Pro/Forums - View Single Post

Cathar · 08-23-2005, 08:05 PM

OCAU exposes liars all the time, but what are we going to do?

I moderate the EC forums but deliberately take a very stepped-back approach to such issues because more than once I've had such people level allegations at me for being unfairly biased for even doing something as simple as asking probing questions like any concerned forum member would do. This is to be expected though, 'cos, you know, even though I have only ever exercised my moderative powers to move threads about that get posted in the wrong forum or to delete out and out abusive posts, I MUST be very heavily biased to do something as heavy handed as to ask questions.

The rest of the overall OCAU forum moderation practises fall under a delicate balance of stepping around arse-hole rip-off merchants who are only too happy to sue OCAU for defamation on the basis that it condones slanderous statements against said arse-hole merchants by not forcibly removing such statements.

Now this is not to say that anyone in the EC forum has acted in that way, but it has happened in the past with various vendors who didn't like the stories of negative feedback being posted on OCAU after they ripped someone off. Even though OCAU has won every single legal battle on the basis that it is not responsible for the posts of its members and members have the right of free speech, Agg @ OCAU has been forced into a position where it is just easier to moderate potential vendor verdict posts/topics than to be repeatedly dragged through the courts wasting his time and money in legal expenses.

This is the main reason why OCAU in general removes/moderates anything which can be deemed as a vendor verdict. It is purely because it seems that if there are enough arse-holes who attack the right of free speech of pointing out what arseholes they're being, then rather than attack the speaker it's easier and more convenient to attack the forum thereby modifying the forum's policies to prevent such free speech.

So that's why OCAU is the way it is. It's a situation of legal convenience.

08-23-2005, 08:05 PM	#149
Cathar Thermophile Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,538	OCAU exposes liars all the time, but what are we going to do? I moderate the EC forums but deliberately take a very stepped-back approach to such issues because more than once I've had such people level allegations at me for being unfairly biased for even doing something as simple as asking probing questions like any concerned forum member would do. This is to be expected though, 'cos, you know, even though I have only ever exercised my moderative powers to move threads about that get posted in the wrong forum or to delete out and out abusive posts, I MUST be very heavily biased to do something as heavy handed as to ask questions. The rest of the overall OCAU forum moderation practises fall under a delicate balance of stepping around arse-hole rip-off merchants who are only too happy to sue OCAU for defamation on the basis that it condones slanderous statements against said arse-hole merchants by not forcibly removing such statements. Now this is not to say that anyone in the EC forum has acted in that way, but it has happened in the past with various vendors who didn't like the stories of negative feedback being posted on OCAU after they ripped someone off. Even though OCAU has won every single legal battle on the basis that it is not responsible for the posts of its members and members have the right of free speech, Agg @ OCAU has been forced into a position where it is just easier to moderate potential vendor verdict posts/topics than to be repeatedly dragged through the courts wasting his time and money in legal expenses. This is the main reason why OCAU in general removes/moderates anything which can be deemed as a vendor verdict. It is purely because it seems that if there are enough arse-holes who attack the right of free speech of pointing out what arseholes they're being, then rather than attack the speaker it's easier and more convenient to attack the forum thereby modifying the forum's policies to prevent such free speech. So that's why OCAU is the way it is. It's a situation of legal convenience.