The problem with moderation of PT threads

[Bob Kane]

From time to time a thread may get overheated and the mods have to step in.
Unfortunately, they take the easy way out and simply delete heaps of posts or the whole thread completely.
What's wrong with that?
The overheated threads are usually because a promoter/spruiker/scammer is caught out and is being held accountable.
When the promoter/spruiker/scammer realises that their actions/posts may hurt their reputation they try to shut the thread down and remove all trace of their 'unprofessional' behaviour.
At this point the mods step in, wipe everything away and the promoter/spruiker/scammer has a clean slate.
It seems a shame that we lose a valuable insight into how some people tick - especially when that person is promoting their skills/expertise to the public.

[cube]

Incorrect - the USUAL reason posts are deleted wholesale is that some rule-breaking post (usually negative comments based on hearsay and/or without full name) starts a heated discussion deleting the first post and leaving the ensuing discussion would be very confusing.

Have there been threads/posts removed as a result of legal intervention - yes.
Have the moderators argued long and hard over the merits of leaving such posts available in the face of threatened legal action - yes.
Is the poster or the moderators the ones with their cheque books on the line - no.

Is 'free speech' impinged by such action - no, I don't believe so. PT (its owners and the moderators) has no objection to posters saying whatever they want elsewhere - but if you want to play our game you play on our pitch with our ball and under our rules (however much you think the ball went over the line, if we say it didn't, it didn't and if we turn around tomorrow and say it did, then you have to accept that and get on with the game).

cube
PT Moderator.

[cube]

At this point the mods step in, wipe everything away and the promoter/spruiker/scammer has a clean slate.

Note quite true:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PlWRRoQfIvAJ:www.propertytalk.com/forum/showthread.php%3F14012-Clint-Taylor+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz&client=firefox-a

[Bob Kane]

It seems a shame that we lose a valuable insight into how some people tick - especially when that person is promoting their skills/expertise to the public.

I don't see any reason to delete a spruikers posts when it reveals a side of them which may interest potential customers.
Or are you saying that the spruikers are demanding that their own posts are removed?

[Keys]

but if you want to play our game you play on our pitch with our ball and under our rules.

Can I play with my balls on your pitch? :

[Letterman]

For what it is worth, I have found the moderators to be quite even-handed regarding the Grant King / NZ Sleepouts threads and stories?

[Perry]

I have a problem with the use of the word "censorship," Bob.
These forums are moderated. They are not censored. I wish
all those who seem to like being provocative and have a scrap
over most anything/one they take a dislike to (valid or not)
would simply put up a hefty surety for costs, so that the
Mods and Forum owners could have an easier time.

Do you for a moment imagine the local newspaper would publish
a letter to the editor that called someone a thief and a liar,
unless that person had been so convicted and the information
was generally in the public domain?

In many cases, it's not what is/was said, it's that way in which
it's said on the PropertyTalk Forums.

"Shonkey is a liar because he campaigned on getting rid of the
Maori seats and didn't do so."

"Shonkey campaigned on getting rid of the Maori seats and didn't
do so. I know what that makes him, in my book."

Or something else like that as an example. The second example says
much the same as the first, without using certain words.

Now we all know that politicians don't lie, or break promises,
they just render their aspirational indications null and void. Or
are economical with the truth. Or tell porkies.

I've re-read your post on Clint Taylor (several times!) and you
did make strenuous efforts to avoid inflammatory or libellous
language. I know that Spaceman did the check on copyrighted
material, revealing some strong likelihood of plagiarism. Posting
that 'evidence' is all that's needed, isn't it really?

There are few things that wont allow someone enough rope to
hang themselves, that can't be expressed in non-libellous words
here on the forums.

[spaceman]

........

Is 'free speech' impinged by such action - no, I don't believe so......

cube
PT Moderator.

LOLZ were you drunk when you posted this????

To quote the immortal Joe Strummer

Number 3: You have the right to freeeee
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights
All 3 of 'em
It has been suggested
In some quarters that this is not enough!
Well..............................
Get off the streets
Get off the streets
Run

LOLZ......you can have your free speech just not here..........it's not really free speech then is it??????

@ Keys....come to my pitch and I'll let you play with my balls

Cheers
Spaceman

[Bob Kane]

The point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make is why are the spruikers posts being removed?
I can understand why you might remove Spacemans 'liar' post but that's not my point.
When you remove the spruikers post we lose an example of the spruikers thinking.
There's been a few spruikers over the years who have posted some pretty rich comments - I think those posts should remain visible as a warning to others who might consider doing business with the spruiker.
The spruiker usually presents themselves as a wholesome, trustworthy person. But if you rub them you'll often find their true nature. Let's not hide/moderate/remove this display of their true self.

Thank you, Perry and Cube, for replying but I don't think you've addressed my question.

[props4u]

this is vexing issue lacking perfect solution

Note quite true:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a

no, you can not rely on google cache which is not permanent and with no guarantee of such ... by its very nature, the clouds are forever changing (internet) ... spring cleaning admittedly keeps forum looking nicer but is inviting repeat scenarios from other wanabee entrepreneurs and we have to go thru same process all over again ... bcoz exemplary warning-them-off danger signs, that they could be shooting themselves in the foot, have been removed

am in favour of retaining illustrative evidence rather than obliterating it ... turdy ones invariably dig deeper holes showing themselves up, sometimes by design on the premise it will be wiped clean ... so why not keep and display such damaging evidence (to them)? ... a much more satisfying thought, to know they've shot themselves in the foot and its there for public display!

Example statement A
"Shonkey is a liar because he campaigned on getting rid of the
Maori seats and didn't do so."

Example statement B
"Shonkey campaigned on getting rid of the Maori seats and didn't
do so. I know what that makes him, in my book."

i don't have stats, so can't quantify this but there are those who are insufficiently skilled and not articulate enough to satisfy such criteria ... it thus seems unfair that bcoz of such inadequacies and when faced with adversity, they risk having their posts removed/buried especially when opposing perp/turd is ramping up the ante to, by design have post removed ... i for one am not gifted enough to improve wording of this very para for best readability

so what is the answer?
does PT (beyond its scope) open up sister webpage tutoring the masses on how to better present Example statement A? offcourse not ... OR
does PT simply wipe slate clean by removing threads/posts and disposing of evidence showing turds shooting themselves in the foot? ... a heavy price to pay

moderation vs censorship
going by their very definitions in dictionary ... it is perfectly reasonable to deduce that when exercising moderation ... however noble its intent ... one is exercising a form of censorship by exclusion of the extremes ... is it not?

i have a problem with "censorship" (related to origins) ...
but lets not kid ourselves ... we have censorship here in the west too ... disguised in many forms ... one of which is called "spin" ... one i call "lieing by exclusion of truth" ... yes, the plot thickens and thats another 2-10 chapters ... not tonight josephine ... lest someone may think i've had a joint when i have not (not even a drink), i'd better shut up

to wrap it up (for this evening) ... i am not unaware of onerous task mods carry ... am not suggesting that this is ideal solution ... am also aware this suggestion would further add to load mods already carry ... and am not sure of its viability, we need legal eagle help to figure this out ... here goes;

whilst retaining right to delete/remove posts/threads in this forum and with the aim of retaining rather than deleting inflamatory posts evidencing perps shooting themselves in the foot ... is it not feasable for mods to add/insert disclaimer notice on "each and every" offending post made by perp without deleting it? one which would void legal challenge?

disclaimer notice something like;
This post was made by mr anonymous poster from IP address (and city/location) bla bla and does not reflect the view of PT or its forum members bla bla

nah, these balls are reserved ... not on offer (here) ... no others required ... sorrry (not)

[Keys]

Note quite true:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...ient=firefox-a

Something I considered when this post was made. Surely, by putting a link to that page, cube is breaking the rules?

[donna]

The fact remains as a publisher we (PropertyTalk) is first in the firing line for legal action and no matter how you wish to phrase negative comments - if they are aimed at a person or business legal action can commence anytime and PropertyTalk has to respond....which costs $$. And who pays on behalf of PropertyTalk to respond to this action? Not you the user as PropertyTalk is a free service.

We want PropertyTalk to remain free - and so do you (I suggest) so while in an ideal world we can say what we want about anyone at any time anywhere without recourse this is not the real world. In the real world if you want to say whatever you want about someone or a business - you set up your own blog and put your thoughts there just like Peter Aranyi has done with the paepae.

PropertyTalk.com is a valuable resource for property investors and anyone interested in property. There are oodles of discussions where we are openly sharing information and genuinely assisting each other and that is satisfying - and long may it continue.

Cheers,

Donna

[muppet]

In the real world if you want to say whatever you want about someone or a business - you set up your own blog and put your thoughts there just like Peter Aranyi has done with the paepae.

And Davo36 has with My Blog

[halfempty]

I really think the problem is that PT is treated like the property of the posters and its not.
We have all been invited to visit.

PT is private property.

[Keys]

The title of this thread has been censured (ahem) moderated.