|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 3, 2016 9:34:17 GMT
I'm amazed it hasn't happened already. The cost through Proboards is small - as are the legal impediments apparently. We just need a new group of administrators with a different mindset to the existing crew. There are sufficient members of this forum who believe it should exist, so why don't they make it so? I'd join as a member straight away, as long as the joining fee was moderate.(I'm thinking that a legal advice kitty would be useful) I'd join too. I'd even pay, say, £5 a year to remain a member. But there's no way I'd become a mod there. And I think the rules would be thrashed out by a democratic vote of the membership - which would be a breath of fresh air.
|
|
locutus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,059 
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by locutus on Aug 3, 2016 9:42:52 GMT
Unless the admins and head mods reconsider this rule, that may be what happens. It would be a real shame as the community here is excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Aug 3, 2016 9:50:25 GMT
Unless the admins and head mods reconsider this rule, that may be what happens. It would be a real shame as the community here is excellent. I don't see why the birth of the new forum should necessarily signal the death of the original? This could be a win-win situation - keep down the level of moderation on the new one by just banning extraneous chatter and reserve it for dd only.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Aug 3, 2016 9:59:21 GMT
though I do think that at times its shaped by a far higher risk environment where millions of copies might be distributed before there was even a chance to complain. Thanks James - but that is a very lay misconception! When I worked for a teeny tiny trade mag, Manchester Evening news libelled an industry boss within our niche. For them apology sufficed - millions saw it but it didn't really matter not least because in house lawyers hedged the article. My boss lifted the piece and plonked it in my niche industry mag with some added 'value' - kerchang - £100,000k libel settlement as ALL the people that mattered read our poxy little rag. If any comment on this board led to a loan being pulled, and that company then went down as a result of a 'promised' loan not materialising, then there is very real damage and a very clear pathway to prove that damage. So a libel/alleged libel on this apparently teeny tiny board actually has very large implications because though small, this board has a massive influence (i imagine all big hitters read it) on whether some loans get away - especially SS ones! I do find all this stuff about questionable directors worrying but we are finding ways to impart that information and keep this board alive and well. There - i've said it - if someone replies to this post with the name of those directors - i'm done for! Jack P
|
|
|
|
Post by Financial Thing on Aug 3, 2016 17:49:36 GMT
Just move the forum to American soil and then the forum will be protected by the good old 1st Amendment Right To Free Speech. Problem solved  |
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Aug 3, 2016 19:09:01 GMT
Just move the forum to American soil and then the forum will be protected by the good old 1st Amendment Right To Free Speech. Problem solved Proboards (the forum hosters) are ON American soil (although the hardware may be God-Knows-Where): whether that solves the problem, or just adds another layer of lawyers to get rich debating it, is not entirely clear (especially when what you can do in Scotland appears to be at variance with what you can do in England, already). American free speech also has the drawback that someone may shoot you over it. 8<.
|
|
james
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 955
|
Post by james on Aug 13, 2016 17:41:41 GMT
Just move the forum to American soil and then the forum will be protected by the good old 1st Amendment Right To Free Speech. Problem solved I think that it would not be wise to rely on that but that it would also not be wise for me to explain why. At a minimum ensure that you can prove that your posts are true and opinion and that it's clear that you're open to corrections. All three, and a well established and demonstrated record of acting on corrections. There's more to say about risk reduction but those three go a long way to reducing some types of risk, at least in some jurisdictions. though I do think that at times its shaped by a far higher risk environment where millions of copies might be distributed before there was even a chance to complain. Thanks James - but that is a very lay misconception! When I worked for a teeny tiny trade mag, Manchester Evening news libelled an industry boss within our niche. For them apology sufficed - millions saw it but it didn't really matter not least because in house lawyers hedged the article. My boss lifted the piece and plonked it in my niche industry mag with some added 'value' - kerchang - £100,000k libel settlement as ALL the people that mattered read our poxy little rag. If any comment on this board led to a loan being pulled, and that company then went down as a result of a 'promised' loan not materialising, then there is very real damage and a very clear pathway to prove that damage. Yes, that's a risk I'm aware of. The harm there would not be caused so much by the discussion but by the platform making an undertaking that it could not in good faith make and the platform would presumably have the deeper pockets to make it a more attractive (main) target. While there's the potential for financial harm to a business there's also the requirement that investors have to be able to discuss and evaluate the investments they are considering. If the facts - as distinct from falsehoods - cause lenders not to be interested then that's just an indication that the loan wasn't really attractive to lenders. It's ancient history now but I was moderating in between Cubby v. CompuServe and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the period when any moderation on any post might cause a moderator or forum to be liable for the content of all other posts. Later I was running under contract a medical board when it was possible that someone might have taken a fatal overdose of medication after a poster corrected a technique error but didn't tell the person to reduce to the starting does - the error meant that nothing was initially entering their body. In that case i contacted the online service provider using previously set up channels to arrange for them to contact the poster and verify that they were able to respond normally to questions - if they hadn't been, the police and EMS would have been called. They were fine, fortunately. Not always a comfortable world out there on the risk front.
|
|
