Rule 2.b

[Monid]

In this thread: http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...3789#post53789

I said that:

RM is one, among many of our advertisers. They do not get special privledges in the forum because of this. In fact I believe they may well be one of the most heavily moderated users, albeight mainly for inappropriately placing posts that are advertising in the main forums rather than the caveat emptor forum. A practise that thankfully they seem to have presently discontinued.

It has been suggested to me that there is in fact a bias in that we don't moderate Richmastery for not revealing their real name when posting negative comments. In other words some people feel they violate rule 2.b.

As Donna has posted before, and I want to make clear there is a good reason for this.

This is that Richmastery is not posting as an individual, it is posting as a company.

While there are many interesting philosophical discussions that I am quite happy to get into (Hint, Hint: Paul and Xris) on whether a company is a real entity, has an identity etc, it is clear that the name of this company is Richmastery and so by using this name they are revealing their identity.

If you examine the rules you will find they read:

2) Negative comments about ANY company (including PT) or individual may be allowed so long as;

2.a) The comments are not hear say (i.e. comments must be first hand experience)

2.b) The poster gives their real name.

The moderators have been taking it that Richmastery in this context are using their real name. In other words anything that Richmastery posts can be said to be the opinion of the whole company, not the individual poster.

The point of rule 2.b is threefold.
1. So that the person who the negative comments are being addressed towards has a reasonable right of reply.
2. So that the community can see who is making the negative comments, and judge whether they find them believable given the past history of the character.
3. To hopefully discourage inappropriate personal attacks.

As far as I can tell Richmastery signing with their company name achieves all of the above.

However Propertytalk is driven and run by its community that is where us moderators come from and we are happy to have community input so please vote on the poll and or PM me/argue here if you feel that the moderators are mistaken here, and we will reconsider our position in the light of your arguments/opinions.

Cheers David

[CJ]

Richmastery is not an Alias, it is a company and as such, they are a legal person.

[The_Dog]

Don't get involved Dave. It's not your position or right to be involved in the legal interpretation, particularly when acting as such could have repercussions.

In my opinion, RM and DHows should BOTH be banned from the forum and be done with it.

The Dog

(If you're desperate to know my REAL name then look at my username profile)

[SuperDad]

I voted no.

Previously I have asked that posters posting under the "Richmastery" banner identify themselves, especially when heaping abuse on me. The worst of those abusive posts have been removed by the moderator.

I recall someone - I think it was donna - previously asking that unique users create unique usernames. I think this was in the context of a husband and wife posting under the one name. I've searched the forums, but can't find that particular posting.

Paul.

[rueben]

I've been lurking here a while - and all I see is RM hiding behind their "customer service" heading.

If its a staff member at customer service posting in the forum then its essential they identify themselves. They are representing the company, just like a telecom rep when I call and query my bill. They can't/shouldn't just hide behind the anonymity of "Richmastery".

Their sarcastic comments should be identified by the name of the staff member who posted them.

Erika

[cube]

I've been lurking here a while - and all I see is RM hiding behind their "customer service" heading.

If its a staff member at customer service posting in the forum then its essential they identify themselves. They are representing the company, just like a telecom rep when I call and query my bill. They can't/shouldn't just hide behind the anonymity of "Richmastery".

Their sarcastic comments should be identified by the name of the staff member who posted them.

But then there would be no compunction for the poster to identify themselves as an employee of RM, so in effect the posting of what are really RMs views would be hidden behind the person actually posting.

To use the Telecom analogy - you don't see stories that 'Mary Smith took 6 months to get my phone line sorted out'..... Mary Smith responded......

In a lot of cases, it is Richmastery that is being critiqued, so I think that it is appropriate that it is Richmastery that respond.

cube

[Jumpin]

Without going into the legal arguments, the poster known as Richmastery is clearly representing a known organisation. Thus the poster is not really anonymous. Indeed, posting on behalf of an trading organisation, one would think they have a reputation to protect, (in a business sense), and therefore would exercise due caution regarding content of their posts and indeed when choosing to respond top certain critical posts.

I dont think it is within the topic of this thread to discuss whether they do exercise good judgement regarding posts or not, but nonetheless, I am sure they meet the requirements of the PT rule.

regards
Tim

[whitt]

But whom should my solicitor threaten if someone posts negative or defamatory comments against me if people use a company name?

[Jumpin]

I see your point Whitt. Could you sue the CEO as he has ultimate responsibility for the action of his employees?

[whitt]

Not sure?
I was thinkng maybe poster has to put real name at bottom if there post is negative or an accusation etc.

eg
John Doe
Director of Marketing

[SuperDad]

But then there would be no compunction for the poster to identify themselves as an employee of RM, so in effect the posting of what are really RMs views would be hidden behind the person actually posting.

I would venture that RM don't have a single view, such that when one person posts under the RM banner he or she speaks for the whole outfit.

John Hutchinson, director of RM (Eastern + Central) put this nicely when responding to a criticism of RM on another thread:

I did want to reply to one comment in particular though (just cant remember how to do the quote thing). Someone implied that they (RM) put the success of their own business before all else. I think that is incorrect and unfair.

First remember, RM isnt this 'big thing' residing in Akl. RM these days is a number of different franchises owned by a number of franchisees living and working in a community near you. I think to impy that we would put the success of our business before all else would be to infer that as business people we are just after a quick buck. I have made posts in other threads about that - if u look after the client then results will follow.

The key phrase is italicised for emphasis.

If we treat RM as one individual, then that individual seems to suffer from multiple personality disorder (or dissociative identity disorder, as the condition is now known).

Paul.

[Gerrard]

[quote=SuperDad;53856]I would venture that RM don't have a single view, such that when one person posts under the RM banner he or she speaks for the whole outfit.

If we treat RM as one individual, then that individual seems to suffer from multiple personality disorder (or dissociative identity disorder, as the condition is now known).

Paul, there's two different things there.

I see the person we know as Richmastery is speaking on behalf of the head office as it comes out of the customer services team and (in theory) represents the company wide view.

Other RM people (e.g. regional franchisees) that participate on PT have made themselves known and post as individuals but still with a RM affiliation / hat.

That's fine by me.

If the multiple voices of RM conflict with each other I'm sure they will be taken to task for it (internally and publically here on PT).

Lets get as many views and open discussion as we can. That's what we're all here for.

Gerrard

[SuperDad]

Lets get as many views and open discussion as we can. That's what we're all here for.

I agree wholeheartedly, and have never suggested otherwise. The strength of this forum lies in its openness and diversity, and the willingness of al involved to share and help.

Paul.

[CJ]

But whom should my solicitor threaten if someone posts negative or defamatory comments against me if people use a company name?

You would sue the company and the company directors.

Companies normally have "deep pockets" and directors sometimes have directors insurance (again "deep pockets"). Sue an individual and you will find that everything you think they own is owned by a trust.

[Jumpin]

This vote, (which incidentally I have participated in) is starting to worry me slightly, as lets be honest, it isnt a vote about a general policy, it is about a specific issue. Thus many of the votes both for and against are possibly biased in support or otherwise of a specific organisation.
Thus I believe, rather than looking at whether people's arbitrary opinions believe that a rule is being adhered to or not, one could re-write the rule to make the issue more clearly black and white. Then the issue would become whether all posters should be clearly identified as individuals or not. One should consider that a number of posters prefer to refrain from publicising their identity, and may not wish to contribute to the forum if this were the case.