Discussion of VE forum RULES

[NateHanson]

The current rules for the Vendor Experiences Forum can be found here (http://www.bostonreefers.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19839).

In the VE Forum Moderation poll thread, there have been some comments about the rules of the forum being too restrictive, or seeming to favor businesses' over members' interests. Since the Poll on Moderation is meant to reflect peoples opinions on the implementation of the rules, and not the rules themselves, I thought I'd start another thread here so people could comment on the rules, if they feel they're problematic.

Before commenting, please take a minute to review the rules (link above), so that you are not working on a misconception of what the rules are. Some of the comments in the previous thread reflected some misunderstandings of what the rules are, in my opinion.

Thanks, Nate

[JGard]

I said it in my post in that other thread. I think it's too easy for customers to get screwed by vendors. In the board I moderate (www.nasioc.com), we lay down a heavy hand on vendors, and so long as a customer's posting doesn't get too out of line and non-factual, we let them know.

In any hobby, vendors are able to screw us, the customers, the little people. We need to look out more for each other than for the vendors.

Just my personal opinion.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Yes, I agree 100%. Sometimes it seems to me that too much importance is placed on "saving the LFS's reputation". That is what happens when LFSs are sponsors; it creates a conflict of interest such that the BOD or Mods now have to protect the stores. I think this is a bad policy and potentially makes certain forums useless, such as the VE forum.

I said it in my post in that other thread. I think it's too easy for customers to get screwed by vendors. In the board I moderate (www.nasioc.com), we lay down a heavy hand on vendors, and so long as a customer's posting doesn't get too out of line and non-factual, we let them know.

In any hobby, vendors are able to screw us, the customers, the little people. We need to look out more for each other than for the vendors.

Just my personal opinion.

[One Eye]

Chuck, AGAIN....I will explain this to you again.

WE IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM HAVE SET THE RULES UP, OR MODERATE THE RULES, TO PROTECT THE VENDORS. WE DO NOT TOLERATE INFLAMITORY REMARKS FROM EITHER SIDE. THIS FORUM WILL BE USED TO SHARE INFORMATION. THIS FORUM WILL NOT BE USED FOR NAME CALLING, INSULTS, THREATS OR ANY OTHER INFLAMITORY REMARK.

The rules are really set up to avoid slander and inaccuracy.

If it didn't happen to you personaly then you really don't know the facts and would therefore have an innacurate view or comment.

Name calling and threats on a public forum are not only childish, but also slanderous.

[clamm]

I disagree. Negative comments about a LFS that is a sponsor can be put on the vendor expenience board as long as they meet the 1st hand experience clause and other rules set forth on the sticky that no one reads.

[~Flighty~]

I do not agree that posts are moderated in favor of the vendors or sponsors. We usually edit them to remove personal atacks. "That owner is an ass" wouldn't be ok, but personal experiences are left regardless of wether or not they are negative.

[redpaulhus]

I think the VE rules make sense.
Specifically - I think the rule about first-person experience only is extremely important.
The BRS is responsible for the content of this website. If a person said they heard that some guy at some store feeds kittens to the bumblebee grouper, that store could sue the BRS.
Likewise, if some storeowner said they heard I came in looking for kittens to feed my bumblebee grouper, I could sue the store AND the BRS.

and I'm not talking about "theory" here - I'm talking about realistic liability post petswarehouse.com :

http://petsforum.com/psw/


I haven't seen a bias either towards or against vendors in the rules - nor have I ever seen a vendor "screw" a hobbyist. Have I seen hobbyists make stupid purchasing decisions based on what they were told ? sure. In EVERY hobby I enjoy - cars, fishing, boating, PC's, dogs, cats, ferrets, and of course fish -- there's always a shyster selling snake-oil or fools gold, and there are fools lining up to buy.

I haven't seen anything in the rules against posting that I ordered a tank from Tanks-R-Us and they sent me a bag'o'glass (or never delivered, or it was scratched, etc).

Unlike RC, I don't see threads getting locked as soon as they concern a sponsor (check out the euro-reef threads in the RC VE forum, if you can find them - *poof* locked)

However -- people need to be responsible mature adults. Write as if you were writing a letter to your child's teacher, or to a judge. State the facts. State your opinion of the facts (if you like). Don't get personal.
Before clicking Post, reread what you wrote. Would you want your children to read that as an example of your maturity ? Would you want them using those words to refer to another human being ?
How would you feel if somebody used those words to describe you ?

my two cents :D

[JGard]

Red, if you get a chance, go to nasioc.com and check out the vendor forums there.

Personally I do not agree with you. The vendor issue is HUGE when it comes to ordering things online. For local stores I don't think getting "screwed" is very likely, but ordering online, you never know what you're really going to get.

As for storeowners or vendors SUEing BRS for something its members have posted, please show me examples of where that has happened in the past. As far as I know, BRS can claim that things written on this board to not reflect the thoughts and feelings of BRS, and they absolutely do NOT have to be held accountable for things people post here.

Just think of talk radio or something. If a caller calls and completely destroys some athlete's image, can that athlete sue the radio company? Nope! They sure cannot.

That is why I think BRS is taking it a little too far.

While I agree someone posting "My friend's sister's ex-boyfriend's Dad used to shop at X and he said that they said xxxxx" is completely useless, if somebody wants to go off a little about their experience or state what their future intentions are with said vendor due to past experiences, I think it is completely legit.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

In general, I agree. But if this forum is to benefit BRS members, the consumers, then I believe that the rules should be looser, not tighter than the other forums and more lightly moderated. The problem with the first-person experience rule is that it is unenforceable: How can anybody verify a person's first-hand account unless they are there at the store with them?

If there were to be some mis-use of the forum by people repeating stories they hear, or whatever, I really do not believe that it would affect the total BRS membership's opinion of the store. The reason is that the negative post in question would probably be dwarfed by positive posts if the store exhibits good quality products, customer service, etc.. The many positive posts vs the few negative posts would serve as a "self-regulating" mechanism.

If the problem is a conflict of interest between the sponsorship program and the VE Forum then this is a much more different and serious problem that would need to be addressed by the BOD. For example, if negative posts can pose legal problems for the BRS, especially since many LFSs are sponsors and pay to be visible in the VE Forum, then my vote is to get rid of the Sponsorship program. LFSs would continue to thrive if they offer a better product than the next guy and mechanisms to do group buys, LFS visits, etc could still be implemented via other means. In this way, the VE forum would be a much more valuable asset to BRS members.


I think the VE rules make sense.
Specifically - I think the rule about first-person experience only is extremely important.
The BRS is responsible for the content of this website. If a person said they heard that some guy at some store feeds kittens to the bumblebee grouper, that store could sue the BRS.
Likewise, if some storeowner said they heard I came in looking for kittens to feed my bumblebee grouper, I could sue the store AND the BRS.

and I'm not talking about "theory" here - I'm talking about realistic liability post petswarehouse.com :

http://petsforum.com/psw/


I haven't seen a bias either towards or against vendors in the rules - nor have I ever seen a vendor "screw" a hobbyist. Have I seen hobbyists make stupid purchasing decisions based on what they were told ? sure. In EVERY hobby I enjoy - cars, fishing, boating, PC's, dogs, cats, ferrets, and of course fish -- there's always a shyster selling snake-oil or fools gold, and there are fools lining up to buy.

I haven't seen anything in the rules against posting that I ordered a tank from Tanks-R-Us and they sent me a bag'o'glass (or never delivered, or it was scratched, etc).

Unlike RC, I don't see threads getting locked as soon as they concern a sponsor (check out the euro-reef threads in the RC VE forum, if you can find them - *poof* locked)

However -- people need to be responsible mature adults. Write as if you were writing a letter to your child's teacher, or to a judge. State the facts. State your opinion of the facts (if you like). Don't get personal.
Before clicking Post, reread what you wrote. Would you want your children to read that as an example of your maturity ? Would you want them using those words to refer to another human being ?
How would you feel if somebody used those words to describe you ?

my two cents :D

[One Eye]

Sponsor do not pay to be visible in the VE forum. Again, read the rules, the VE forum is for discussion of all vendors, not just sponsors.
Sponsors pay for their banner ads and, if applicable, their forums.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

I think you hit the nail on the head. It would be extremely difficult for stores to claim slander and win in court. The reason, as you state, is that all of our posts are opinions and are not necessarily shared by the BOD or other members. For an example of how this works, the E-Bay rating system comes to mind, full of negative ratings and negative comments. I have even bought things from E-Bay stores or members that got negative ratings and/or negative comments. The stores/members that have a 95% good rating do not prevent me from shopping on their sites.

I also agree with your opinion that: "BRS is taking it a little too far".



Red, if you get a chance, go to nasioc.com and check out the vendor forums there.

Personally I do not agree with you. The vendor issue is HUGE when it comes to ordering things online. For local stores I don't think getting "screwed" is very likely, but ordering online, you never know what you're really going to get.

As for storeowners or vendors SUEing BRS for something its members have posted, please show me examples of where that has happened in the past. As far as I know, BRS can claim that things written on this board to not reflect the thoughts and feelings of BRS, and they absolutely do NOT have to be held accountable for things people post here.

Just think of talk radio or something. If a caller calls and completely destroys some athlete's image, can that athlete sue the radio company? Nope! They sure cannot.

That is why I think BRS is taking it a little too far.

While I agree someone posting "My friend's sister's ex-boyfriend's Dad used to shop at X and he said that they said xxxxx" is completely useless, if somebody wants to go off a little about their experience or state what their future intentions are with said vendor due to past experiences, I think it is completely legit.

[redpaulhus]

Have you read about Robert Novak and Petswarehouse.com ?

I was moderating a number of sites at the time, and it was a huge thing - members AND the board getting sued - who has the pockets and/or time to fight back against something like that ?

In the case of Novak - a number of the defendants finally settled -- ie PAYED HIM (it was cheaper than the projected legal costs). Do you want to have to pay a vendor because somebody here slandered them ? Do you want the club to do so ?

However, one of the things we discussed at the time was that if you were posting your own experiences you were covered under slander/libel laws. If you were posting things you didn't personally experience you are NOT. If I say "I was there when the kittens were fed to the grouper" I cannot be sued. If I say "I heard they breed kittens to feed groupers" I am wide open for a lawsuit.

Saying things like "the cashier is xyz" -- thats straight out of high school... and one step short of road rage or being the hockey dad who beat up the ref or coach -- are we that close to being Springer Nation ?

All I'm saying is that certain behavior is unacceptable from mature adults, and I saw alot of that behavior in VE forum posts here (usually right before the mods edited out the garbage).

[JGard]

Point taken. I'm surprised a law suit from postings on a web site actually succeeded. Then again, look at our freakin justice system :lol:

I do agree that there's generally no need for name calling.

[~Flighty~]

Thanks for the posts, redpaulhus, You are making many of the points I was having a hard time putting into words.

What he said :D

[RichConley]

Point taken. I'm surprised a law suit from postings on a web site actually succeeded. Then again, look at our freakin justice system :lol:

I do agree that there's generally no need for name calling.

The law suit doesnt need to succeed, thats the point. Just the court proceedings can put people under. Thats a common practice in corporate america at this point: Sue someone not because you have a chance of winning, but sue them because they can't afford to defend themselves.

[Moe_K]

The personal stuff has been moved to The Lounge.
Please keep the personal arguments out of this thread.
Thanks.

[rharlow]

Just had to say, wow that was cool, I was on page 4, then bingo, I'm on page 1 again. The irelevant stuff FINALLY disappeared! Thanks mods!

Chip

[IffersTankSlave]

I am simply amazed at all of this. I would think (there I go again) that it would be common sense (insert joke here) that a VE thread would be ONLY a first-hand account and experience. If it was postive, "I had a good experience at XYZ". If it was negative, "I had a bad experience at XYZ". State facts to support either statement, avoid name calling and insults, and move on. Is all of this really that difficult? Seems like there are some people here who just want to create a negative atmosphere around the club.

[rharlow]

I've been meaning to ask this, although I'm not sure if this is the right thread to do it in, but I'll take a shot. It does deal with VE forums however.

I have had a disappointing and frustrating transaction with a vendor and a sponsor - let me explain briefly. Ordered from Sponsor instead of online (non-sponsor) because I wanted to give some business locally and price was competitive. Order was for over $400. Was in the process of setting up tank and needed some items in a certain amount of time. When I placed the order, I was told that a couple of items were on backorder and that if I wanted them to be shipped out seperately, I'd have to pay shipping twice, so I decided to hold off the 1 week I was told it would be. To make a long story short, after repeated emails back and forth, 1 month later, I finally got my order. The delay was because as one item came in, now another item was sold out and went on backoder. This rolling backorder was finally stopped by me cancelling part of my order. Time was critical and I couldn't wait any longer!!! So, after a month wait, I still didn't get all my order, but to top it off, when I rcvd my order I found out that an item I ordered was replaced with a totally inferior/similar product without my knowledge. Now, the individual I was dealing with I think felt sincerley bad and tried to make up for it. He seemed nice enough although this order seemed out of his control. Well, I needed to return the swapped item, but wanted to hand carry it to the individual. He asked if I wanted a refund of the cancelled order immediately or wait until I returned the swapped item (he said no rush). I said to go ahead and wait. So, after probably a month, I finally was able to return item. The sponsor said he'd get right on the refund and try to post it the next day. Well, after waiting a week with no contact, I pmd the sponsor and he said he was still working on it. Also, doing taxes this weekend, I noticed that my charge card was charged for the initial purchase on the day I placed the order and not on the date the items were shipped - talk about the carry trade! It seems the attitude is that the sale is made, credit card charged, now I can move on.

So, the bottom line is that I will never order from this sponsor again. Do I think he's a bad guy - NO, actually he seems like a nice guy. Just that his distibutor sucks and he should get another. Was this a one-time event - possibly. If I say something and it is a one time event, have I pissed people off that come running to his defense. Since this is a close group, with meetings and all, how am I now seen in other peoples eyes - should I care? If it was an online vendor, far, far away, I wouldn't care, but I don't like possibly burning down local bridges. Am I being a wuus and not speaking up, probably, but that's me (non-confrontational (unlike others)):)

So, how is an experience like this relayed to others within the VE forum? I don't think it can be, especially with a sponsor. So I will not post this experience on the VE forum, yet if someone was to ask my opinion on a specific store, I would tell that individual my story.

If that individual wanted to relay that story as a second hand story, and it was factual, and did not mention my name, then I would not be opposed to it and would think it would help others.

To wrap it up, the BODs and MODs have an impossible task with this forum. The BODs for trying to make up rules that will be fair and avoid major problems, and the MODs for being the enforcers. You're doing an admirable job with no pay! But do understand that I think there will always be issues that will never be totally resolved - it's the nature of this type of a forum.

Chip

[KAS]

I am simply amazed at all of this. I would think (there I go again) that it would be common sense (insert joke here) that a VE thread would be ONLY a first-hand account and experience. If it was postive, "I had a good experience at XYZ". If it was negative, "I had a bad experience at XYZ". State facts to support either statement, avoid name calling and insults, and move on. Is all of this really that difficult? Seems like there are some people here who just want to create a negative atmosphere around the club.
What he said. Well stated.

[Liam]

thanks for your understanding Chip.
As far as your question,the forum is there for you to let others now of your experiences good or bad with sponsor/non sponsor.It is unfortunate you had a bad experience and i understand thast someone may feel awkward posting negative comments about a sponsor in such a tight knit community,however the whole purpose of the forum is to benifit the membership and if you feel posting your experience would benifit another member then you should post,sponsor or not.If it was a one time deal and others have had good experiences with the vendor and others have had bad and others post ,then the information will be there to help prospective purchasers draw there conclusions before parting with there hard earned cash.
And always remember,the vendor is always invited to respond to any post about there own business.

[delta]

I read the rules over a couple of times and they just seem like common sense to me.
If your going to take a shot at a persons livelihood then you better make sure your in the right.
This is how these people make their money. I think if you looked at from the store owners point of view you would take serious offense to senseless attacks on your business.
That is why the rules are common sense to me because if I am going to say anything that may impact someone ability to put food on their families table you better bet I am going to make sure it is the truth and absolutely needs to be said, and in as respectful manner as possible.
If I am not respectful no matter how I have been treated then I loose all credibility.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Thanks Moe, maybe now we can have some constructive discussion.


The personal stuff has been moved to The Lounge.
Please keep the personal arguments out of this thread.
Thanks.

[lactrain]

I read the rules over a couple of times and they just seem like common sense to me.
If your going to take a shot at a persons livelihood then you better make sure your in the right.
This is how these people make their money. I think if you looked at from the store owners point of view you would take serious offense to senseless attacks on your business.
That is why the rules are common sense to me because if I am going to say anything that may impact someone ability to put food on their families table you better bet I am going to make sure it is the truth and absolutely needs to be said, and in as respectful manner as possible.
If I am not respectful no matter how I have been treated then I loose all credibility.

This is my opinion exactly ... we are supporting a hobby ... they are supporting theyre families.... Ya Ya Ya I know we dont owe them nothing! I remember from the last 5+ page thread!!!

I just dont see the sense to any negative posting ... couldnt you get the same result with only allowing positive comments ... where the good vendors would get multiple good comments and bad vendors would get none or few..

I know if i had this many problems with anything, like we all are having with this forum, then i would be strongly considering something new or different.

Im a member at two other clubs Creativereefing and ReefCentral ... neither have this type of forum...

Time to get beyond this!!! Let the moderators moderate ...let the members bash the vendors ...let the vendors bash the members .... The forum is here to stay so lets deal with it and move on. Say what you want to say and if it dont come out right dont worry the mods will correct it!

Len

[jimmyj7090]

Yes,
but some LFS's are different than others. For most of us we have been to all the stores and we know who we like. For new members, seeing who does get bashed can serve a valuable warning.

That said, on the internet, the simple expression of an opinion can turn into 30 pages of silly arguments real fast.

I guess I have no real point to make, it just bums me out everytime I see people arguing over a shared interest that they are all passionate about.

Boo

jk

[delta]

However you can make a positive negative post though.
You can make a strong point I means you can rip someone apart with just plain fact if it is presented correctly. So why not just say it with a little class and if someone throws mud back just smile and move on wishing them luck thats a bigger point than arguing with them.
In the end if you argue with them or attack them you look like the donkey and they look like the victim.


FWIW Len RC does have a VE thread

[Scuba_Dave]

The law suit doesnt need to succeed, thats the point. Just the court proceedings can put people under. Thats a common practice in corporate america at this point: Sue someone not because you have a chance of winning, but sue them because they can't afford to defend themselves.

The point is the lawsuit WAS succesful. It's purpose was to financially bankrupt the web-site & force people there to apologize.
People with a lot of money can hire enough lawyers to get away with murder.
I think I heard that from Johny somebody

People think they can post whatever they want without consequences
Remember people who thought they could download Free music without being caught & fined?

So while you can file a disclaimer that the club is NOT responsible for any posts or slanderous posts, ANY financially funded lawsuit would bankrupt the club
It's really as simple as that

And simple, concise, postive & negative posts are allowed
Negative posts are needed, with facts

I had one bad experience with a Sponsor Vendor on RC & made a stink
That person was no longor a sponsor at the end of it. I was not the only one to complain. I not only made stink on RC, I sought him out on other boards & posted there - until he made me an offer to "settle"
I spent not one cent, and kept to the facts, and I'd be willing to bet I put a dent in his sales

So Yes, you HAVE to be careful about what you post, and ALLOW to be posted

[lactrain]

FWIW Len RC does have a VE thread

"Thread" but do they have a forum. To me forums are motivated by the org. and threads are motivated by the mebership. Any intervention or participation by the org. will pull them into the loop.

I would hate to have to be summonsed into court ... and have to put my money up against one of the major .coms.

Anyone can sue anyone civily for any decent reason, I dont know much about case law when it comes to open forums like this in regards to slander, but I prefer to keep my name free from any case law.

Delta can you point me too the thread/forum, I would like to see it?

You can make a strong point I means you can rip someone apart with just plain fact if it is presented correctly. So why not just say it with a little class and if someone throws mud back just smile and move on wishing them luck thats a bigger point than arguing with them.
In the end if you argue with them or attack them you look like the donkey and they look like the victim.

Your absolutely correct and it can be tastefully and respectfully and the critisizm can be constructive as apposed to be destructive. By not allowing and negative opinions.

Like the Patnaudes thread ... "I have been going there since I was 2 ... they have been there forever ... their livestock has always been questionable ... but they do have the potential to have a great saltwater section."

In the three years in this hobby not once did I ever reccomend that place to anyone. Just beyond me why a thread was even posted.

Need there be a thread on Petco when we have a list of supporting sponsors.

Starting a thread on them IMO does nothing but allow people to bash their business. Me personally would not even had mentioned that place they are not even in this leauge.

Maybe I should take a vigilante approach and tip off vendors who have no knowledge of the critisicm that is going on here so they can react to it wether it be responding to the thread or via a civil suite amongst the org.

Len

[RichConley]

Starting a thread on them IMO does nothing but allow people to bash their business. Me personally would not even had mentioned that place they are not even in this leauge.

Maybe I should take a vigilante approach and tip off vendors who have no knowledge of the critisicm that is going on here so they can react to it wether it be responding to the thread or via a civil suite amongst the org.

Len

Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things. A forum of all positive comments is useless.

The thing is, you know better than to stop at that store, I've never seen it, never heard of it, so I dont. If I drove by, I may have stopped in and bought something. Now I'm a more educated aquarist, and that is a large part of the BRS mission statement: Education


As to RC, they basically shut down any thread that says anything even close to bad about a sponsor. People continually get burned by the same sponsors because RC protects them. We're trying to avoid that, so we need negative comments too. We just need the negative comments to be courteous, and factual.

[redpaulhus]

Actually, RC has a whole Vendor forum, but you have to be logged in as a RC member to see it. Heck, I think they kinda pioneered it (well, that and reefs.org with their whole Garf Files bit...)

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

I think negative comments are important - how many people have been saved a bad experience with an AQUAtic CON artist because of the threads in the RC forums about such Aqua Con's ?

However I would be very upset if one of my customers (as a web guy) posted that my web application made his cable tv stop working (no causality) , or that I'm too quiet/geeky and not enough of a people person - you want a working web app, see me. You want conversation, talk to my wife. Please. :D

I always thought that the VE forum should be like Consumer Reports for fishgeeks -- this is what we bought, this is how it worked/swam/pulsed, this is where be bought it.
When's the last time Consumer Reports only posted good info and left the bad products out of the listing ? Or bashed the vendor's personality or lack thereof ?
Until we can get CR to do an issue comparing protein skimmer models and mail-order corals ("WYSIWYG - Fact or Fiction ?" :D ), I think the best we can do is try to put rules in place here that work toward those ideals.

Which we have, right now. Where's the problem ?

[Greg Hiller]

>Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things.<

This is part of the point of the forum. Rather than burying negative stuff about vendors inside threads here and there in the general forums, the comments are better placed where vendors can SEE them, and respond. Maybe they didn't even KNOW there was a problem.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits? Again, the E-bay system comes to mind. There are all kinds of negative comments - but it does not matter since a really good vendor will have more positive comments than negative ones. E-bay members make the choice of weather to go with a vendor or not based on the number of positive and negative comments and weather or not they believe what is posted. Really simple and it works great.



Actually, RC has a whole Vendor forum, but you have to be logged in as a RC member to see it. Heck, I think they kinda pioneered it (well, that and reefs.org with their whole Garf Files bit...)

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=8

I think negative comments are important - how many people have been saved a bad experience with an AQUAtic CON artist because of the threads in the RC forums about such Aqua Con's ?

However I would be very upset if one of my customers (as a web guy) posted that my web application made his cable tv stop working (no causality) , or that I'm too quiet/geeky and not enough of a people person - you want a working web app, see me. You want conversation, talk to my wife. Please. :D

I always thought that the VE forum should be like Consumer Reports for fishgeeks -- this is what we bought, this is how it worked/swam/pulsed, this is where be bought it.
When's the last time Consumer Reports only posted good info and left the bad products out of the listing ? Or bashed the vendor's personality or lack thereof ?
Until we can get CR to do an issue comparing protein skimmer models and mail-order corals ("WYSIWYG - Fact or Fiction ?" :D ), I think the best we can do is try to put rules in place here that work toward those ideals.

Which we have, right now. Where's the problem ?

[Liam]

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits? Again, the E-bay system comes to mind. There are all kinds of negative comments - but it does not matter since a really good vendor will have more positive comments than negative ones. E-bay members make the choice of weather to go with a vendor or not based on the number of positive and negative comments and weather or not they believe what is posted. Really simple and it works great.

My opnion of the ebay system is that is is severely flawed.Being a buyer and seller on ebay i have been it the position myself where you do not want to post negative feedback on somebody for fear of retaliation that would damage my own 100% feedback rating.

[KAS]

Consumer Reports has been around for a long time. How do they handle the threat of lawsuits?
I believe everything they write, both positive and negative is all first hand experience. They do the testing. Secondly, the negative is stated in a factual manner. There is no slander, personal attacks, unfounded statements.

Amazingly, those are the rules for our forum as well. :o

[NateHanson]

Yeah, I think we're taking a similar approach to CR. We want as much info as possible to get out, and in order to protect ourselves from misinformation and slander, we ask that all accounts be factual, objective, and cool-headed.

[redpaulhus]

Chuck - they stick to the facts. no opinions or hearsay.

They document their results and make sure that they are verifyable -- ie not "the shirt seemed cleaner when I used Tide" but "the shirt was measurably whiter using Tide" -- kinda like using a Secchi disk to measure water clarity rather than saying well, "my tank seems clearer than it was..."

Most of their articles list the testing methodology and specific results.

They don't get personal and they don't take it personal (ie they didn't get in a huff about the Ionic Breeze scoring poorly, and don't claim that the folks who make the Ionic Breeze are shysters out to screw everybody. The Ionic Breeze folks just ignore the report exists.)

[One Eye]

So should we change the name of the forum to the consumer report forum? Maybe it would make it easier to understand the rules that are in place?

[Greg Hiller]

The cool thing about Consumer Reports is that about once a year some stupid company trys to sue them. CR trots out all their scientifically collected data and CR ALWAYS wins the suit.

[redpaulhus]

My opnion of the ebay system is that is is severely flawed.Being a buyer and seller on ebay i have been it the position myself where you do not want to post negative feedback on somebody for fear of retaliation that would damage my own 100% feedback rating.

I agree 100%.

I've had the same happen to me, and have even been pressured to leave positive feedback "or else" !
Why else would 99% of the feedbacks be cookie-cutter copies of "great seller" over and over again ? (IME)

:eek: "ok seller" or "no problems" or "smooth transaction" I could see - but "great" ? How many people\places in the US really offer "great" service for anything nowadays ? (and those that do often charge thru the nose for it, 5-star hotels, etc). Certainly not the % of "greatness" we see in Ebay feedbacks !

[lactrain]

Len, starting a thread also gives them a chance to see the problems people have with their store, so maybe they can change some things. A forum of all positive comments is useless.

This to me is controversial ... I can see people posting negatively about sponsors in their own personal forums ... but starting a thread on a pet store like Patnaudes where they have no knowledge of this site is in no way beneficial unless someone tips them off of it, not that they would care anyway, same as Petco. Can you see the point here.

The thing is, you know better than to stop at that store, I've never seen it, never heard of it, so I dont. If I drove by, I may have stopped in and bought something. Now I'm a more educated aquarist, and that is a large part of the BRS mission statement: Education

To me education is describing the difference of what an ill fish looks like or what a healthy system looks as apposed to what is unhealthy, so they can determine for themselves. And besides one's common sense should dictate that if there are no postive feedback or no sponsorship then its risky business, which one should always assume when buying online.

As to RC, they basically shut down any thread that says anything even close to bad about a sponsor. People continually get burned by the same sponsors because RC protects them. We're trying to avoid that, so we need negative comments too. We just need the negative comments to be courteous, and factual.

"Sponsors" are one thing and "Vendors" are another, though some vendors are sponsors. But there is clearly a difinitive line between the two. I can see RC's plight to defend their sponsors becasue any negative feedback on a sponsor should be directed to them RC BOD, they ultimately should be the judge and if they feel that the complaints are ligit and repetitive then their sponsors forum and sponsorship should be dropped. Same with BRS I would hope that any sponsor that fails to adhere to BRS mission statement, policy, they too should be reomoved from sponsorship.

Can I ask a question to the BOD: Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.

I remember Darrens case clearly, and what he did in response to it was all good. But till incidents occur similiar to his, (My apoligies for financial loss Darren), which was first hand and based solely on facts, to me that is ligit. Would it be appropriate for me to wear a sign at a frag swap that reads dont sell SPS corals to Lactrain becasue he is trying to keep them under PC lights and has cyno algae growing. Im sure we are all guilty of this since when do we see a post in the frag swap thread asking the buyer what his tank specs are before the coral is sold. But we all would chastisize a vendor for keeping them in a system that is equivelent to it.

To open a forum to allow people to critisize ones business (bread and Butter) on the fact that they dont smile enough, and relate it to customer service is beyond me. I would rather a vendor/sponsor not smile at me and sell me an item that is healthy and works appropriately, then not smile and burn me.

IMO the intentions of the VE forum is good .... but I think its not working appropriately ... based on controversial threads like this... time to live with it cause its here to stay ... Im hoping that this thread was created to obtain ideas on how to improve on the rules of this controversial forum so improvements can be made, and not wasting our breathe.

But my wording it appears that I care which i do to a sense, I like would to see everyone get along, and animosity be elimated from a hobby I enjoy so much. But on the flip side I can very easily not give a s@#t and reamin silent like many others. Ultimately it is not me that is the recipient from the slander.

[RichConley]

This to me is controversial ... I can see people posting negatively about sponsors in their own personal forums ... but starting a thread on a pet store like Patnaudes where they have no knowledge of this site is in no way beneficial unless someone tips them off of it, not that they would care anyway, same as Petco. Can you see the point here.


To me education is describing the difference of what an ill fish looks like or what a healthy system looks as apposed to what is unhealthy, so they can determine for themselves. And besides one's common sense should dictate that if there are no postive feedback or no sponsorship then its risky business, which one should always assume when buying online.
The problem with the no positive feedback= bad store is that sometimes there are new stores, sometimes there are stores that not many people have been to, etc.

The thing is, I had never heard of Patnaudes. I dont care if that thread hurts their business, as long as the thread is factual. If it saves some hapless newbie from buying something they can't handle, then it has served its purpose.



"Sponsors" are one thing and "Vendors" are another,
I completely, and utterly disagree with you on that one. Sponsors must be treated exactly the same as all other vendors. Their sponsorship agreement does not include us covering up for any poor practices they have. Their sponsorship includes certain specific rights, and being protected when they commit wrongs is not one of them.


Can I ask a question to the BOD: Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.
There are no provisions in the charter that give us the right to exclude sponsors by their husbandry habits. They are sponsors. They pay the bills for the right to advertise on the board. As it is, we have accumulated a larger number of sponsors, and we may in the future change this.

Im sure we are all guilty of this since when do we see a post in the frag swap thread asking the buyer what his tank specs are before the coral is sold. But we all would chastisize a vendor for keeping them in a system that is equivelent to it.
Vendors and buyers have different responsibilities.
Its okay for me to take my truck offroading. Its not okay for the dealer to take it offroading before he sells it to me.

To open a forum to allow people to critisize ones business (bread and Butter) on the fact that they dont smile enough, and relate it to customer service is beyond me. I would rather a vendor/sponsor not smile at me and sell me an item that is healthy and works appropriately, then not smile and burn me.

I agree with you on that one.

IMO the intentions of the VE forum is good .... but I think its not working appropriately ... based on controversial threads like this... time to live with it cause its here to stay ... Im hoping that this thread was created to obtain ideas on how to improve on the rules of this controversial forum so improvements can be made, and not wasting our breathe.
The problem is that people STILL aren't reading the rules. They go in and start spouting off what they heard from someone else, or start yelling that they got hosed, etc.

I'm tempted to ask that there be no use of adjectives or adverbs in that forums. I think that would solve a lot of the issues.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

I agree that both positive and negative posts should be factual.

I believe everything they write, both positive and negative is all first hand experience. They do the testing. Secondly, the negative is stated in a factual manner. There is no slander, personal attacks, unfounded statements.

Amazingly, those are the rules for our forum as well. :o

[RichConley]

Im hoping that this thread was created to obtain ideas on how to improve on the rules of this controversial forum so improvements can be made, and not wasting our breathe.


The thing is, until people start actually following the rules that are there, improving the rules doesnt make a difference.


Chuck's post above says he agrees that both positive and negative comments shoudl need to be factual. Thats covered by the rules. People just can't seem to follow them.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Again, I think if you sell or buy things on E-Bay (or through the BRS Selling Forums), and you provide a good product and/or a good service, then the rating system is self regulating. You will get lots of good posts and maybe one or two "retalliations" or whatever and you would tend not to lose customers because of the few inaccurate or retalliative negative posts.


My opnion of the ebay system is that is is severely flawed.Being a buyer and seller on ebay i have been it the position myself where you do not want to post negative feedback on somebody for fear of retaliation that would damage my own 100% feedback rating.

[Liam]

Again, I think if you sell or buy things on E-Bay (or through the BRS Selling Forums), and you provide a good product and/or a good service, then the rating system is self regulating. You will get lots of good posts and maybe one or two "retalliations" or whatever and you would tend not to lose customers because of the few inaccurate or retalliative negative posts.

what i meant was,i have not posted negative feedback on others when really they deserved it.I did not give them negative because i was worried they may retaliate with some nastiness just out of spite.My own buying /selling practices don't come into the flaw i am describing

[RichConley]

Chuck, the problem doesnt really change anything when its normal users.

The ebay issue comes into play when you're dealing with a power seller. I've got a positive feedback rating of 60 I think. I have like 85 positive feedback (from 62 users) and 2 negative, so 60, with about 96%. Me getting 1 negative seriously affects my rating. A guy who has 42000 feedback gets one negative, and he doesnt care. So I buy something, pay on time, wait 6 weeks for product, leave a negative, and he responds by negativing me.

Hes still at 99.9999999%. I drop from 96 to about 93. I come out looking much worse than him on the transaction, and thats a problem.

I almost feel like ebay should implement something so that if someone negative feedbacks, the other user loses the ability to post a counted negative feedback. If the first user posts positive, the second can post whatever they want.

The problem now, is the power sellers WILL NOT leave feedback until you do, and if you leave negative, you get negative. Its basically extortion.

[delta]

Personally I think that the forum is the responsibility of joe fitz and the moderators end of story on this. So in an effort to allow us an online community to share information a general knowlege amongst a few jokes and what not there needs to be rules, part of every society anyway. Seeing as they take the responsibility makes it just natural that they make a basic set of rules as to protect themselves and keep things civil. Your not going to let someone come in your house(you own it pay for it care for it) and behave in a manner unacceptable to you would you?

Now as members of this forum we have a right to share info\knowledge joke and variuos other things like venus for frag swaps and group buys. Now all we have to do is follow the guidlines called rules and this is how simple it is.
But they take it a step further and allowing us input on those rules. However not whether or not the forum should exist as I am sure you could pose a reason every forum needed to be closed.

Personally the rules make sense IMHO and if you read between the lines the forum is easy to read if you don't get caught up in the slinging. However this is easier if posts are only about the actual facts.
Another thing is you cannot judge the forum based on the disregard for respect of another person/business you have to blame the people who make the posts not the people who try and defuse the flame, insult etc. Too often people forget there is another person on the other end, have a bad day or make a general comment and someone takes it personal in this some what make believe venus. Although it is very real.
The mods have to choose what is under the rules and not but they are the responsible ones. We are responsible for no more than the actions we take within our posting. I believe our responsibility to be a bigger problem than the rules here and whether the mods should moderate less or more. Although alot wont look at themselves and say "sorry I shouldn't have gone there" (general statment)

IMHO I feel the rules for this forum and site are well within reasonable boundries and dont recall a post\thread that has been moderated outside of those rules.

[lactrain]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lactrain
"Sponsors" are one thing and "Vendors" are another,

I completely, and utterly disagree with you on that one. Sponsors must be treated exactly the same as all other vendors. Their sponsorship agreement does not include us covering up for any poor practices they have. Their sponsorship includes certain specific rights, and being protected when they commit wrongs is not one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lactrain

Can I ask a question to the BOD: Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.

There are no provisions in the charter that give us the right to exclude sponsors by their husbandry habits. They are sponsors. They pay the bills for the right to advertise on the board. As it is, we have accumulated a larger number of sponsors, and we may in the future change this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lactrain
Im sure we are all guilty of this since when do we see a post in the frag swap thread asking the buyer what his tank specs are before the coral is sold. But we all would chastisize a vendor for keeping them in a system that is equivelent to it.

Vendors and buyers have different responsibilities.
Its okay for me to take my truck offroading. Its not okay for the dealer to take it offroading before he sells it to me.

Ya Ok ... a bit contradicting ... but I understand ... and I wont ask for clarification on this one. :rolleyes:

[Chuck Spyropulos]

I believe that people should post factual information. However, I also believe that it is impossible to enforce. That being said, I think that all posts positive and negative should be allowed by the rules (except for name-calling, profanity, and outright malice). The readers can decide what to do with the information or weather they think information is factual or not...no one believes every thing they read especially when there is good information to refute what they read. The more posts, the more representative of the true quality of the shop.

For example if there is one post about shop X that is negative then only a small confidence would be associated with it. Now if the same shop X gets 100 positive posts, then the confidence is high that it represents the general consensus of a large portion of the BRS members. The one negative post concerning shop X would now be insignificant when compared to all the positive posts.

On the other hand if shop Y gets 100 negative posts, then BRS members considering weather or not to do business at shop Y may think twice about shopping there. So I really do think that looser rules would benefit members much more by providing more information without any damage to the reputation of any shop. It is basic math or the law of large numbers that would determine the validity of the information. In this manner all subjectiveness is removed and the forum would be self regulating, except in cases where there is obvious outright malice.


The thing is, until people start actually following the rules that are there, improving the rules doesnt make a difference.


Chuck's post above says he agrees that both positive and negative comments shoudl need to be factual. Thats covered by the rules. People just can't seem to follow them.

[KAS]

I agree that both positive and negative posts should be factual.
:confused: so what is your concern with the current forum rules exactly?

[Liam]

:confused: so what is your concern with the current forum rules exactly?

bingo:)

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Yes, I do see your point and I have been in similar situations on EBay where it DID feel like someone was extorting positive feedback. But EBay is a little different than the BRS forum. I was merely using it to illustrate my point that a few bad posts in the BRS forum does not cancel out 50, 100, or more positive posts. But I do see your point here.

Chuck, the problem doesnt really change anything when its normal users.

The ebay issue comes into play when you're dealing with a power seller. I've got a positive feedback rating of 60 I think. I have like 85 positive feedback (from 62 users) and 2 negative, so 60, with about 96%. Me getting 1 negative seriously affects my rating. A guy who has 42000 feedback gets one negative, and he doesnt care. So I buy something, pay on time, wait 6 weeks for product, leave a negative, and he responds by negativing me.

Hes still at 99.9999999%. I drop from 96 to about 93. I come out looking much worse than him on the transaction, and thats a problem.

I almost feel like ebay should implement something so that if someone negative feedbacks, the other user loses the ability to post a counted negative feedback. If the first user posts positive, the second can post whatever they want.

The problem now, is the power sellers WILL NOT leave feedback until you do, and if you leave negative, you get negative. Its basically extortion.

[RichConley]

Chuck, I dont understand your concern...

The rules state that you can post negative. You can post positive.

The only real stipulations are these:
It must be your experience, not someone elses.
You must be polite.


There is NO subjectiveness here. If you post something that happened to someone else, it gets deleted. If you post something that is a personal insult, it gets deleted. If you post something that is rude, it gets deleted. If you post an oppinion without a specific example, it gets deleted.

Other than that, it stays.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

I think everyone should post facts but I do not think that you can enforce a rule that requires this. Or actually, you may be able to enforce it somewhat but not very efficiently or objectively. That is my concern: Objectively deciding what is fact or fiction can not be done efficiently or effectively. So maybe the rules should stay the same but the Mods should let the relative number positive and negative posts objectively represent the profile of the shop rather than attempting to weed out "false" claims. Validity of the information increases as the number of posts increases.

:confused: so what is your concern with the current forum rules exactly?

[lactrain]

I understand chucks concern read his posting .....

His concern it that there is no way to prove whether the information that the mods are deeming to be firsthand are actually first hand .... or if they are merely written in first person.

So therefore why should second information be removed .... becasue though it is second hand information it may be very true!

There is no way to determine this!!!!!

Therefore all posts should be left alone unless they become derrogatory...and let the forum/members speak for themselves.

which I agree!!!!!!

Cmon guys read and comprehend

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Rich can I PM you with a question?

Chuck, I dont understand your concern...

The rules state that you can post negative. You can post positive.

The only real stipulations are these:
It must be your experience, not someone elses.
You must be polite.


There is NO subjectiveness here. If you post something that happened to someone else, it gets deleted. If you post something that is a personal insult, it gets deleted. If you post something that is rude, it gets deleted. If you post an oppinion without a specific example, it gets deleted.

Other than that, it stays.

[Greg Hiller]

>Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.<

While I'm not on the BOD anymore, I can tell you what the position WAS previously. We did not activly try to find new sponsors that we thought might be questionable places, but on the other hand, we did not have a set policy in place that would stop one from becoming a sponsor. And the reasoning behind it was this....we as the club's BOD did not want to try to tell people where they could and could not shop. The example I used to give was, let's suppose I live across the street from 'Bad Shop X'. While I'd never buy a fish there, it's awefully convenient when I need to pick up some frozen brine shrimp. Why shouldn't the BOD accept Bad Shop X's sponsor ship $ if offered? The sponsorship often means a 10% discount. So when I pickup my frozen brine shrimp I get my discount.

We had hoped that people would learn in time which shops were best by speaking to others in the club, not by the BOD having some list of check boxes that would give the sponsor our gold star. We also had hoped (but this has kind of stalled) that we would be running online polls (as I did a few years back) to get a feel from members where the best shops in the area were, and what the best shops were for each different thing (best for SPS, fish, etc.). I'm still working on the poll thing, and will try and get back to it.

[One Eye]

Len and Chuck, I've been very aware of Chucks point for some time now.

As I have explained several times in the past. It needs to be first hand experiance because second hand info cannot be questioned.
EX: if you tell me your friend Billy Bob went to xyz and the store kicked him out because they didn't like his new mullet. Billy Bob is not a user of the forum.
1st, I can't ask Billy Bob why the hell he wants to wear a mullet anyway
2nd, the store can't defend against an acusation made by a third party.

Please read and comprehend this...thank you!

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Yes, absolutely! In fact PJs is place that comes to mind. I like it because it is close and convenient for supplies and even Mysis now! But I don't go there for advice on Reef Tanks. That is a negative comment that is not based on any facts or first-hand information so should it be deleted? NO! Do I want PJs to close? Absolutely not! Will PJs sue me? Of course not.
So when these "grey" area comments get posted they provide some information that would otherwise get deleted if the Mods followed the rules tothe "T".

>Would Petco ever be considered/allowed to be a sponsor of this forum/organization, I should hope not.<

While I'm not on the BOD anymore, I can tell you what the position WAS previously. We did not activly try to find new sponsors that we thought might be questionable places, but on the other hand, we did not have a set policy in place that would stop one from becoming a sponsor. And the reasoning behind it was this....we as the club's BOD did not want to try to tell people where they could and could not shop. The example I used to give was, let's suppose I live across the street from 'Bad Shop X'. While I'd never buy a fish there, it's awefully convenient when I need to pick up some frozen brine shrimp. Why shouldn't the BOD accept Bad Shop X's sponsor ship $ if offered? The sponsorship often means a 10% discount. So when I pickup my frozen brine shrimp I get my discount.

We had hoped that people would learn in time which shops were best by speaking to others in the club, not by the BOD having some list of check boxes that would give the sponsor our gold star. We also had hoped (but this has kind of stalled) that we would be running online polls (as I did a few years back) to get a feel from members where the best shops in the area were, and what the best shops were for each different thing (best for SPS, fish, etc.). I'm still working on the poll thing, and will try and get back to it.

[RichConley]

Chuck, go right ahead.

I see the point that theres no way to tell if people are just making stuff up, as long as they say "This happened to me"

Theres no way to prevent that, and there never will be. The hope is, by not allowing vendors(or people associated with vendors) to post in any threads but their own, there will never be a situation where people will be put in a position where it is to their advantage to lie.

The main reason for not allowing second hand stories, is stories tend to get bigger as they get passed on.
Also, how many things (that are completely false) in this hobby are generally accepted because somebody misunderstood someone, and then kept passing the information on. How many reef myths like that are there? We dont want the situation where one person has a bad experience at a store, and 52 people post that same story, and it makes a great store look awful. One bad customer experience, and suddenly it looks like the store has a history of bad behavior.

We're trying to keep tales from getting any taller, but in general, we have to trust that the posters on this board are decent human beings.

[One Eye]

Chuck your reading something into the rules that just isn't there!

If you wanted to make a post that said for EX: I go to xyz because it's close, but I don't find the staff to be very knowlegable....that would be just friggin fine!!

[KAS]

Chuck and Lactrain, while I understand what you are saying, I believe that it would be the rare case that someone in this group would put a post up pretending to have a 1st hand experience they did not.

Also, I do not believe because there is a slight chance of this happening that we should open the floodgates and allow posts that clearly are not firsthand experience.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

Obviously not everyone can understand or even try to understand my point of view.

Len and Chuck, I've been very aware of Chucks point for some time now.

As I have explained several times in the past. It needs to be first hand experiance because second hand info cannot be questioned.
EX: if you tell me your friend Billy Bob went to xyz and the store kicked him out because they didn't like his new mullet. Billy Bob is not a user of the forum.
1st, I can't ask Billy Bob why the hell he wants to wear a mullet anyway
2nd, the store can't defend against an acusation made by a third party.

Please read and comprehend this...thank you!

[RichConley]

Yes, absolutely! In fact PJs is place that comes to mind. I like it because it is close and convenient for supplies and even Mysis now! But I don't go there for advice on Reef Tanks.

Thats fine by me. Its a personal experience, and it is neutral in its tone.

Yes, absolutely! In fact PJs is place that comes to mind. I like it because it is close and convenient for supplies and even Mysis now! But I don't go there for advice on Reef Tanks because no one has any f'in idea what theyre doing.

Not okay, its now become a personal insult, and is rude.

Yes, absolutely! In fact PJs is place that comes to mind. I like it because it is close and convenient for supplies and even Mysis now! But I don't go there for advice on Reef Tanks because I heard they feed babies to the groupers.
Not okay, theres no way to verify. If you didnt see them feed babies to the groupers, then dont post about it. Let the person who saw it post.

A lot of the issues so far havent been content, its been people being too emotional about things. People need to chillax :cool:

[One Eye]

All right....we don't need a repeat of yesterday...I'm out of this, good luck people!

[Chuck Spyropulos]

If you do not want a repeat then STOP making it personal.
I have no problem discussion anything with you but when you make it personal (like yesterday) then no useful discussion can take place.

You are being condiscending telling me to read this rule and that rule and that "I am reading things into" statements or broadcasting all of the infested frags I sold to the world with all of your research and facts. Stick to general discussion and I can talk to you. You are right! This is not about ONLY ME. But you keep trying to make it about me. Why?
All right....we don't need a repeat of yesterday...I'm out of this, good luck people!

[KAS]

Chuck and Lactrain, while I understand what you are saying, I believe that it would be the rare case that someone in this group would put a post up pretending to have a 1st hand experience they did not.

Also, I do not believe because there is a slight chance of this happening that we should open the floodgates and allow posts that clearly are not firsthand experience.

Obviously not everyone can understand or even try to understand my point of view.

Did I misunderstand you?

[Liam]

Yes, absolutely! In fact PJs is place that comes to mind. I like it because it is close and convenient for supplies and even Mysis now! But I don't go there for advice on Reef Tanks. That is a negative comment that is not based on any facts or first-hand information so should it be deleted? NO! Do I want PJs to close? Absolutely not! Will PJs sue me? Of course not.
So when these "grey" area comments get posted they provide some information that would otherwise get deleted if the Mods followed the rules tothe "T".

why are your thoughts mentioned here not first hand or negative.it sounds like a perfectly good and useful piece of information that would be welcome in the VE forum.I don't see any reason why it would need to be moderated?

[Chuck Spyropulos]

No, we are just having a discussion and you are being extremely curteous in presenting your point of view. Even though we disagree, we are being civil towards one another. Why can't everyone else just get along ?:p

Did I misunderstand you?

[Moe_K]

Please keep it civil folks.
Thanks.

[lactrain]

One Eye ... Thats first person and second person, (English Composition)

What if I said: I remeber back in the day when Darren was burned by an online vendor .... would it be deleted.

That is second .... but its true! ... aint it! you know first hand!

I would like to support you ... but i cant... becasue the forum doesnt allow it!

But if there were no forum and no rules ... i could help you out!!!!!

Len

[redpaulhus]

And, if I can keep beating that poor horse, we have to keep in mind the problem with second hand info and slander\libel laws.

This isn't something I'm making up - its a real issue. Do I suspect a local store would do something like this ? No. Would I put it past certain Aqua Conmen ? No.

[RichConley]

What if I said: I remeber back in the day when Darren was burned by an online vendor .... would it be deleted.

That is second .... but its true! ... aint it! you know first hand!


The thing is, Darren should post that, not you. His account would be more accurate, and more credible, because he was involved.

[KAS]

OK. As someone said, this is just a freakin' fish club. The forum rules are not really affecting any of us in any material way. Why is it so important to you Chuck and Len to fight for this issue?

I am not trying to be provoking or judgemental. i am really curious why you feel so passionate about this. It just doesn't seem worth all the aggrevation. So what if second hand info is not allowed because the club is concerned about libel/slander. They are the officers that would be directly sued not us.

I have chosen not to put myself in the position of making the rules, therefore if I choose not to be part of the process, then I don't get to criticize the outcome. ETA: This is just my opinion.

[One Eye]

I do get your point Len, even so, if I remember correctly. The issue your refering to (it happened on the RC VE forum) was viewed something like 10,000 times but the comments were restricted to those of us personaly involved. It just happened to be a group buy so there were several people that had first hand knowledge of what happened....there were some comments made in support after the "big show" was pretty much over and Rob had agreed to refund some money....it was a long time ago and I may be wrong. I think the majority of second hand comments were made on other boards that the issue spread too. Oh...and I do remember other people who had simular issues with Rob did jump into the thread....that's why RC dropped him as a sponsor....And, I was asked by the RC staff to make a public appology when I made a personal comment toward Rob.

[Chuck Spyropulos]

We are just discussing things....no big deal. In fact, I am not going to post here again. I presented my points and will cmove on and continue posting on other threads in the forum.

OK. As someone said, this is just a freakin' fish club. The forum rules are not really affecting any of us in any material way. Why is it so important to you Chuck and Len to fight for this issue?

I am not trying to be provoking or judgemental. i am really curious why you feel so passionate about this. It just doesn't seem worth all the aggrevation. So what if second hand info is not allowed because the club is concerned about libel/slander. They are the officers that would be directly sued not us.

I have chosen not to put myself in the position of making the rules, therefore if I choose not to be part of the process, then I don't get to criticize the outcome. ETA: This is just my opinion.

[KAS]

We are just discussing things....no big deal. In fact, I am not going to post here again. I presented my points and will cmove on and continue posting on other threads in the forum.
Good, glad to hear it (about the no big deal part).

[lactrain]

OK. As someone said, this is just a freakin' fish club. The forum rules are not really affecting any of us in any material way. Why is it so important to you Chuck and Len to fight for this issue?

We are not fighting for this issue or against it! ... we are acting as members of an organization responding to thread that was created by someone other then ourselves. We are merly voicing our opinion with passion the same passion that is put forward in all the aspects of our lives as well as in this hobby.

I am not trying to be provoking or judgemental. i am really curious why you feel so passionate about this. It just doesn't seem worth all the aggrevation. So what if second hand info is not allowed because the club is concerned about libel/slander. They are the officers that would be directly sued not us.

I guess only the fact that some people care more then others, unfortunatey it is at times the same people most of the time, therefor painting a black picture of the "voice of reason". (this is not personal) ...

Some people take conversations like this personally and many of us dont ... so we feel that we can speak our minds...whether we actually care or not ... Niether me or chuck (im assuming) are the problem we both im sure abide by the rules set forth in the forum.

I have chosen not to put myself in the position of making the rules, therefore if I choose not to be part of the process, then I don't get to criticize the outcome. ETA: This is just my opinion.

Like you stated ... its your opinion ....just not mines or chucks! The thread was started for that specific reason!

Please in no way shape or form were my intentions to be destructive ...at times, becasue of my culture, passion is extrememly expressed in my words ... My only intention was to be constructive.

Enough Said!