Tedious and repetative moaning

sleepyheadh

I have to say guys that this really is quickly becoming one of the worst groups on boards.

There is a complete lack of conversation and discussion, thanks to over zealous mods. Not exactly sure why Boards seems to fear false medical advice but loves all comers when to comes to free legal advice.

If someone from boards tells me it's legal to do "x". I go out and do "x", get arrested because it was in fact illegal. Do I turn around and sue the pants off boards? No, its common sense. The person given the advice wasn't a barrister, so I should have known better. The same should be true for medical advice.

Its even come to not being able to discuss medical treatments. The question has to be asked what is this group for?

And just for the mods, Robfowl, in particular. Don't ban me again for this, its just raising a few questions. I am not asking for medical advice. I am not talking about stocking up on drugs abroad to bring back home.

I have been checking in regularly since my ban and have noticed a severe lack of discussion.

A Neurotic

Perhaps you could provide some of this supposedly lacking discussion in a constructive manner instead of obsessing over a repeatedly well-explained rule...

sleepyheadh

A Neurotic wrote: »

Perhaps you could provide some of this supposedly lacking discussion in a constructive manner instead of obsessing over a repeatedly well-explained rule...

Well if you just look at the first page.

Of the 19 threads there, 5 have been closed by mods, RobFowl and Sam. And even within these there are several warnings and sniping.

I think it would be hard to find another board here that has over a 25% of the first page threads closed.

As far as I can see you can't talk about medical advice, experiences, doctors, treatments, alternatives. Talk a look at reddit r/medicine, they don't seem to have the same fear of "lawsuits".

sleepyheadh

And even then the last thread on the first page hasn't had a reply since the 11th!

endacl

Maybe people aren't interested? The Red Dwarf forum doesn't get much traffic either.

sleepyheadh

endacl wrote: »

Maybe people aren't interested? The Red Dwarf forum doesn't get much traffic either.

I think people are interested. I bet 25% of the Red Dwarf threads don't get locked or snip'd to death.

If someone was to answer someones request with questionable advice, I'm sure everyone here, including the mods would be able to point out the flaws in the advice. Instead of what is going on now, were the mods are stopping conversation before they even begin.

I would really love to hear what a mod has to say about that.

endacl

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I think people are interested. I bet 25% of the Red Dwarf threads don't get locked or snip'd to death.

If someone was to answer someones request with questionable advice, I'm sure everyone here, including the mods would be able to point out the flaws in the advice. Instead of what is going on now, were the mods are stopping conversation before they even begin.

I would really love to hear what a mod has to say about that.

'No advice' is a blanket rule. Same applies to the legal discussion forum, and with good reason. I don't see what your problem is? Even those here who are qualified to give advice here don't. Because a quick post on an anonymous forum simply doesn't provide enough information and context to accurately and ethically provide advice. Psychology forum us the same. I'm 'qualified' to advise there. But I don't. Why? Because I'm qualified, and I know better.

Like it or not, such advice potentially puts the site in a position of legal responsibility. It's a private site and the admins get to set limits on discussion. That's fair enough. Very few users have a problem with it. Those that do fall into two categories: those who want free advice from professionals they don't want to pay, and armchair experts who for some reason want an online anonymous avatar to be acknowledged as 'wise' in some way.

sleepyheadh

endacl wrote: »

'No advice' is a blanket rule. Same applies to the legal discussion forum, and with good reason. I don't see what your problem is? Even those here who are qualified to give advice here don't. Because a quick post on an anonymous forum simply doesn't provide enough information and context to accurately and ethically provide advice. Psychology forum us the same. I'm 'qualified' to advise there. But I don't. Why? Because I'm qualified, and I know better.

Like it or not, such advice potentially puts the site in a position of legal responsibility. It's a private site and the admins get to set limits on discussion. That's fair enough. Very few users have a problem with it. Those that do fall into two categories: those who want free advice from professionals they don't want to pay, and armchair experts who for some reason want an online anonymous avatar to be acknowledged as 'wise' in some way.

Any actual proof of the legal responsibility of the site? Or our we just sticking to broad, sweeping statements?

I don't think people will be staging tumours in this section. It's more likely to be a rash or a cold/flu. And again the old response will be go to your GP.

At the moment the discussion will stop at:I have a cold! - Mod: I'm going to have to close this!

Whereas if you let the discussion continue, people can be educated about, for example, how antibiotics won't work to treat it.

I don't think anyone will turn around and sue. And please don't come back with hypotheticals, it could be this or that or god-knows-what-else!

endacl

'I don't think...,' is not an argument. You're entitled to your opinion. Opinions don't affect facts.

sleepyheadh

endacl wrote: »

'I don't think...,' is not an argument. You're entitled to your opinion. Opinions don't affect facts.

So you think people will be staging malignancies if left to it? Sorry your going to have to restate your point, it was lost on me.

Pat Mustard

sleepyheadh wrote: »

If someone was to answer someones request with questionable advice, I'm sure everyone here, including the mods would be able to point out the flaws in the advice. Instead of what is going on now, were the mods are stopping conversation before they even begin.

I would really love to hear what a mod has to say about that.

If somebody gives dodgy advice on this site and if it is relied on to the detriment of the person who receives that advice, then that person might bring an action for negligent misstatement.

It is possible that boards.ie might successfully defend such an action. That's beside the point, because the people who run boards.ie don't want to be put at risk of being in that position in the first place. The simple fact of having to defend an action will cost money. I also understand the position that boards.ie does not wish to be hostage to fortune; it's possible that not all actions would be successfully defended.

The no legal/medical advice rule makes sense to me.

sleepyheadh

The Mustard wrote: »

If somebody gives dodgy advice on this site and if it is relied on to the detriment of the person who receives that advice, then that person might bring an action for negligent misstatement.

It is possible that boards.ie might successfully defend such an action. That's beside the point, because the people who run boards.ie don't want to be put at risk of being in that position in the first place. The simple fact of having to defend an action will cost money. I also understand the position that boards.ie does not wish to be hostage to fortune; it's possible that not all actions would be successfully defended.

The no legal/medical advice rule makes sense to me.

I really don't think you have to worry about a negligent misstatement claim. No Special relationship has been formed, and as you our aware "A court will not impute a duty of care following informal discussions or during social courtesies.

sleepyheadh

You can find out more here; http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/Negligent%20Misstatement.pdf

Pat Mustard

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I really don't think you have to worry about a negligent misstatement claim. No Special relationship has been formed, and as you our aware "A court will not impute a duty of care following informal discussions or during social courtesies.

You seem to be talking about defending claims.

Boards.ie is worried about claims of negligent misstatement. Boards.ie does not want to be put in the situation of having to defend any claim whatsoever.

That's the point.

sleepyheadh

The Mustard wrote: »

Boards.ie is worried about claims of negligent misstatement. Boards.ie does not want to be put in the situation of having to defend any claim whatsoever.

That's the point.

Did you not read the PDF, it pretty much sums up exactly how, Boards can't be sued for Negligent Misstatement.

Or are you just going to brush off the fact the you are completely wrong.

sleepyheadh

And just for everyone else, if you disagree with what I am saying and are relying on the argument that The Mustard is proposing please take the time to read the PDF. It sums up exactly, how you can't get sued for causal mentioning an incorrect fact.

This is the supposed reason why the mods are so aggressively closing threads, but it's completely false.

Pat Mustard

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Did you not read the PDF, it pretty much sums up exactly how, Boards can't be sued for Negligent Misstatement.

Or are you just going to brush off the fact the you are completely wrong.

You do not understand.

First, I'm telling you about boards.ie policy. Mods have no choice in this.

Secondly, you are saying that boards.ie can't be sued. This is nonsense. Whether or not there is a good case, an action can be brought. Boards.ie does not want to have defend any actions, whether they are well founded or not.

gctest50

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Did you not read the PDF, it pretty much sums up exactly how, Boards can't be sued for Negligent Misstatement.

Or are you just going to brush off the fact the you are completely wrong.

can't ? wont stop some people trying

sleepyheadh

gctest50 wrote: »

can't ? wont stop some people trying

yes that's a great point. therefore, no one should do anything since there is a risk of being sued. Even if you are completely in the right.

Excellent point really well made, that should further the conversation nicely.

sleepyheadh

The Mustard wrote: »

You do not understand.

First, I'm telling you about boards.ie policy. Mods have no choice in this.

Secondly, you are saying that boards.ie can't be sued. This is nonsense. Whether or not there is a good case, an action can be brought. Boards.ie does not want to have defend any actions, whether they are well founded or not.

Look I completely understand. You were the one that brought up negligent misstatement, and stated it as the reason why the policy exists. But you clearly, don't actually know how NM works. And even when provided with the facts you don't want to know.

To answer your second statement. "boards can't be sued" - that is correct they can not be sued for NM. By the logic you are proposing the whole site should be shut down for fear of any lawsuit, even if boards.ie is completely innocent and fully protected by the law.

Again, I advise you to look at the PDF, in particular to special relationship.

sleepyheadh

gctest50 wrote: »

can't ? wont stop some people trying

I could claim you robbed me, right now! Are you particularly worried about that?

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

i agree with you but boards.ie has always been overly cautious about everything, nothing new there.

sleepyheadh

georgiecasey wrote: »

i agree with you but boards.ie has always been overly cautious about everything, nothing new there.

Cheers, I know you don't have to tell me, I've been banned a few times for heresy haha

Pat Mustard

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Look I completely understand. You were the one that brought up negligent misstatement, and stated it as the reason why the policy exists. But you clearly, don't actually know how NM works. And even when provided with the facts you don't want to know.

To answer your second statement. "boards can't be sued" - that is correct they can not be sued for NM. By the logic you are proposing the whole site should be shut down for fear of any lawsuit, even if boards.ie is completely innocent and fully protected by the law.

Again, I advise you to look at the PDF, in particular to special relationship.

You think that you completely understand. You obviously do not.

You insist that I do not understand negligent misstatement, but you have nothing to show any incorrect statement by me. This is a pointless assertion.

I never said 'boards.ie can't be sued'. You did. In fact anybody can be sued, generally. You were completely wrong here.

Neither do I argue, nor have I ever suggested that an action for negligent misstatement could be SUCCESSFULLY maintained on the basis of a casual statement alone. I simply didn't make that point.

I am not proposing any course of action. I explained the position of boards.ie. If you don't like that, take it up on Feedback.

Neither am I proposing that the site be closed down.

Quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered attempting discussion with someone who puts forward such a number of ridiculous strawman arguments.

sleepyheadh

1. "You think that you completely understand. You obviously do not."

This is quickly turning into a childish argument.

2. "You insist that I do not understand negligent misstatement, but you have nothing to show any incorrect statement by me. This is a pointless assertion."

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, READ THE PDF. You claimed; "If somebody gives dodgy advice on this site and if it is relied on to the detriment of the person who receives that advice, then that person might bring an action for negligent misstatement. "

This is not true, a person would not be able to base a lawsuit around this argument.

I feel you think that if any claim no matter how frivolous will result in a protracted legal battle, during which the best legal minds in the country will be pitted against one another. Any dog on the street will tell you can't sue someone for telling you a lie, when they are not in a professional setting.

If you are talking to your friend who is a Doc on teh phone and you mention you have been feeling unwell and he replies "its probably nothing" you cant turn around and sue him if it turns out to be cancer.

3. "I never said 'boards.ie can't be sued'. You did. In fact anybody can be sued, generally. You were completely wrong here."

If you read the post carefully you will see I was actually quoting myself in a previous post and not you. I know what I said and I know what you said. I really don't need any help in determining what I said moments ago.

4." Neither do I argue, nor have I ever suggested that an action for negligent misstatement could be SUCCESSFULLY maintained on the basis of a casual statement alone. I simply didn't make that point."

This begs the question then what point were you making. If you suggested NM as a basis for a lawsuit, but know full well that it want stand up in court, are you not just proving that you don't actually have a basis for a lawsuit and you are in fact wrong?

5. "Quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered attempting discussion with someone who puts forward such a number of ridiculous strawman arguments."

Would you mind putting out where I used a Straw man? I am again at a lose.

sam34

Siiigh. You've started this type of discussion before. The rule is not going to change. I'm closing this thread now, despite the fact that you will probably claim it is over-zealous etc etc.

Don't start a similar thread in here again.

sleepyheadh

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057294258


"And just for the mods, Robfowl, in particular. Don't ban me again for this, its just raising a few questions. I am not asking for medical advice. I am not talking about stocking up on drugs abroad to bring back home.
"

Good old Sam, came to the rescue again to kill the discussion. Once again no actual rules being broken by anyone but hey, Sam wasn't happy so, that's that!

Thanks for proving my point Sam.

sleepyheadh

would just like to point out that my thread had over 500 views in a day, with 25 comments. This is a little improvement on the usual, one post and immediate closure we have grown to expect here

RobFowl

You simply don't seem to get that medical advice is not allowed here and won't be, so basically this isn't the place for you. Find another forum where it is allowed and good luck to you there.
You've a month to figure out if you want to abide by the rules here or not.

endacl

sleepyheadh wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057294258


"And just for the mods, Robfowl, in particular. Don't ban me again for this, its just raising a few questions. I am not asking for medical advice. I am not talking about stocking up on drugs abroad to bring back home.
"

Good old Sam, came to the rescue again to kill the discussion. Once again no actual rules being broken by anyone but hey, Sam wasn't happy so, that's that!

Thanks for proving my point Sam.

Why not pay for server space, set up your own discussion site, and set whatever rules you like base on your expertise in matters legal? That might be the best plan....

fisher8181

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Did you not read the PDF, it pretty much sums up exactly how, Boards can't be sued for Negligent Misstatement.

I got a completely unfounded defamation case brought against me that I was completely innocent of and was proven innocent in the courts.

It cost me €2,000 to prove my innocence.

You could say that i "can't be sued" in these circumstances and you would be right but it still cost me €2,000 to prove it.

understand now?