Obviously, it was a big no-no on HJ due to the possible legal implications. Does the same policy still apply on Car4Play?
It's not that I want to launch into a rant about somebody in particular, but on HJ if we did have a bad experience somewhere we could never name the place.
Cheers,
Dave.
|
|
I don't see why, if you have a bad experience, you shouldn't say so - there's nothing to stop legitimate comment AFAIK. However, I don't see why extravagently inaccurate and damaging posts should not be actionable - against the poster. On HJ's "forum", I think commercial expediency might've played a part in restricting such psots. C4p! will advise, I'm sure...
|
|
Alfa e-mail the mods what you want to post in the first instance and we'll advice.
|
I agree this can be a good thing and a prime example of that was on HJ.
A thread was started about someone buying a car from Arnold Clark and they did not get a second key. Someone from AC picked up on this somehow and was able to arrange for the key.
Previously I could have seen the naming and shaming being applied there and in which case, the person might not have had a good result.
|
Currently under discussion between the mods and C4P - one thought I've had is to ask the dodgy service provider for a response.....leave it with us, but views are welcome
|
>> views are welcome
My view is that should one get a great deal, or good service (etc.) from someone it's nice to reward them by saying so. Should the opposite be true, it's good to tell people. This is what happens in real life, of which this "forum" is a microcosm.
However, "getting at" someone, or their business or organisation by saying, for instance, "That Joe Bloggs from JB Motors is a thoroughly bad sort and should be avoided at all costs"* is not good enough, nor is mendacious behaviour, nor hearsay.
* Names used in this made-up example do not refer to any person, organisation, or business.
|
I think it should be allowed.
MoneySavingExpert does allow that and never heard they faced any legal issue for that.
If some company offers unacceptable service they should be shamed to warn others.
|
I have grave reservations about naming and shaming.
Some people manage to make a mountain out of a molehill that the majority of posters think is so trivial or possibly not a fault in the least.
Who's going to referee or judge the shamed party's guilt or not on one persons possibly vindictive libel.
I think the HJ site had it about right for this, long running possibly damaging threads there have been allowed to continue, Mazda 6 DPF problems for example where many owners found the same disastrous problems afflicting them and the vehicle itself, and Mazda not coming out of it too well...thing is Mazda could easily have joined the forum to defend themselves and didn't, i believe those threads and similar are fair.
I think thats legitimate N&S, a clash of personalities or some percieved wrongdoing by an individual garage or indeed person could cause great anguish and loss and personal harm to someone who may well have good reason for their apparent bad behaviour..such as knowing the complainant to be a serial debtor or other undesirable and not wanting their business at all.
Probably haven't explained that very well as usual hope you can make some sense of it.
|
I'm 100% with gb on this.
Loads of advice and getting things off your chest can be gained without naming a specific company. Again like gb I think a car makers name is fair enough to be part of the post.... essential to establishing a trend really.
In any dispute you need to have a very clear idea of what your goal is... what would make you happy or resolve the dispute. Naming and shaming is almost never a means to reach this goal and can be quite counter productive.
|
With cars its a bit too difficult as it is all a matter of opinion.
I would be extremely annoyed if a customer of mine made a post on a forum about them not being happy with job I have done because I know all they have to do is contact me and I will be out straight away to put anything they not happy with right.
I think naming and shaming should be allowed as longs as the poster is willing to accept legal responsibility and they they tried to get the service provider to put things right first.
|
I think it should be ok BUT with the proviso that any situation is clearly explained in a balanced way and that it is made clear that this is just one side of the story, so should be treated as such.
It is up to members here to decide whether or not the complaint is legit or somewhat thin.
|
>> the poster is willing to accept legal responsibility
How is that possible on an online forum whether user posts anonymously?
All you can do track IP address. If user is posting from inside big corporate company/university etc. you can never track individual user.
|
I can name and shame that the vauxhall astra i drive is a pile of rubbish wish i didn't buy it.
But thats not vauxhalls fault.
If i go for a service at a dealer or any other garage and get poor service wouldn't you like to know so you don't go there?
It's upto the mods to use some comon sense like currys sell cheaper tv's than comet nowt wrong with that but if i slate off one of them with foul language then fair enough.
|
The key point legally is right of reply.
Ideally, the organisation should be approached for a comment.
The problem with that on a site such as this is who's going to do it?
If the organisation approaches the site to make a comment, it should be carried with the same prominence.
The criticism made needs to be fair and reasonable.
There is a danger with an anonymous forum that someone could post something out of malice - hence the desirability of getting a comment from the other side, which would weed out false posts.
It is possible for the forum to make a judgment.
For example, I've been on here and the other place for a while now and everyone knows I live in the north and have a CC3.
So if I post with a reasonable sounding whinge about a Ford dealer in my part of the world, it will ring true.
A similar post from a new member is more of a challenge.
|
|
What you suggest is basically what I've put forward.
|
>> The key point legally is right of reply.
Why is that a problem? There's (still) the whole of Usenet, and many, many other forums where things are said without problem. Postings here are very unlikely to be anonymous, BTW. The poster of actionable material would be in hot water.
|
...The key point legally is right of reply. Why is that a problem? There's (still) the whole of Usenet, and many, many other forums where things are said without problem...
FT,
What I have posted is a reasonable and responsible way of going about things, because I believe that is what the site's management - and most of us on here - are about.
You might say it chimes in with the policy of no swearing, no name calling and no stupid avatars.
Some of the internet is unregulated and I have used the analogy of graffiti many times before.
I imagine some of the stuff on the other forums would be actionable, but they rely on the victim not having the will, resources or ability to chase them down.
Trying to trace and then sue an anonymous poster to a website based goodness knows where would be no easy matter.
And if you do, is there any money there to get at?
As I say, you might as well daub: ''Ifithelps eats babies" on your nearest railway bridge.
Last edited by: ifithelps on Wed 31 Mar 10 at 20:53
|
>> What I have posted is a reasonable and responsible way of going about things
Yes, but you said "The key point legally is right of reply". I asked you why. Are you saying now that the right of reply is not in fact "the key point legally"?
>> You might say it chimes in with the policy of no swearing no name calling
>> and no stupid avatars.
You might; I would say that being able to mention who one's had poor service of one sort or another is nothing to do with swearing, name-calling, or atavars - those things are simply not in any way the same. See my earlier psot.
|
...Yes, but you said "The key point legally is right of reply"...
Yes it is, so I am assuming this site would want to do things legally, or put another way, it gives them a good chance of running the defence of justification or fair comment if it ever came to a libel action.
|
Anyone thinks they can say anything on the internet. There are forums with masses of slander and obscenity and nastiness and so on.
Seems to me if you want a decent forum you have to maintain some sort of control over what gets published - because that's what it is - in your name. Quite a lot of work on the hoof involved. Mistakes sure to be made.
|
But surely there is some level of freedom to tell other people what has happened to you.
For example. I took a Ryan Air flight to Seville. The various surcharges doubled the cost of the advertised fare. Some of the extras are imposed by Ryan Air (like a mandatory "on line check in fee) IN my opinion Ryan Air advertising and pricing is deliberately misleading.
Now is that slander, truth, opinion or fair comment?
I knew, from experience, that Ryan Air pricing is thus, so budgeted for, but it is none the less annoying.
|
Don't forget that someone can claim poor service, 'name and shame', be economical with the facts and be authors of their own destiny.
Bit of a hot potato. I would err on the side of caution.
|
>> is that slander, truth, opinion or fair comment?
It's fair, because you gave factual information that can be double-checked.
Some befuddled idiot grumbling about an ill-chosen back street garage's efforts to sort out the (insert name of trouble-prone modern component here) in his or her 290,000-mile Peugeot 307 might overstep the bounds though.
Checks and balances Zero-san, checks and balances.
|
>> Anyone thinks they can say anything on the internet.
But they can't, can they - with very, very few exceptions, such as anonymous e-mail, or anonymous Newsgroup postings.
|
|
God, we do go on and on here, don't we. I refer you to my second post in this thread.
|
|
Trouble with a democratic forum :-)
|
It's the lack of accuracy (mainly) that gets up my nose.
Still, at least it's OK (I hope) to discuss things *here*, although I do notice a recently-increasing tendency to go back to "old ways" of shutting down conversations (not though by "site" personnel, thank goodness).
|
|
Hey!! PU, I see you've got a wand now! I hadn't noticed before. I hope it's not part of "a bundle of black rods with rusty marks on their ends"!
|
>> Names used in this made-up example do not refer to any person, organisation, or business.
Sorry squire, that's no excuse. Expect a bowel-loosening letter from m'learned friends in short order.
Sir Joseph Bloggs, FRS, etc. etc.
|
Poor mods.
I bet they have to stay up late monitoring every post in this thread, just in case........... ;>)
|
I'm divided on this one and until recently would always have said yes to naming and shaming.
On a forum I use ( not ours) there has been a post condemning a certain truckstop. The title of the thread was enough to lose them business alone.
I had recently been to the Magistrates Court as a witness to help this Truckstop win an appeal for a liquer licence. I knew the claims were untrue and after 3 pages of posts criticising the owners, and defending posts from the owners, it turned out the lorry driver in question who made the original post was just haveing a bad day. He arrived 15 minutes after closing time, was offered a sandwich but chose to be rude.
The damage had already been done in the 3 weeks this thread was active.
There have also been a couple of court cases in recent years that show clearly what we all thought was acceptable to post on the internet certainly isn't, and ISP's can succesfully be asked to remove it.
If it was my decision it would be no naming and shaming unless prefixed by 'In my honest opinion'!
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 1 Apr 10 at 06:13
|
|
A policy will be appearing soon, but IMO not only do we (mods) have a right to be strict with wild claims which are unsubstantiated, but as a punter I would lose interest in the forum if it were allowed to become a place of perpetual moaning, extreme criticism and unreasonably high expectations, so from that pov I will personally take a fairly strict line in moderating this kind of thread, unless given guidance to the contrary. They've been troublesome in the past, not least in the amount of time it takes the mods to read to make sure the rules were not being broken.
|
...but as a punter I would lose interest in the forum if it were allowed to become a place of perpetual moaning, extreme criticism and unreasonably high expectations...
As a punter, so would I.
Looks like you're well on the way to developing a reasonable but cautious policy, which I think is what's required to sit well with the rest of the forum.
|
I remember back on HJ not that long ago, there was a post with someone's complaint, one of these ones "I haven't spoken to them yet but anyway they have done x,y and z wrong" What followed was a long thread about what the possibilities were, rights to legal action etc and then it ended by the OP saying he had actually got it all wrong.
I remember stating that the thread should have been made a sticky as it was a perfect example of why naming and shaming wasn't allowed.
|
>>>...but as a punter I would lose interest in the forum if it were allowed to become a place of perpetual moaning, extreme criticism and unreasonably high expectations...
Another vote for the fact that long personal grumbles are a turn off.
Also to add to Pat's point I remember many years ago over on the other place taking time out to help a guy who had named and shamed about a newish car and the garage looking after it under warranty.
He eventually sent me a pm saying my thoughts about a possible daft mistake he was making were spot on but he would feel a fool admitting it on the forum after making such a song and dance about the issue.
I took the decision not to name and shame him!
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 1 Apr 10 at 09:12
|
I think N&S is a very bad idea. We have no way of knowing if there is any truth in it.
Right of reply is a disaster. I have seen on other forums where the other party has been invited to put over his point of view, and inevitably it ends up with hundreds of posts, and pushes it right up google rankings. Nobody in their right mind would respond.
And perfectly good small businesses can have their reputation ruined by some fool.
I don't like it at all. (And it inevitably becomes acrimonious, which isn't fun for other readers.)
|
Mapmaker,
All valid points, although right of reply would be restricted to the organisation concerned.
So I post 100 words saying Bloggs Motors made a balls of my service, and Bloggs Motors post 100 words explaining their side of the story.
No one else is directly involved, although others may wish to comment on the issues raised.
It is a forum, after all.
|
It does not apply on many sites - look at this overt solicitation on a large-ish "forum" site (the thread is also a "sticky"!):
bit.ly/dAqzKR
To balance this, there's also a "Good Vx Dealers list"!
I am not sure that many posts in the "Poor Dealers" thread contain justification, many seem to just name a dealer. I agree with Post#18 in that thread.
|
For anyone that thinks that N&S will be harmless because of the anonymity enjoyed by posters, this message today from a site I use might be sobering:
www.hsj.co.uk/5013194.article
I'm stunned they are not just taking the site offline for 24 hours.
|
|
It's an April Fool, but a pretty stupid one.
|
>> I'm stunned they are not just taking the site offline for 24 hours.
Did you see the last line?
|
|
Nope, I didn't, the last line wasn't in the email I received. I only went to the webpage to grab a link to put here. Is that a good April fool? I'm not convinced it is.
|
>> Is that a good April fool? I'm not convinced it is.
Not exactly a classic; they could pick up some tips from BMW IMO.
|
|
I meant right of reply is a disaster for the company in question. No better way to give a story legs than to start a row! A lot of companies won't comment these days.
|
Thank you all for the helpful discussion regarding how to deal with naming and shaming.
Please note our policy here using sticky thread at the top of this forum, or the link in the forum panel on the right.
|
Drat. I are have done just replied to your "sticky", instead of here. Sorry.
FT, moved it in here for you and locked out the sticky
Last edited by: Pugugly on Thu 1 Apr 10 at 20:33
|
|
Oh, I say, well done. Looks good.
|
Good point.
As I understand it the UK libel laws are a bit outdated and in need of some revision.
Hence our policy of pulling a post on complaint even if the post may be true. It isn't worth the cost of a legal battle.
e.g. Demon internet vs Laurence Godfrey (2000). Awarded £15K + £250K legal costs.
----------------------------
Quote from BBC News :
Reasonable care
Under English law ISPs are not held to have been the publishers of defamatory material providing they satisfy two criteria.
They must prove they took reasonable care to ensure such material was not published, and once alerted to a problem, took steps to resolve it.
Dr Godfrey's action against Demon related to a message posted in 1997 on soc.culture.thai, purportedly coming from him and containing damaging allegations of a personal nature.
He said he asked Demon to remove the message but the ISP refused. The message was copied to its servers around the world and many others containing newsgroup messages.
----------------------------
Original here: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/695596.stm
Google "demon internet libel" for other takes.
|
...reasonable care...
Also called 'fair dealing' and it will take you a long way.
So, you could let someone publish something like: "Bloggs Motors charged me this much and I feel ripped off."
But not let them publish: "Bloggs Motors are a bunch of thieves because..."
It's only words, but the difference is important.
The publisher needs to show they acted responsibly.
There was a case of two newspapers - one national, one local - which 'outed' a doorstep selling company as conmen.
The case reached the Press Complaints Commission.
The commission found against the national paper because it could not show it had taken steps to get a comment from the company.
The local paper was cleared because it had telephoned, faxed, and even sent someone round to the company's office before publishing its story.
Libel does remain a confused area of the law, a state of affairs which suits the legal profession, which has always been brilliant at making work for itself.
|
|
In the case of a dealer being named and shamed it's likely that the thread originator is the only Backroomer to use that particular dealer, so what could possibly be gained by them publicising their dissatisfaction?
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 2 Apr 10 at 13:27
|
Naming and shaming - FotheringtonTomas
