The role of the moderator

[dexterlevi]

Hi

I have read a number of discussions on this forum over the weekend and on a number of occasions note that the moderator has put a stop to certain topics citing legal threats against users. I refer to comments around E & L caravan insurance as one topic.

A read a topic today again on Caravan Insurers and again ref made to the moderator dictating what can and can,t be said.

Whilst I fully understand the need to have a moderator, I understand their role to include stepping in when inappropiate comments are made or innapropiate langauge is used or if comments are likely to cause hurt or offence.However should the role of the moderator be to stop forum users from reporting negativly about a service or company they have used.I noted over the weekend that a wholly innapropiate comment was made around travellers having probably stolen a caravan on one of the forums. I am not a traveller but found a swepping statement refering to travelers having probably stolen the caravan as wholly innapropiate.Even if this turns out to be the case, the comment was a sweeping statement which I think others would find innapropiate.Suprisingly I note that the moderator failed to challenge this? Apologies if he did but I can not see reference to a challenge.

I would like to question the purpose of this forum if users are gagged from any negative comments about a service or product. I would be interested to know what legal challenge could possibly come from a user sharing a bad experience.If someone has found a product or service is poor, surely there is no legal challenge by sharing that, hence we have so many review sites available on the internet.If we percieve that a service is poor, we should be able to warn others. Surely it is up to the individual to decide what they chose to do with the information.As far as I know it, it is not illegal to post a negative comment about a supplier or service if this has been your experience. I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong.

I would be interested in other users thoughts.

 

[Parksy]

I was away over the weekend so I don't know the specifics but I will try to answer some of your points.

The moderators follow guidelines set by Haymarket Publications who host and run this forum.

The forum has rules which members agree to abide by when they sign up to use this forum. The rules are contained in forum etiquette and can be found from a clickable link in the pale blue box at the top right hand side of the webpage.

The two rules that cause the most contention on this forum are rules 3 & 4. They state:

'You may not transmit material that discloses personal matters concerning any person or that is defamatory.

You may not transmit complaints about named companies or caravan parks. Such individual issues should be taken up with the company direct.'

Whilst every effort is made to allow debate and the sharing of information about poor products or service the rules are clear and unequivocal.

E&L insurance is considered a taboo subject on this forum because apparently there was a threat of legal action against the forum some time back.

Any moderated internet forum is subject to libel and defamation laws and must treat user generated content as if it was published by the forum hosts.

Many forums allow the 'naming and shaming' of companies but Haymarket don't because they could be vulnerable to the threat of litigation which is why the moderators can't allow this to take place on this forum - again under instructions from admin at Haymarket.

The moderator doesn't always see every post straight away but as far as a comment about travellers is concerned the moderator would have been condemned if he had intervened and he faces criticism for not intervening.

If you felt that the comment about travellers was unfair or inappropriate you have the right to debate that point on the forum.

The moderators can only intervene when in their judgement the race relations act is being breached on the forum.

Moderators decisions are not purely arbitrary but are made according to their guidelines and forum etiquette.

No one pretends that the moderator is always right every time but unpopular decisions have to me made often very quickly.

 

[dexterlevi]

Thanks for quick response.

I do not envy your role as moderator, as you put it, your condemed for intervening and criticised for not.

My point at the time was,nt so much around the failure to challenge the comments around travellers,but more around preventing open and honest debate.However whilst on the subject I refer to my original posting. Should the site not intervene in a comment which could cause hurt or offence to an individual or group of individuals(irrespective of the Race Relations Act). I leave that for Haymarket Publications to reflect on.

Moving on,I think I have some (albeit limited) understanding around libel and defamation.Maybe I need to learn more about the definition. I would fully support the moderator in challenging unfounded comments which could leave Haymarket Publications with a legal challenge.However can there be a challenge or threat of legal action if a member is simply stating factual experiences with a product or service?

I don,t know the E&L history and I am not going to push further on it. Needless to say was their threat of legal action founded or did the forum back off because of the threat?

Thanks again for quick response.Please don,t take as a personal criticism of the moderator. More about the rules you operate in collectivly.As I said at the begging, I don,t envy your role.

 

[Parksy]

The role of moderator is voluntary, no one forced any of us to take it on. I agree that the role can be challenging at times but it is also fascinating (sometimes) and exasperating (sometimes).

I'll try to address the further points that you have made Dexterlevi.

Moderators often intervene where comments are made which could potentially cause problems on the forum, often publicly and sometimes privately via email. Not all of the actions of a forum moderator are carried out in the full public arena. A friendly exchange of views via email is usually quite effective and has the added bonus of forming a better relationship between moderators and the members that we serve.

At other times a publicly posted warning within a topic from a moderator might prevent a subject from veering off course toward the rocks.

As a forum we need to be cognisant of certain aspects of race relations and public order legislation. No one expects members of the caravanning public to be very much troubled by this so moderators are appointed.

As volunteers the moderators receive scant training or instruction so a lot can depend on judgement and experience.

This can represent a bit of a tightrope because the moderator can kill a healthy debate stone dead (as I know to my shame)by acting without balanced judgement.

There are many instances where subject matter which might be considered offensive is posted onto this forum. If a moderator dives straight in he might prevent valid points from being aired so the debate is often allowed to continue in the hope that 'common sense and decency will prevail.'

If things get out of hand the moderator can always delete offending items later, it's not always immediate and moderators don't spend every waking hour in front of a screen waiting for a transgression. [it only seems like that - for mods and members alike :0)]

Offensive posts are subjective, what one person might find offensive may not even register with other forum members so the moderator is faced with a judgement call in which he has at least a 50% chance of making the correct decision. Ideally forum members would think before they write, along with free speech comes responsibility but keyboard warriors sometimes lose perspective in the heat of virtual 'battle'. It could happen to any of us.

As far as defamation and libel are concerned a moderator needs to distinguish between fair comment and potentially litigious content.

Moderators of this forum have absolutely no legal training whatsoever.

Broadly speaking if a 'factual' comment is posted which has documentary proof to back up statements this can in some circumstances be submitted successfully onto the forum. The main exceptions are when a complaint is - in the view of the moderator- likely to end up in court because we would be pre judging the case which could be harmful to the plaintiff i.e. the forum member.

How would the moderator know if a member is 'stating factual experiences with a product or service'?

It's not in our remit to check facts and there is no mechanism available to us to do so. Therefore the forum could be open to legal challenge from anyone who DOES have access to the true facts surrounding an issue. For this reason the rules that I mentioned earlier exist and are upheld on this particular forum.

I'm always happy to discuss the reasoning behind moderators decisions and I'm sure that no moderator would take personally questions about moderators actions, we simply try to keep this forum on an even keel within the framework of the rules as set by the administrators who host the website.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Parksy

In fairness the rules you quote have been done to death on here to the point of " I know them by heart"! Ugh.

Haymarket need to be slightly more flexible and remember what it is they do. They are publishers and in that regard should be willing to allow a balanced view or one based on demonstrable fact to be published here.

There are many threads complaining about Swift and Bailey yet to my knowledge they have mostly been resolved , eg Andy etc from Swift helping. Thus bad press turns into good. So why can't the criticisms about certain Insurers stand? They too can be given the opportunity to "fight" their corner.

"Which" magazine for years complained bitterly about the reliability of Dyson vacuum cleaners. Did Dyson sue? No. He went back to the drawing board and turned his products into reliable trouble free units. Thus the criticisms were in the long run constructive and with usefull purpose.

Whatever happened to "freedom of the press"?

This is only a friendly amateur forum!

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[Parksy]

Hi Dustydog

'In fairness the rules you quote have been done to death on here to the point of " I know them by heart"! Ugh.'

The reason that I quoted the rules is because Dexterlevi asked questions about the moderators role.

I don't make the rules and every single forum member agrees to abide by the rules when they become a member as a condition of membership.

Moderators are not in any position to assume that companies 'named and shamed' on this forum won't sue and that 'the bad press will turn to good press.'

The moderators are also not in a position to verify statements made by members on this forum or to check any facts.

Haymarket employ staff who decide what can be posted onto this forum based upon their legal knowledge and experience in this field.

Moderators who are volunteers try to follow the instructions of the admin and legal employees from Haymarket Publishing.

This forum operates under constraints which are not so significant where other caravan forums are concerned.

When these constraints are taken into consideration there is quite a lot of 'freedom of the press' but we also have to take responsibility for statements which are posted onto this forum.

Every forum moderator has at one time or another asked for changes to the rules, a case in point is to allow private sales of used caravan accessories such as awnings.

The requests have so far been unsuccessful so if you want to suggest rule changes to Haymarket I wish you luck - you'll need it.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi Parksy

I knew you'd say that! LOL

Well maybe the Legal Gurus at Haymarket may wish to say something.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[ProfJohnL]

Hi Dusty,

Its easy to forget that this forum is not run by caravanner's for caravanner's, but it is owned and run by Haymarket. Haymarket are not a public service organisation, they are in business to make a profit. For reasons of their own they have allowed us caravanner's to use the forum for free.

For what ever reason Haymarket have decided that they do not want to have commercially contentious postings on their forum. They only have to explain their policies to their shareholders.

As we are only guests, but we are required to follow their by-laws. Ultimately if we don't like their policies we need to find an alternative site to vent our spleens.

 

[Dustydog]

Hi John

This is true. But lest we forget the power of the press please indulge me with the following about Michael Foot:-

Beaverbrook made Foot editor of the Evening Standard in 1942 at the age of 28. During the war Foot made a speech that was later featured during The World at War TV series of the early 1970s. Foot was speaking in defence of the Daily Mirror, which had criticised the conduct of the war by the Churchill Government. He mocked the notion that the Government would make no more territorial demands of other newspapers if they allowed the Mirror to be censored.

Yes , I appreciate more than most the Laws of slander and libel.

But here we are in the "naughties" more worried about who may sue who rather than good solid honest down to earth journalism.

I suspect Haymarket and the PC editorial team need us more than we need them. The fluency on this forum without doubt stimulates article ideas for the team.

I agree we should not go OTT but I do find some of Haymarkets "restrictions " somewhat one sided.

When the FSA open the doors fully next July on Insurers complaints frequency and handling will Haymarket not publish, what are true legitimate facts??

I make no complaints about our mods who have a torrid time implementing the somewhat draconian rules of Haymarket.

Cheers

Dustydog

 

[RayS]

I have been off the circuit for a few days and - as usual - my friend Parksy has picked up this ball and run with it extremely well.

He has put the case very clearly and I post mainly to totally concur with what he has said.

Perhaps contributors should consider the alternative adopted by some other sites. On these contributions are moderated before posting, and moderators may be either employed or retained by the proprietors of the site. They may or may not be experienced practioners of the particular site topic. We all are.

This means that many potentially contentious items will never see the light of day, and thus the free-ranging discussions we all enjoy will never happen.

Which would you prefer ?

The "downside" of this - if you can call it a downside - is that we work to guidelines provided by Haymarket and yes they are in business for profit, but they also fund the site and given the ratio of site users to the overall readership (low) I very much doubt whether this is directly financially attractive.

The whole matter of legal responsibility for content of forums such as this has, I understand, yet to be decided in law, and doubtless the test case - if and when it occurs - will be complicated by whether the moderation - if any - was pre or post publication.

By nature, I think people are more likely to cricitise than praise, and we have no way of knowing if say 6 adverse opinions of a maker or product are really 6 or the same disgruntled individual using 6 different email addresses which, after all, are very easy to obtain. If the complaints were about your product or establishment you would be very unhappy if one disgruntled individual managed to post six adverse comments, I suggest.

Publication of such criticism may in some circumstances prejudice the individuals chances of restitution through legal channels, so we may well be doing him/her a favour in taking the posting down ( but, of course, we shall never know).

This propably sounds all a bit serious (or worse) and I for one will be glad to get back to other topics (e.g. if we need speed stickers in France, having worked the marker plates for long outfits in Spain to death), but i hope it may have cleared the air a little.

 

[Dustydog]

Thankyou Ray

Cheers

Dustydog