Dav wrote: »

I have had to delete the main thread that was resurrected tonight as well as another that was posted after I deleted it due to legal issues arising from the latest comments.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave this particular topic alone whilst it's at this stage - I'm sure you'll understand that I can't comment too much on what is a legal issue.

Thank you for your time and understanding folks.

Anyone that has been on after hours knows that when something is due to go through any form of court/legal process (reference the Bus running over the guy who was pushed/punched/fell out in front of it) things have to be locked down and discussion halted.

No conspiracy here just how the website is run. Quit fishin for gossip and let it be handled where it should.

cowzerp

As Paul said, once it's a legal issue boards usually do stop discussion on it, this is not unusual.

OLDMAN1

cowzerp wrote: »

As Paul said, once it's a legal issue boards usually do stop discussion on it, this is not unusual.

Is it true that Devor owns 20% of Cage contender?

El Guapo!

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

Is it true that Devor owns 20% of Cage contender?

DeVore is a shareholder and he was very upfront and honest about his involvement in CC. He tried to resolve the issue and kept people informed in the last thread.
As was said, I don't see any conspiracy here at all. If there was one, then the last thread wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.
Obviously some legal issues have popped up and the thread had to be shut down. Seems fair to me.

cowzerp

OLDMAN1 wrote: »

Is it true that Devor owns 20% of Cage contender?

What he said ;-)

JJayoo

Big difference between locking a thread and deleting it.

ATMatm

JJayoo wrote: »

Big difference between locking a thread and deleting it.

This is a public forum. Boards have a legal right to protect themselves in the case of defamation. It's day one media law stuff. The fact that it was already there is enough for parties to have a go about it if proven to be a false accusation.

Ever wonder why The Sun got lashed out of god knows how much money for the Louis Walsh hit piece and not the writer of said piece? A publication (in this case boards) have a legal obligation to verify all accusations against a party before being in a public forum.

Hence mods, hence threads being deleted.

JJayoo

ATMatm wrote: »

This is a public forum. Boards have a legal right to protect themselves in the case of defamation. It's day one media law stuff. The fact that it was already there is enough for parties to have a go about it if proven to be a false accusation.

Ever wonder why The Sun got lashed out of god knows how much money for the Louis Walsh hit piece and not the writer of said piece? A publication (in this case boards) have a legal obligation to verify all accusations against a party before being in a public forum.

Hence mods, hence threads being deleted.

In AH many threads actually discussing court cases are locked and certain posts are deleted but they aren't entirely deleted.

ATMatm

JJayoo wrote: »

In AH many threads actually discussing court cases are locked and certain posts are deleted but they aren't entirely deleted.

That's a legal requirement. It doesn't matter if members are discussing the plaintiff's choice of shoe.

Defamation is a false statement, published, that lowers a persons standing in the eyes of right thinking members of society. Locking the payments thread would only keep the offending post on full view. There had been two previous mod warnings regarding this.