|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 18, 2014 9:38:37 GMT
Plus, in this instance, posts IDing the loan company have been, and AFAIK still are, up on the FC boards, so who is going to do what to this forum for breaking a rule they are already flouting themselve?. Edit: The FC boards are within the FC 'firewall' i.e. you need to have an FC account to access the information on the FC boards, and therefore de facto you are likely to have had access to the information relating the loan to the company (either as a lender on or one who reviewed that loan when it was listed). There is a significant difference between that and putting the information into a public 'all access' domain. This just highlights one of the reasons this rule is in place on this board.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 18, 2014 10:34:46 GMT
Plus, in this instance, posts IDing the loan company have been, and AFAIK still are, up on the FC boards, so who is going to do what to this forum for breaking a rule they are already flouting themselve?. The FC boards are within the FC 'firewall' i.e. you need to have an FC account to access the information on the FC boards, and therefore de facto you are likely to have had access to the information relating the loan to the company (either as a lender on or one who reviewed that loan when it was listed). There is a significant difference between that and putting the information into a public 'all access' domain. This just highlights one of the reasons this rule is in place on this board. BracknellBoy - perhaps you would like to check your 'facts' and then revise that post fairly quickly.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 18, 2014 11:08:12 GMT
The FC boards are within the FC 'firewall' i.e. you need to have an FC account to access the information on the FC boards.... BracknellBoy - perhaps you would like to check your 'facts' and then revise that post fairly quickly. tbh, I'd always 'remembered' that the official forum was via the account: I had always kept the same username etc. and in any event had used the official forum very infrequently. So infrequently it appears that I can no longer remember my login details based on the 4 out of 5 failed attempts I've just made..... so if it is not then I revise that comment, obviously.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 18, 2014 11:26:12 GMT
Forget the logging in, BB. Just go to the FC forum as Joe Public and read the posts.
|
|
jimbo
Posts: 234
Likes: 42
|
Post by jimbo on Mar 18, 2014 11:36:46 GMT
Yep, the FC Forum contents are in the public domain. However, what they choose to leave up there about borrowers on their platform is their perogative. On this forum, in the interests of protecting its existence, we can't make judgements on a case by case basis. The rules we have in place are there for a reason. We are generally pretty open about what is allowed, but naming borrowers brings the risk of defamation depending on what else has been written about them...
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 18, 2014 12:04:03 GMT
Yep, the FC Forum contents are in the public domain. However, what they choose to leave up there about borrowers on their platform is their perogative. On this forum, in the interests of protecting its existence, we can't make judgements on a case by case basis. The rules we have in place are there for a reason. We are generally pretty open about what is allowed, but naming borrowers brings the risk of defamation depending on what else has been written about them... Thank you for confirming that, Jimbo, and for halting the unseemly wriggling. I have no disagreement with what you say. When the moderators start banning people from the forum it is getting serious, and I note that on the Old Grumpy thread some place their confidence in the moderators as being in possession of the facts. Clearly that is not wholly true. When the moderators (and collective responsibilty applies here) post false information as a justification for their decisions in banning someone then we worry about competence and double standards. Who moderates the moderators? Moderators must surely hold themselves to higher standards that the ordinary forumite. We all make mistakes, forum users and moderators alike, and we need to make a balanced decisions about sanctions. No need to ban people for life if we all admit our mistakes and promise to try to do better.
|
|
merlin
Minor shareholder in Assetz and many other companies.
Posts: 902
Likes: 302
|
Post by merlin on Mar 18, 2014 12:47:27 GMT
Lets all accept that we are in rather dodgy territory here. I gotfrom the moderators and accepted a bo**cking for quoting an article in a daily newspaper that identified the person (Crappy Scrappy) and reported on the fact that he had committed a criminal act. I accepted that from the information I had supplied in my post the person concerned could be identified simply by doing a bit of Googling.
However now we arrive at a situation where the Forum of FC has effectively identified a person so will we get "pulled up" if we quote the thread on the FC Forum?
|
|
|
Post by yorkshireman on Mar 18, 2014 13:56:18 GMT
Lets all accept that we are in rather dodgy territory here. I gotfrom the moderators and accepted a bo**cking for quoting an article in a daily newspaper that identified the person (Crappy Scrappy) and reported on the fact that he had committed a criminal act. I accepted that from the information I had supplied in my post the person concerned could be identified simply by doing a bit of Googling.
However now we arrive at a situation where the Forum of FC has effectively identified a person so will we get "pulled up" if we quote the thread on the FC Forum? My thoughts exactly Merlin.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Mar 18, 2014 15:46:15 GMT
Yep, the FC Forum contents are in the public domain. However, what they choose to leave up there about borrowers on their platform is their perogative. On this forum, in the interests of protecting its existence, we can't make judgements on a case by case basis. The rules we have in place are there for a reason. We are generally pretty open about what is allowed, but naming borrowers brings the risk of defamation depending on what else has been written about them... Thank you for confirming that, Jimbo, and for halting the unseemly wriggling. I have no disagreement with what you say. When the moderators start banning people from the forum it is getting serious, and I note that on the Old Grumpy thread some place their confidence in the moderators as being in possession of the facts. Clearly that is not wholly true. When the moderators (and collective responsibilty applies here) post false information as a justification for their decisions in banning someone then we worry about competence and double standards. Who moderates the moderators? Moderators must surely hold themselves to higher standards that the ordinary forumite. We all make mistakes, forum users and moderators alike, and we need to make a balanced decisions about sanctions. No need to ban people for life if we all admit our mistakes and promise to try to do better. Blender: to be clear I did not post what I did as a justification for that decision. I was simply making the point that what might be in one domain does not of itself necessarily mean it is OK to put something in another domain (though it may justify). Independent of that specific topic. I was going to add to that post - but in the end did not - that regardless, for the purposes of simplicity, it is sensible for the board to act on a flat policy. A similar issue can arise in general with Assetz Capital: namely that in some instances the actual names of borrowers are listed in the publicly accessible i.e. no login part of the website. But again, to try and make a distinction on a case by case basis is not reasonable and will lead to confusion in regards as to what is and is not allowed on the forum. Jimbo has separately made that point.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Mar 18, 2014 18:04:49 GMT
Thank you for confirming that, Jimbo, and for halting the unseemly wriggling. I have no disagreement with what you say. When the moderators start banning people from the forum it is getting serious, and I note that on the Old Grumpy thread some place their confidence in the moderators as being in possession of the facts. Clearly that is not wholly true. When the moderators (and collective responsibilty applies here) post false information as a justification for their decisions in banning someone then we worry about competence and double standards. Who moderates the moderators? Moderators must surely hold themselves to higher standards that the ordinary forumite. We all make mistakes, forum users and moderators alike, and we need to make a balanced decisions about sanctions. No need to ban people for life if we all admit our mistakes and promise to try to do better. Blender: to be clear I did not post what I did as a justification for that decision. I was simply making the point that what might be in one domain does not of itself necessarily mean it is OK to put something in another domain (though it may justify). Independent of that specific topic. I was going to add to that post - but in the end did not - that regardless, for the purposes of simplicity, it is sensible for the board to act on a flat policy. A similar issue can arise in general with Assetz Capital: namely that in some instances the actual names of borrowers are listed in the publicly accessible i.e. no login part of the website. But again, to try and make a distinction on a case by case basis is not reasonable and will lead to confusion in regards as to what is and is not allowed on the forum. Jimbo has separately made that point. OK, I see. So you were not giving a justification for the decision to ban Old Grumpy, just discussing the reason for the rules under which he was banned, on the basis that we should not copy borrower-identifying material from the FC forum because that is not visible to the general public. But of course it is visible to the general public. And so the following forum rule kicks in (assuming I may copy it):- "DO NOT post information1 that allows a borrower to be identified unless either the borrower themselves or the P2x platform have already made that information publicly accessible (e.g. on a website not needing a log in or sign up)." Information on the FC forum is publically accessible without login or signup, so according to the rules we can use borrower identification existing on FC's forum, but at the same time it is important that we should not. Do you agree that according to the rules we may use the borrower-identifications on the FC forum? I think it is time for me to spend a little time in solidarity with Old Grumpy and allow the moderators to post among themselves and take account of the indicative vote on another thread.
|
|
min
Member of DD Central
Posts: 609
Likes: 175
|
Post by min on Mar 18, 2014 19:02:38 GMT
Blender: to be clear I did not post what I did as a justification for that decision. I was simply making the point that what might be in one domain does not of itself necessarily mean it is OK to put something in another domain (though it may justify). Independent of that specific topic. I was going to add to that post - but in the end did not - that regardless, for the purposes of simplicity, it is sensible for the board to act on a flat policy. A similar issue can arise in general with Assetz Capital: namely that in some instances the actual names of borrowers are listed in the publicly accessible i.e. no login part of the website. But again, to try and make a distinction on a case by case basis is not reasonable and will lead to confusion in regards as to what is and is not allowed on the forum. Jimbo has separately made that point. OK, I see. So you were not giving a justification for the decision to ban Old Grumpy, just discussing the reason for the rules under which he was banned, on the basis that we should not copy borrower-identifying material from the FC forum because that is not visible to the general public. But of course it is visible to the general public. And so the following forum rule kicks in (assuming I may copy it):- "DO NOT post information1 that allows a borrower to be identified unless either the borrower themselves or the P2x platform have already made that information publicly accessible (e.g. on a website not needing a log in or sign up)." Information on the FC forum is publically accessible without login or signup, so according to the rules we can use borrower identification existing on FC's forum, but at the same time it is important that we should not. Do you agree that according to the rules we may use the borrower-identifications on the FC forum? I think it is time for me to spend a little time in solidarity with Old Grumpy and allow the moderators to post among themselves and take account of the indicative vote on another thread. Hmm Someone with a lot of time on their hands to study all the semantics. I'm glad someone is in that position. Thank you bracknellboy. I miss 'Old Grumpy'! Maybe he should start his own forum - Old Grumpy's p2p forum - I'd join. I can fully understand the moderators caution - no wish to get prosecuted. If poll continues as it is at the moment then surely they have a get out clause - the members voted for it. Maybe time for another poll - how long should OG be in the sin bin? Just a thought - despite being banned is OG able to read all of this as a guest? And can he not re-register with a different email and pseudonym? What next? Who is old grumpy now?
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Mar 19, 2014 0:14:22 GMT
I am Old Grumpy.
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Mar 19, 2014 7:42:04 GMT
Haven't got time to post more than a few words, but I've just sent oldgrumpy an email inviting him back if he agrees to follow the Forum rules.
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Mar 19, 2014 7:54:58 GMT
Good man. Do we yet accept that, in the case of crappy scrappy, He DID in fact follow the rules, as written, since the info about the lender is/was on FCs own, unfirewalled, boards? (ignoring the question of whether it should be).
p.s. Captain confident failed the 'Nana test.
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Mar 19, 2014 8:05:48 GMT
My day job is a a journalist but i'm a p2p investor and some-time contributor to this board and libel law is the biggest business risk i face so my thoughts may be helpful.
There's no question that this board is awash with errors - which as they are being published are likely libels - if someone here or on another board has said something incorrect/libellous we can disguise names as much as we like with asterisks but for as long as we know who we mean then 'jigsaw identification' means a libel is committed. So all this 'not directly naming' is hogwash in terms of the legal test of libel.
There are three defences to a libel the most obvious one is that the statement is true (and proveably true) so if someone says Slappy Chappy has a criminal conviction and they have the judgement in their hand then clearly it's NOT a libel. But you can close an magazine down through legal costs by claiming libel and being unable to prove a truth easily and being advised to settle.
Given that this board is awash with libels/potential libels what the mods are doing is necessary to mitigate any action showing this board is not being reckless and allowing un-modded edgy statements. The action they have taken means that a quick apology would probably see off the threat of damages and not lead to punitive damages if push came to shove. So I think they are right to take a robust line - remember Sally Bercow's Twitter libel - she didn't name the person but was taken to the cleaners as were those that re-tweeted, so just because stuff is on the FC board doesn't mean it can appear here.
However where is this board hosted? Abroad? It'd be devilishly hard to work out who to serve a libel action on especially if the board wouldn't reveal who Gold Rumpy is/was (not that Gold has committed a libel!).
Jack
|
|