Negative comments about PTers

[whitt]

K1w1 - can you correct Steve's grammar for me please I haven't got a clue what he is trying to say!

Phew at least it is not just me.

[Bob Kane]

If was to be a moderator I would be Ashley Church of moderation to the APIA that is PT.

I'll have a crack:
'Ashley Church of moderation to the APIA' - this means Ashley Church performs for the APIA. Now, I don't know who Ashley is but he either performs very well or very badly.
'If was to be a moderator I would be' - Steve is indicating how he will perform.
'that is PT' - this is where Steve will be performing.

So we string it all together and we get:
Steve will moderate on PT in a similar manner to Ashley Church.
I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing.

How did I do, Steve?

[Stevegoodey]

Nice one Bob,

Ashley Church was brought into APIA as a CEO and given a brief to make some changes.
He was cut loose when the changes he made were less than popular but ultimately quite successful.

While we are on the subject is there anyone in the mods who has ever paid money to advertise on this site?
Does the property education market actually have a voice in moderating this site?

[WBuffett]

Strange comment.
The property educaion market dictate to the moderators what will and will not appear on this site, I guess you could call that a voice in moderating, but you already knew that.

[Stevegoodey]

Let's not be cagey Warren what are you trying to say?

[drelly]

While we are on the subject is there anyone in the mods who has ever paid money to advertise on this site. Does the property education market actually have a voice in moderating this site?

I think we need to remember that PropertyTalk isn't a social service and it's not a democracy. Marc & Donna ultimately carry the can for what appears on here and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't hesitate to slash and burn when I thought it was required and I wouldn't put up with a lot of the drivel that gets posted. I've been a moderator and I can tell you that it's pretty time consuming and thankless and predominantly involves stroking delicate egos and explaining what good behaviour is to attention seekers. If anything, I think the mods should carry bigger sticks and not entertain group discussions on their decisions as much as they do.

[Stevegoodey]

I couldn't agree more.

[TonyMacaroni]

I think we need to remember that PropertyTalk isn't a social service and it's not a democracy. Marc & Donna ultimately carry the can for what appears on here and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't hesitate to slash and burn when I thought it was required and I wouldn't put up with a lot of the drivel that gets posted. I've been a moderator and I can tell you that it's pretty time consuming and thankless and predominantly involves stroking delicate egos and explaining what good behaviour is to attention seekers. If anything, I think the mods should carry bigger sticks and not entertain group discussions on their decisions as much as they do.

Couldn't agree more. Having not logged in to PT for a few months I've returned to find it loaded up on threads with all the class of a jelly wrestling contest. It is Marc and Donnas gig and they have the right to send anything they see fit to the memory hole. I've had a lot of benefit out of PT over the years and would hate to lose future access due to needless litigation resulting from big egos.

[Dean@Massiveaction]

100% right on Drelly

[WBuffett]

I think we need to remember that PropertyTalk isn't a social service and it's not a democracy. Marc & Donna ultimately carry the can for what appears on here and if I were in their shoes, I wouldn't hesitate to slash and burn when I thought it was required and I wouldn't put up with a lot of the drivel that gets posted. I've been a moderator and I can tell you that it's pretty time consuming and thankless and predominantly involves stroking delicate egos and explaining what good behaviour is to attention seekers. If anything, I think the mods should carry bigger sticks and not entertain group discussions on their decisions as much as they do.

I agree, right on brotha.

[Stevegoodey]

Couldn't agree more. Having not logged in to PT for a few months I've returned to find it loaded up on threads with all the class of a jelly wrestling contest. It is Marc and Donnas gig and they have the right to send anything they see fit to the memory hole. I've had a lot of benefit out of PT over the years and would hate to lose future access due to needless litigation resulting from big egos.

I would have to disagree with you here Tony.
If the threats of litigation were baseless the site owners would be liable to stand their ground.

[HermanZ]

I would have to disagree with you here Tony.
If the threats of litigation were baseless the site owners would be liable to stand their ground.

Would have to disagree with you here Steve

If one is threatened with litigation by a rich suit with deep pockets and large solicitor, and you have short pockets and a small solicitor -- then I think it would be wise to think hard before standing your ground.

There are several threads on this site that allude to the cost and trauma of such action.

Disclaimer
These are my personal views only, It is not my intention to upset anyone suited or unsuited.


HermanZ

[Stevegoodey]

Being unsuited myself I can see your position.

[muppet]

Avoiding defamation for third party web content

Download as PDF

Guy Burgess, September 2009

A recent UK case dealt with the issue of the republication of defamatory material by a search engine. It bolsters a New Zealand ruling that websites can avoid liability for defamation in situations where they are unaware of defamatory material and exercise no control over its publication.

In the case, MIS Limited v Google and others [2009] EWHC 1765, the plaintiff alleged that it had been defamed by various comments on a website forum. It was accepted that the comments were defamatory, and the plaintiff had a cause of action against the author of the comments and, possibly, the website operator.

However, at issue was whether Google was also liable for defamation, because it displayed the defamatory comments as preview "snippets" in its search results.

In order for a person to be liable for defamation, they must be responsible for a publication of defamatory material.

Read more at http://clendons.co.nz/newsite/index....ty-web-content

[Andrew]

I would have to disagree with you here Tony.
If the threats of litigation were baseless the site owners would be liable to stand their ground.

What a load of rot. Your friend Phil Jones has used the threat of baseless litigation against me and, I’m sure, many others to try and get what he wanted. Given your long and warm association with him I don’t believe you didn’t know this.

Even though the claim is baseless, many people fold straight away as they don’t want the aggravation or cost in taking a stand. These self serving greedy bastards know this, so it is a cost effective first attack to get what they want.

This is Marc and Donna’s site and, as drelly said, they ultimately carry the can for what appears on PT. Why should they have to pay their own money and waste their time to keep litigious vultures from ruining this forum for the rest of us? Perhaps we should all have a whip-around to provide a defense fund against these people?

If the people threatening legal action against PT are sincere in believing their claims have merit, why do they not come out and say who they are?

100% right on Drelly

Of course you agree with this Dean, but I suspect it is for very different reasons than drelly, wbuffit and tonyMacaroni. You no doubt want to have every post questioning you and your actions removed, which is why you probably waste the Moderators time by complaining about any such post rather than addressing it.

As long as Marc and Donna are accountable for the comments on PT then I think they must have the right to take down posts. However I can see that this would severely harm the value of PT for the vast majority of us, through limiting free speech and only seeing censored information.
So. Who wants freedom of speech on PT without Marc and Donna being exposed to bully tactics?

This would seem to be the ideal to me and I’d be keen to hear ideas from people on how it can be achieved.

Who would be willing to make donations to increase the size of PT’s pockets and hire some bigger lawyers? It’s one option, are there any others?