Naming and shaming
Discussion
Something on another thread got me wondering why we can't name and shame on here. I know the obvious reasons but surely there is a way to allow posters to say what they think without Ted being held at all responsible. I know you only get one side of the story as well, but given the nature of the site, that's not really likely, a few people would usually have a say as well.
I realise it's easier to just delete posts but given how successful this site (rightly) is, think of the number of people that could be saved from complete numpties. Have I missed something glaringly obvious as to why we can't?
I realise it's easier to just delete posts but given how successful this site (rightly) is, think of the number of people that could be saved from complete numpties. Have I missed something glaringly obvious as to why we can't?
moleamol said:
I'd read that an age ago, my question still stands.
Why aren't the obvious reasons "enough"?
I can appreciate the desire to warn other people off, but given PH's status as a company and Ted's livelihood, I don't see that one needs any more reasons than those given, to be honest.
sheetstabuer said:
I think Teds posting is quite clear and quite simple.
Not sure what there is to question?
K
graham@reading said:
moleamol said:
I'd read that an age ago, my question still stands.
Why aren't the obvious reasons "enough"?
I can appreciate the desire to warn other people off, but given PH's status as a company and Ted's livelihood, I don't see that one needs any more reasons than those given, to be honest.
That's all I'm asking, is why can it not be as simple as Ted being removed from the equation. I appreciate his points and I'm not suggesting he changes his rules because I think he should, the reasons are 'enough' for me to never do it. I just want to know what the problem is as it can't all be down to 'fairness'.
moleamol said:
graham@reading said:
moleamol said:
I'd read that an age ago, my question still stands.
Why aren't the obvious reasons "enough"?
I can appreciate the desire to warn other people off, but given PH's status as a company and Ted's livelihood, I don't see that one needs any more reasons than those given, to be honest.
That's all I'm asking, is why can it not be as simple as Ted being removed from the equation. I appreciate his points and I'm not suggesting he changes his rules because I think he should, the reasons are 'enough' for me to never do it. I just want to know what the problem is as it can't all be down to 'fairness'.
No it's not, it's down to the publication and hosting of said comments, as PoD infers above, and in fact is mentioned in Ted's post there.
I suppose there could be a website that YOU (or I or whoever) ran dedicated to naming & shaming. But how do you populate that or drive traffic to it without asking people on here to contribute in the first place, thereby putting PH in the position of being the origin of the remarks.
eta - bugger, post cross
Edited by graham@reading on Friday 15th December 00:20
Gazboy said:
moleamol said:
I'd read that an age ago, my question still stands.
Make a billboard near your house that has access to 75,000 people in one day- a sign in a roundabout for example.
Now on it have sign written:
[insert local garage name here] f@cked up my Intergrali, they are tossers, don't use them.
Remember to leave your full name and contact details at the foot of the billboard.
Would you do it?
I did that with my ex wifes name on it
Gazboy said:
moleamol said:
I'd read that an age ago, my question still stands.
Make a billboard near your house that has access to 75,000 people in one day- a sign in a roundabout for example.
Now on it have sign written:
[insert local garage name here] f@cked up my Intergrali, they are tossers, don't use them.
Remember to leave your full name and contact details at the foot of the billboard.
Would you do it?
If it was free, yeah.
And it's 'Integrale' you bloody heathen.moleamol said:
Another thing I was thinking while mulling this over for the few seconds I did, was what would happen if praise is lorded over a company on here and then they turned out to be utter shite. Any comeback then?
Nope. The issue is libel, not general misrepresentation. (Although I think libel might actually be definied as defammatory misrep, but the point is the defaming). AFAIK. It's been a while since I looked into it for our magazine and I left the intricacies to the blood-suckers.
Over to said lawyers
Gazboy said:
Prove it (not the intergrale). Pick a high profile garage near you and make something up.
'INTEGRALE'!! Most people add an R but it's probably the most annoying mistake.
There is a distinct difference between giving an insight shared by many others and making something up.
Gazboy said:
graham@reading said:
By the way, I don't disagree that the need to be careful is ridiculous, but it's sadly necessary thanks to the current laws, as PoD said.
Imagine if lible/slander was spread about you.
How about if someone wrote "Graham is a kiddie fiddler" all over your house, and branded you a kiddie fiddler in the papers/media/tv- there was a discussion on here recently that rape suspects should have anonimity until after a guilty verdict has passed- why- to save a potentialy innocent man's reputation- it's the same thing.
It's not even remotely similar Or are you going for the reductio ad absurdum approach? As it happens, I also agree with that standpoint - that an individual should be protected until a criminal investigation is concluded.
Accusations of criminal activities are also somewhat far beyond what the usual naming and shaming would likely be about. Ie poor customer service, higher prices than competitors, unsatisfactory performance etc. It's not libellous to say that Fred's Tyres are extortionate and kept me waiting 3 weeks longer than they said they would. It IS libellous to say that they deliberately overcharged.
It's the policing of that fine line that's a right pain in the proverbial because the current law allows you to jump down someone's throat as soon as you cross it.
So safer to not go anywhere near it in the first place, hence the blanket ban.
Edited by graham@reading on Friday 15th December 00:44
Gazboy said:
Say something you think is real- whatever, the point stands that you cannot simply say anything you like about anyone
Oh yes you can. You can state any opinion you like.
It's presenting things as facts that get you in legal hot water. And even then, only if defammatory. And in print (which the web is now considered to be as far as I recall).
I could quite legally state that I thought you looked shifty and capable of carrying out the most evil of acts with no fear of legal reprisal whatsoever. Stating authoritatively that you murdered someone however...that would be a different matter.
But as I said, on a forum like this it's far FAR easier and safer to avoid the issue entirely.
Edited by graham@reading on Friday 15th December 00:51
Gazboy said:
Naming and shaming really is easily summed up by the rapist anonimity parralel:
Should someone charged with rape, but gone to trial have anonimity? Yes or no will do.
Should someone charged with rape, but gone to trial have anonimity? Yes or no will do.
It isn't though, as they are a world away from each other and not really parallel apart from one point, should someone/ a company that has potentially done wrong be anonymous until it is proven that they haven't. If you want to go down that route, should all potential criminals facing trial be anonymous until they are convicted?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff