+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Recreational Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: unwanted but nessecary censorship (/showthread.php?tid=9407)
Pages:
1
2
unwanted but nessecary censorship - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 05-16-2007
Well.... i wont go into the subject too deeply but it seems that the honourable Roman site has lost some of its honours to me....
I find it very strange that you bow to the so-called judicial powers.
especially when the members have done nothing wrong.
The members denounced some items for sale somewhere as fake, which is their good right!!!
In any lawsuit there are enough respectable scientists on here who could corrobberate these facts!!!!!
I am sorry but i am very disappointed with your descision.
btw fellow posters!!
I adhere to the rules and would kindly request everyon not to mention the unmentionable as agreed by the Forum pater familias
but a damnatio memoriae will only work if everyone agrees
Anyway.......... very very very disappointed!
M.VIB.M.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Praefectusclassis - 05-16-2007
MVM,
I'm sorry to hear you're so disappointed in us. You're not the only one to react to this, so I'll be happy to explain how our decision came to be.
First of all though, I do not appreciate your capitalized, exclamation marked choice of thread heading. RAT is a private forum and when you signed up, you voluntarily promised to abide to the rules here. The admins and mods - all volunteers - do their utmost to run RAT as best they can, weigh their decisions carefully and then tell the members about them. That openness is, I believe, an important aspect of how we do things here (see below). Capitals, exclamation marks and the use of terminology such as censorship is frankly insulting to the team and offends me personally.
Whenever someone threatens to sue RAT - and this luckily has not happened very often at all - it basically boils down to one simple question (with perhaps subquestions):
- Can we afford legal defense? It doesn't matter if we would win or not, you have to have one of those $500 an hour people. Someone has to front that, even if you get the money back afterwards.
- Can we afford RAT to be down? Cause you can bet your hiney that if someone lodges a serious complaint with our provider, they'll pull the plug first and investigate later. If RAT's down for 30 minutes, I get emails. If RAT'd be down for days or weeks 'pending investigation', several members here would be hospitalized for withdrawal symptoms!
Of course it needs to be mentioned here that in both cases where we practised Damnatio, it was a response to a threat/complaint about negative comments on RAT. In both cases we could simply have edited the negative comments quietly and kept doing that every time they turned up. Hardly anyone would've noticed.
We decided not to do that, but instead reasoned that since, in this case, discussion of these items was hardly a gain for RAT, we were better off to ban discussion of them completely. We discuss both sides of the medal here, not just the positive ones. If the negative side is out of the question, then the positive is banned as well.
I know some members feel that RAT has a 'mission' to spread knowledge and refute idiocy on the web. That is true, up to a point. But if the site and forum are threatened, that mission has to take second place. The well-being of site and community are no.1.
If you want to go all the way, I suggest you write a proposal to transfer ownership of Romanarmy.com and RAT to a foundation and collect the funds to insure the foundation against legal claims. 500 euros to get the foundation going and about 1000/year for that insurance should do it.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 05-16-2007
edited out the shouting........
cant change the postings header though.......... change it into anything you like..........
mea culpa
M.VIB.M. :oops:
btw I really like and appreciate your thorough explanation.
agreed and understood.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Matt Lukes - 05-18-2007
I have to say I'm pretty shocked at this reaction- I'd have thought the primary response from anyone who likes the RAT forum and enjoys being here would be one of outrage that someone would try to 'strong-arm' our admins by threatening to sue- to consider the outsiders trying to censor things to be the villians, not those who've provided this wonderful forum that so many enjoy and get so much out of who are in fact the victims here...
The header is actually quite reasonable- what we're being forced to do IS 'unwanted but necessary censorship', so that's fine- it's the personal reaction and negative comments about those who were forced to make the decision instead of the one who forced it to be made that would be better edited-out and you can do that because honestly you don't come off looking very good HJ, regardless of the apology. Hopefully you'll consider a matter a little longer next time before writing such things or maybe contact someone and ask about the situation before deciding we got it wrong or did something dishonorable, etc. And just for the record, no one has a 'right' to post anything, this is not a publicly-owned forum, and the Damnation memorae will not only work if everyone agrees, it's now a rule and people are required to follow it, there's no choice.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 05-18-2007
Not at all Matt, I think it IS one of the duties members of this forum have, to discuss and point aut fraudulent behaviour of dealers in antiquities.
Especially in this case!
I for one would have gladly taken up the glove thrown towards me in a judicial case, and would have asked all members to join in that fight.
I am disappointed with the reaction, since it is just that reaction which makes the culprit in this case the victor.
I am outraged at the attempt to strong-arm the forum, but evenly disappointed with the fact WE bow to such blackmail.
I personally feel the actions of the culprit t be an insult to the Roman legacy, Roman virtues, and Roman dignity. Equally, i feel the reaction of the forum owners, however well explained, is a missed opportunity to set something right.
Equally i would have gladly welcomed this opportunity to judicially see where freedom of speech ends, and truth begins, especially since there are so many well established scientists participating in any debate on this forum, who could be able to thwart easily anything thrown against us.
M.VIB.M.
Suggestion - Caius Fabius - 05-19-2007
Start your own forum or newsgroup, like Coinforgery on Yahoogroups. There is ongoing discussion and name calling and threatening there almost every day, but the owner moderator is in charge, (and liable) and so far he seems to have in interesting forum. You could easily start your own forum and invite people whom you respect to go there and comment about various artifakes, without endangering the RAT.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Tarbicus - 05-19-2007
Quote:Equally i would have gladly welcomed this opportunity to judicially see where freedom of speech ends, and truth begins, especially since there are so many well established scientists participating in any debate on this forum, who could be able to thwart easily anything thrown against us.Not without a proper examination of the artefact. That's where the real problem lies. Unless the real thing is looked at up close and analysed there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that it's a fake, you can only suggest the possibility based specifically on the object's appearance, and even then the owner may take umbrage and decide you are calling it fake. The Toledo silver helm made Robinson come to the conclusion it's a Victorian fake, but this was never confirmed for decades until it was scientifically analysed at Oxford.
Unfortunately, there can be no 100% certainty about these objects without analysis, only 100% conviction. In the real world there is no such thing as free speech. Sorry, but that's just how it is.
The other alternative is for there to be a subscription charge to join the forum to cover insurance against litigation. So, if you're unwilling to stump up the fee then it's at the discretion of those who would have to pay for the legal costs, and I would say there is no obligation at all on the owners to support a non-liable member's umbrage at not being able to say what they want, which in reality doesn't exist anyway.
Personally, if a Trooper helm were offered as a genuine 2000 year old, or thereabouts, artefact I would have no problem calling it. In that case, if the owner threatened to sue I would understand fully RAT's decision to censor the comments.
Of course, if I said, "Blimey, that's a dead spit for the Trooper Helm designed and made by those Indian manufacturers and never seen, to my knowledge, in any published archaeological dig's records, it's so uncanny that those Indian manufacturers were able to second guess something like that, and even design it down to the rivets, it must have been psychic abilities because we've never seen anything like it before they made one, it must be evidence of the supernatural and I'm getting in touch with James Randi to claim a million bucks....!" then I don't think I'd have said anything libelous there.
But that case would be different to a fragment of aged and shaped metal that looks like body armour.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - M. Demetrius - 05-19-2007
As an administrator of another forum, I have to agree with CF. All of us are guests here, and if the host says, "Don't", well, don't.
Most folks understand this intrinsically, some have to be told, and as we've found out elsewhere, some have to be given the boot. It's just the way things are. Nobody is arguing about having to put their real names on the forum signature, or if they are, they will be cautioned, then banned, I guess.
In the end, Rules rule.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Matt Lukes - 05-19-2007
Quote:Not at all Matt, I think it IS one of the duties members of this forum have, to discuss and point aut fraudulent behaviour of dealers in antiquities.
Especially in this case!
I for one would have gladly taken up the glove thrown towards me in a judicial case, and would have asked all members to join in that fight.
I am disappointed with the reaction, since it is just that reaction which makes the culprit in this case the victor.
I am outraged at the attempt to strong-arm the forum, but evenly disappointed with the fact WE bow to such blackmail.
I personally feel the actions of the culprit t be an insult to the Roman legacy, Roman virtues, and Roman dignity. Equally, i feel the reaction of the forum owners, however well explained, is a missed opportunity to set something right.
Equally i would have gladly welcomed this opportunity to judicially see where freedom of speech ends, and truth begins, especially since there are so many well established scientists participating in any debate on this forum, who could be able to thwart easily anything thrown against us.
M.VIB.M.
hock: Wow. A completely hollow apology. Says a lot...
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Matt Lukes - 05-19-2007
Quote:MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS:3jwfex74 Wrote:Equally i would have gladly welcomed this opportunity to judicially see where freedom of speech ends, and truth begins, especially since there are so many well established scientists participating in any debate on this forum, who could be able to thwart easily anything thrown against us.Not without a proper examination of the artefact. That's where the real problem lies. Unless the real thing is looked at up close and analysed there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that it's a fake, you can only suggest the possibility based specifically on the object's appearance, and even then the owner may take umbrage and decide you are calling it fake. The Toledo silver helm made Robinson come to the conclusion it's a Victorian fake, but this was never confirmed for decades until it was scientifically analysed at Oxford.
EXACTLY. And rather more often even the experts disagree- so there's more often no truth in evaluations, especially by amateurs and that's what the vast majority are here. Opinions are not facts, but they can be harmful- hence the reaction by the person in question here. I doubt very much he'd have responded the same way were it Mike Bishop, Graham Sumner, et al., who were the people making the comments, but they weren't.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Matt Lukes - 05-19-2007
Quote:Equally i would have gladly welcomed this opportunity to judicially see where freedom of speech ends, and truth begins, especially since there are so many well established scientists participating in any debate on this forum, who could be able to thwart easily anything thrown against us.
M.VIB.M.
That's easy- send a message to Mr. Kenny saying that you're going to start website that 'evaluates' his collection, and then do it- if he's not bluffing about suing, then you'll find out first hand all these things you want to know...
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Jeroen Pelgrom - 05-20-2007
Quote:Not without a proper examination of the artefact. That's where the real problem lies. Unless the real thing is looked at up close and analysed there is no way you can say with 100% certainty that it's a fake, you can only suggest the possibility based specifically on the object's appearance, and even then the owner may take umbrage and decide you are calling it fake. The Toledo silver helm made Robinson come to the conclusion it's a Victorian fake, but this was never confirmed for decades until it was scientifically analysed at Oxford.
When i was in Rome last week, the Roman coins they sold all had the label "these are fake!". Must say that is a good thing that they are honest about it.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - Sachiko - 05-21-2007
I agree with Jasper-san.
I'm a moderator in another forum and there are sometimes reviews of merchants that are negative and then the merchants complain and ask for them to be taken down. They even threaten the members with defamation proceedings.
It's rare but it happens. Although I'm quite irked at the merchants becoz there is of course a distinction between fair comment, which is based on fact, and defamation, which is untrue, there's no telling whether a member is saying something that can be appropriately backed up by facts or not.
So I believe as moderator it's not only my duty to organise and ensure the smooth running of the site but also to protect members against lawsuits, whether they be frivolous or not. I believe Jasper-san is only looking out for us and not merely succumbing to strong-arm tactics.
Re: unwanted but nessecary censorship - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 05-22-2007
[size=150:1z7w81yc]そおですか､あの事をあんまりわかりません。ごめんくださいが、僕のほう、プルーフはもっともイムポータントと思います。[/size]
for those of you who do not read Japanese, I just wrote: Really? i do not understand totally, sorry, but from my side, proof is much more important, or at least thats what i sthink.
Of course moderators have a task and need to prevent mishaps,and the smooth running of board discussions, which is only good.
BTW i thought we agreed not to mention the name of the guy and the site in question....... MATT!! but i am not going to fight with you since that i feel is totally useless... I am not going to fight someone i like.
Nor do i give hollow apologies Matt, i only apologised to Jasper because of the unnessecary agressive tone and header of my first posting in this case, not its meaning.
I agree fully with Tarbicus on the problems of fighting fraudsters and finding proof in an artefact, however at the various WWII forums i post on we NEVER have these problems... maybe the collecting community of WWII and WWII re-enactors have a more guarded approach to any dealer........ I dont know.....
M.VIB.M.
necessary censorship - Paullus Scipio - 05-23-2007
Just my two " penneth worth", but I speak as a very experienced lawyer.
It is all very well to wish in an ideal world, for freedom of speech, and to proclaim "truth", and prevent/expose fraud but we live in a real world where now, as in Roman times, the rich and powerful usually have their way !
From a pragmatic point of view, Tarbicus is entirely correct about difficulties of proof, not to mention that "expert witnesses" in court cases are usually confounded by other "expert witnesses".
It is also the case that it is a perfect defence ( in English based law ) to someone suing you for defamation/libel/slander, to show that the statement is true.........but.......even if you win, you don't recover all your legal expenses, which are likely to be mega in any jurisdiction !!
The only practical thing to do, as Jasper has patiently explained , is to "fold", even though you might be a 100% in the right.
Sorry if that sounds like a cynical lawyer speaking.......oh, wait, I am a cynical lawyer!! :lol: