Censorship

[Taupo Tiger]

Xav said

I and I'm sure many others would be interested to know who that pressue is coming from.

Well me matey,
who are at a quess
may be nine big business names
who post on this site and
may at times be in oppostion to each other
then you may get three or four correct.

[Bob Kane]

Warning: rant ahead

Property investing is pretty simple and once you've learnt the return/yield maths and a bit of legal stuff, you've got it sussed.
What more can you talk about?
Well, there's not much more you can say.
So to fill in time we just take the piss out of snake-oil merchants. But even that gets a bit repetitious and tedious.
What has developed is some clever arguing for the opposite position that a normal person might take.
At first glance some will mistake this for 'plain dumb silliness'.
But behind this outrageous position is often an interesting insight which could be useful.
No doubt the academics have a term for this situation.

What is my point?
There are calls for PT to restrict posts to property investing and how to do it.
We have already posted all that info which leaves nothing more to post.
PT will die if that happens.
So I say be pleased that contributors are making posts as it maintains our interest and keeps us coming back.
Rejoice in diversity and keep the braincells ticking over.
Let the banter continue in the lulls between property issues.
Just keep the tone appropriate to avoid litigation.

[J_J]

It is obvious that the current censorship 'policy' is not working. You can surely appreciate my frustration at getting a number of my posts deleted for, what I can tell, no reason at all. I still have not had an explanation of what specifically was written to warrant such a drastic reaction.

With the current censorship policy where there is not a written explanation as to what wil and wont be deleted I am going to be less willing to waste my valuable time contributing.

It is massively unfortunate that the forum is subject to litigation and without the specifics I don't know what to make of it. I hope that this all blows over soon so that free speech can return to what is a great source of minds and information.

Good Luck

Cheers

[Keys]

What is my point?
There are calls for PT to restrict posts to property investing and how to do it.
We have already posted all that info which leaves nothing more to post.
PT will die if that happens.

Maybe the mods simply have a range of questions a newbie may ask and post links to relevant threads which have already discussed the topic.

Ahhhhhh mmmmmmm

Then Bob's comment (highlighted by me) may just come true. It will, however, stop the risk to PT of legal action.

[OllyN]

So that we are all clear, I am not one of the nine big "business names" suggested by Xav or Taupo Tiger.

Olly Newland
Residential & Commercial Solutions
Totally Independent Advice
www.ollynewland.co.nz

[Xav]

Thanks Olly. I didn't "suggest" anyone. I have no idea really.

[cube]

Property investing is pretty simple and once you've learnt the return/yield maths and a bit of legal stuff, you've got it sussed.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

At the moment, we are faced with tax and GST changes - when they are firmed up, I'm picking that there will be the need for some discussion on the implications.

Tenancy act changes are also on the table.

Tenants never seem to run out of new ways to present landlords with new scenarios that need advice (and vice-versa!)

And also, if it is all so easy, why aren't we all retired!

[fatfishandchipman]

Slippery Slope?

Double-standards – do they apply?

I have had several posts removed in the last few days. In one of those posts I pointed out to K1w1 that he should have at least 7 pairs of socks (at least one for each day of the week). At first I thought that this was a conspiracy against socks but word on the street is that something else is going "down" at Property Talk.

And so I thought about the information I was given and decided...

....that there are many references scattered throughout different threads and posts to my identity being Bernard Hickey. I have pointed out that I am not Bernard Hickey and this is true.

My point, Donna and Marc, is that if I were the real Bernard Hickey I would not be too happy to have these comments being in so public a place as Property Talk – especially because the real Bernard Hickey makes his living from “Property" or at least by writing about "Property.”

[I]But my real point is this: my “handle,” fatfishandchipman, is by association, now tied to the negative comments and slurs targeting the real Bernard Hickey. Any comment or argument that I might make on PT can automatically be dismissed as that of a “tosser,”.

So, this is what I would like to see:

1. All references to me being Bernard Hickey removed.

2. All insults and derisive comments about the real Bernard Hickey to be removed.

Thank you in advance.

Mods Request - Please provide links to all mentioned posts and I will be happy to look at them.

[Philmc1]

Hi Donna
I'm not a prolific poster but each day I'll skim thru the headings and if there is something Of interest to me, I'll read that thread.
Putting personal attacks aside, even tho much of it can be friendly banter, I am concerned that from what you've said that people may miss out on some sound advice that could save them a lot of money.
ie If a newbie came on and asked advice about buying an apartment in a cetain building, members here may know facts not in the public domain ie. leaky issues, developers financial problems, possible ripoffs, body corp situations etc etc. but will be unable to comment and warn the newbie as it could be taken as a personal attack on the developer, body corp, construction company etc etc.
One of the greatest wealths of PT is that the experiences PI's are prepared to share their knowledge and point the new investor in the right direction and possibly save them from making a huge and expensive mistake. If that sort of thing is to go then we will lose some great characters on here who are prepared free of charge to give advice.
Just thought of another situation - Property Managers come in for a lot of stick on here at times and a lot of them thoroughly deserve it (there are good ones). As I read it now some one will not be able to post "stay away from that company or person because.....)
Please enlighten me
Phil

[donna]

Philmc1 - here is your answer (it is part of the announcement - and you will find a link to it earlier in this thread)

Any posts containing personal attacks on forum members or others will be removed in their entirety from now on (we have in the past aimed to edit these posts - we shall do so no longer). And at the moderators discretion the individual posting the personal attack will be added to the watchlist. This includes making sniping comments, throwaway jokes and derisive implications.

This does not mean that you cannot be critical or ask questions of a company's or person's actions or activities - however you need to provide evidence for critical comments, and make them in a civil, well mannered fashion. Making allegations without providing evidence is inappropriate. Robust questioning conducted appropriately is permitted - since this is a property discussion forum the discussion of property related companies and personalities are a fair topic of discussion - as long as it is conducted well.

Likewise, these comments ought to be made in an appropriate place (ie by starting a new thread) rather than derailing a thread on another topic.

I have bolded out the part of the Announcement that relates to your question.

Fatfishandchipman - may I suggest you report the posts you consider are not within the rules and state which rule has been broken please to assist the moderators.

Fundamentally the 'health' of these public forums is dependent on all users participating in the moderation by reporting posts that break the rules. So it's about being active not passive. Passive is seeing and mentioning posts that are not within the rules and not doing anything about it.

Cheers,

Donna

[fatfishandchipman]

Thanks Donna, I’ll begin the process by exhausting all my administrative responsibilities.

[tricky]

I would just like to say that the tone on PT has improved dramatically over the last few days.
Some really good advise and some good discussions taking place.
I think it's great.
Well done everyone.

[PeterEmpowerEd]

Tricky: re your celebration of 'tone'

To be blunt, if that is to continue happening to threads which have as little level of personal attacks as that one then, like Keys, I would have to question my involvement in this forum.

I think Perry's comment elsewhere that the forums are/should be open and available for ALL people to put their 'side' of ANY debate is a good one... although it's clear this very thread germinated from a feeling by several of us -- a concern about that 'right' being (apparently) repeatedly truncated.

My own limited experience, for what it's worth, is that some posters (anonymous or named) seem to prefer to avoid the issue at point in a discussion thread and favour an approach of, let's say, 'strenuously questioning' the motives and character of those raising what I often see as legitimate points of discussion.

This, as we have discussed before, can harm the 'tone' of the forum... but does the 'fault' in those cases lie with the raiser of those points, or with the reaction to it?

- Peter Aranyi

PS My own pledge in support of the PT legal fighting fund has been registered. Damn good idea.

[Mark_B]

My own pledge in support of the PT legal fighting fund has been registered. Damn good idea.

What ever happened to:

An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure

?

[PeterEmpowerEd]

What if the price of 'peace' is a movable feast?

What ever happened to:
An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure

Well, Mark, I think that depends on the 'price' of what you call prevention.
If the demands: the things one is asked to surrender for peace are too much, what are your options?

Whether Marc and Donna choose to defend PT against legal threats is up to them. The key point is that they are no longer alone in being financially exposed by these legal threats. This should reduce the threat of hollow legal threats against PT as the bullies will know that the matter will be taken further.
Fund is now over $8,000.

I don't see any harm in doing exactly what Andrew suggested, and bolstering PT's ability to resist hollow intimidatory tactics... do you? - P