http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396490825

It's ok, it seemed appropriate to afford the journalist who originally wrote this article a right of reply regarding how his words were changed. Consequently I forwarded it to him and some of his press council colleagues.

Phemanderac wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 4:28pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396490825 It's ok, it seemed appropriate to afford the journalist who originally wrote this article a right of reply regarding how his words were changed. Consequently I forwarded it to him and some of his press council colleagues.

I wish you had not.  I have already referred this to FD via PM.  It would be preferable not to draw crabs from outside surely, and allow FD an opportunity to deal with it here first.

Phemanderac wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 4:28pm:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396490825 It's ok, it seemed appropriate to afford the journalist who originally wrote this article a right of reply regarding how his words were changed. Consequently I forwarded it to him and some of his press council colleagues.

Bitch move.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 4:28pm: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396490825 It's ok, it seemed appropriate to afford the journalist who originally wrote this article a right of reply regarding how his words were changed. Consequently I forwarded it to him and some of his press council colleagues. I wish you had not.  I have already referred this to FD via PM.  It would be preferable not to draw crabs from outside surely, and allow FD an opportunity to deal with it here first.

The original author whose work was doctored is hardly a "crab" mate.

As to handling stuff internally, let's face it there are the written rules of the place and then the reality of the place and, basically, both are in alternate universes...

You cannot expect to doctor someone's professional work and expect a get out of gaol free card.

Quote:

As to handling stuff internally, let's face it there are the written rules of the place and then the reality of the place and, basically, both are in alternate universes...

I checked,  There is a gap in the Rules/Policies.  This is not covered therein by oversight, one hardly surprising given it is not within reasonable foreseeability that a Member would go to such lengths to forge, and deliberately misquote an original work of a published journalist.

The far better and preferable course for you as a Member here interested in the welfare of the Forum would have been to refer it to FD....(as I did) before running off to Press Council people (i.e. 'crabs.')

But.....the milk is spilled now.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 5:14pm:

Quote: As to handling stuff internally, let's face it there are the written rules of the place and then the reality of the place and, basically, both are in alternate universes... I checked,  There is a gap in the Rules/Policies.  This is not covered therein by oversight, one hardly surprising given it is not within reasonable foreseeability that a Member would go to such lengths to forge, and deliberately misquote an original work of a published journalist. The far better and preferable course for you as a Member here interested in the welfare of the Forum would have been to refer it to FD....(as I did) before running off to Press Council people (i.e. 'crabs.') But.....the milk is spilled now.

  ::)

Let's get a couple of things straight.

Firstly, I made a call (decision). I made that call based on the right thing to do based on my personal values, as such, I make no apology for bringing the doctoring of someone else's work to that person's attention.

As to there not being a specific rule, there should not need to be one, there is no grey area in this issue, it is simply wrong.

Further, it seems that the rules that are written are not consistently or applied in any semblance of an even handed fashion. That may simply reflect human nature, I get that. However, if rules become merely arbitrary in their application, then the idea behind the rules is immediately lost.

Anyone know why rules are put in place in the first place?

Secondly, I demonstrated a degree of integrity otherwise unfamiliar in this place, I put my hand up and declared what I did. I could have taken action, not said a word and waited. If or when a response occurred I would suggest there would have been no end of discussion, accusation and speculation as to who did this thing. I daresay that after much whaling and gnashing of teeth someone may even have been scape goated. To my mind, that would have therefore been a gutless and inappropriate act.

Finally, let us not forget, I am not the poster who made the decision to change a professionals words.... That is kind of an important factor in this. Let's face it, consider what possible actions admin could take and tell me how even the most extreme response from admin would have amounted to anything more than sweeping this action under the carpet.

I make no apology.

Now, how it is handled beyond this will be demonstrative of the "care for the board" that is floating around....

Phemanderac wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 6:04pm:

Let's get a couple of things straight. Firstly, I made a call (decision). I made that call based on the right thing to do based on my personal values, as such, I make no apology for bringing the doctoring of someone else's work to that person's attention.

Yeas ~ a judgment call.  I abhor what AP did as much as you do.  The difference between us is the method adopted to deal with it.


Quote:

As to there not being a specific rule, there should not need to be one, there is no grey area in this issue, it is simply wrong.

I agree 100%.  But, you can bet that AP will plead that there is no Rule.  Such a plea would not work with me, and obviously, not with you either.


Quote:

Further, it seems that the rules that are written are not consistently or applied in any semblance of an even handed fashion. That may simply reflect human nature, I get that. However, if rules become merely arbitrary in their application, then the idea behind the rules is immediately lost. Anyone know why rules are put in place in the first place?

I'm not going there.


Quote:

Secondly, I demonstrated a degree of integrity otherwise unfamiliar in this place, I put my hand up and declared what I did. I could have taken action, not said a word and waited. If or when a response occurred I would suggest there would have been no end of discussion, accusation and speculation as to who did this thing. I daresay that after much whaling and gnashing of teeth someone may even have been scape goated. To my mind, that would have therefore been a gutless and inappropriate act.

Yeas, all good.  However, I will be just as forthright in saying that you missed taking the first most obvious option.


Quote:

Finally, let us not forget, I am not the poster who made the decision to change a professionals words.... That is kind of an important factor in this. Let's face it, consider what possible actions admin could take and tell me how even the most extreme response from admin would have amounted to anything more than sweeping this action under the carpet. I make no apology.

This is an immediate issue for OzPol.....not the wider community.  Objection to what AP did is quite clear and in open here.  You ought to have seen that.  But, you've done what you've done.  It would have been just as easy for you to complain to FD, and make it plain here that you had so complained, and your integrity would remain intact.  If you were then unhappy with how FD handled it....sure, an obvious next step is what you chose as your first step.


Quote:

Now, how it is handled beyond this will be demonstrative of the "care for the board" that is floating around....

Yeas, true.  But, instead of giving FD a chance to sort it out, you went straight over his head...........knowingly attracting crabs.

It is not always necessary to go straight for the jugular, first.

Anyway, spilled milk now.

It is not an oversight. This sort of thing has been considered before. There is no rule about it because I am not going to police it. Phemanderac was reasonable to bypass me as I would have taken no action. I have no problem with people inviting the author on here, though I doubt he would bother joining up. It was good for Phemanderac to let me know that he did this, in case there are legal consequences (I don't think there are in this case). I also have no problem with him starting the thread on feedback instead of informing me via PM, as I welcome people's opinion on this issue. This is not an open invitation to use feedback for drama queening - I think he made the right call.

Never heard the term crab in this context before.

IMO, simply pointing out the deception is the appropriate way to deal with it. I remember one of our ex-resident Muslims did something like that to an article also.


Quote:

As to there not being a specific rule, there should not need to be one, there is no grey area in this issue, it is simply wrong.

As a member of this forum, you have a right to be wrong.


Quote:

Further, it seems that the rules that are written are not consistently or applied in any semblance of an even handed fashion.

They are applied when breaches are reported via PM.

Quote:

I think he made the right call.

Okay.  I now understand. 

1.  No point going to you first, AiA. 

2.  With your blessing AiA, straight to ACMA and whatever other Government Mob might be interested. 

Glad we have cleared that up.

Abject apologies Phemanderac, you were right.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Quote: I think he made the right call. Okay.  I now understand.  1.  No point going to you first, AiA.  2.  With your blessing AiA, straight to ACMA and whatever other Government Mob might be interested.  Glad we have cleared that up. Abject apologies Phemanderac, you were right.

Went back and read the rules and it seems Aussie is due for a suspension from this fine board ^^^.  Mods?

What rule has Aussie breached there?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

What rule has Aussie breached there?

Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir. 

Take your own advice and ignore it or report Aussie to the ACMA.

Aussie wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2014 at 10:20pm:

Quote: I think he made the right call. Okay.  I now understand.  1.  No point going to you first, AiA.  2.  With your blessing AiA, straight to ACMA and whatever other Government Mob might be interested.  Glad we have cleared that up. Abject apologies Phemanderac, you were right.

Freudian slip.  Where I have typed AiA, it should have been FD.

mantra wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 4:18am:

Take your own advice and ignore it or report Aussie to the ACMA.

I am sorry ... what is my advice? 

Ignore anything which offends you - that is your advice for fear of upsetting specific members and making them worse. Fair enough. Maybe the mods don't want to offend Aussie by banning him for posting such vile slander about you, although I think most people would have a problem figuring out what it was.

AiA wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 2:59am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: What rule has Aussie breached there? Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir.

He's not accusing FD or you of any kind of illegal activity though is he?

Slander should rightfully attract a ban, an error shouldn't.

If Aussie admits its an error then for me no harm done and we move on.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 6:23am:

Aussie wrote on Apr 3rd, 2014 at 10:20pm: Quote: I think he made the right call. Okay.  I now understand.  1.  No point going to you first, AiA.  2.  With your blessing AiA, straight to ACMA and whatever other Government Mob might be interested.  Glad we have cleared that up. Abject apologies Phemanderac, you were right. Freudian slip.  Where I have typed AiA, it should have been FD.

well I think thats cleared that up....I take it A.P. has been firmly dealt with.

mantra wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 7:30am:

Ignore anything which offends you - that is your advice for fear of upsetting specific members and making them worse. Fair enough. Maybe the mods don't want to offend Aussie by banning him for posting such vile slander about you, although I think most people would have a problem figuring out what it was.

Can you please provide a link to where I have given that advice at this board.  Otherwise you are putting words into my mouth ...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

AiA wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: What rule has Aussie breached there? Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir.  He's not accusing FD or you of any kind of illegal activity though is he? Slander should rightfully attract a ban, an error shouldn't. If Aussie admits its an error then for me no harm done and we move on.

So if one claims a Freudian slip then all is good?  Like when you say one thing but mean Aussie's mother?  Oh, sorry, I meant "another." 

First up, Aussie, honestly I don't require any apology from you for you speaking your mind, it was not offensive at any level, aggressive or nasty. Simply put, I think we saw how to address this issue differently - as is our individual right. That said, and out of respect for you seeing an apology might be necessary, it is accepted fully.

Freediver, thanks for your feedback, insight and support for my action.

It is appreciated, further, I too do not really think the reporter in question (or anyone else for that matter) will follow the matter up, however, for my part, I believe they had a right to make that decision for themselves. Hence my action.

Phemanderac wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

First up, Aussie, honestly I don't require any apology from you for you speaking your mind, it was not offensive at any level, aggressive or nasty. Simply put, I think we saw how to address this issue differently - as is our individual right. That said, and out of respect for you seeing an apology might be necessary, it is accepted fully. Freediver, thanks for your feedback, insight and support for my action. It is appreciated, further, I too do not really think the reporter in question (or anyone else for that matter) will follow the matter up, however, for my part, I believe they had a right to make that decision for themselves. Hence my action.

Of  course you have a right to bring the attention to someone being misrepresented.

I commend FD for his decision and for you pointing out such a childish action by AP.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

AiA wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: What rule has Aussie breached there? Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir.  He's not accusing FD or you of any kind of illegal activity though is he? Slander should rightfully attract a ban, an error shouldn't. If Aussie admits its an error then for me no harm done and we move on.

Is it even possible to slander/libel an anonymous ID???

;)

Lobo wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 8:11am: AiA wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: What rule has Aussie breached there? Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir.  He's not accusing FD or you of any kind of illegal activity though is he? Slander should rightfully attract a ban, an error shouldn't. If Aussie admits its an error then for me no harm done and we move on. Is it even possible to slander/libel an anonymous ID??? ;)

Yes.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 3:59pm:

Lobo wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 3:51pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 8:11am: AiA wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: What rule has Aussie breached there? Slander.  Do you not see aussie has substituted "FD" with "AiA?"  I bugger all to do with this thread sir.  He's not accusing FD or you of any kind of illegal activity though is he? Slander should rightfully attract a ban, an error shouldn't. If Aussie admits its an error then for me no harm done and we move on. Is it even possible to slander/libel an anonymous ID??? ;) Yes.

Clue me in.
I am under the impression that slander/libel can only occur where the party concerned is recognisable in everyday public life.

Hence the 'Guess who don't sue' columns in some of our finer rags....

:)

Click here.

It is but a small step to take.......the reverse/other side of the coin.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 5:13pm:

Click here. It is but a small step to take.......the reverse/other side of the coin.

Quote:

The postings related to technology security company Datamotion Asia Pacific Ltd and its Perth-based chairman and managing director, Ronald Moir. One posting appeared under the pseudonym of ''witch''.

The way I read this article is that 'witch' referred to the Company and MD by name, in which case when tracked down the slanderer/libeler(?) can be charged.

No problem with that as the party slandered (Coy and MD) are recognisable in everyday public life.

What I am saying is that if I, froggie, was to say nasty things about you, Aussie, I don't think I can be charged at law with anything as nobody knows, theoretically, just who Aussie is.

I think the worst that could happen is that I would be banned from the board for abuse.

:)

Lobo wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Click here. It is but a small step to take.......the reverse/other side of the coin. Quote: The postings related to technology security company Datamotion Asia Pacific Ltd and its Perth-based chairman and managing director, Ronald Moir. One posting appeared under the pseudonym of ''witch''. The way I read this article is that 'witch' referred to the Company and MD by name, in which case when tracked down the slanderer/libeler(?) can be charged. No problem with that as the party slandered (Coy and MD) are recognisable in everyday public life. What I am saying is that if I, froggie, was to say nasty things about you, Aussie, I don't think I can be charged at law with anything as nobody knows, theoretically, just who Aussie is. I think the worst that could happen is that I would be banned from the board for abuse. :)

Yeas.....that is exactly the point.  But.....if I can establish that others here know exactly who I am........it could get interesting.  I readily acknowledge it is a frontier, and your point is solid.....but those thresholds are renowned for being crossed with landmark cases. Given just how popular this social medium has become, I reckon it is only a matter of time.

For example, I know (because of the stalking activities of other people on another Forum) who freediver is personally.  If he was defamed here, he could use that fact as part of his case.....that (for example) froggie had defamed him here knowing him only as freediver.

Moot point, but worth keeping in mind.

Aussie wrote on Apr 4^th, 2014 at 6:49pm:

Lobo wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 6:31pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 5:13pm: Click here. It is but a small step to take.......the reverse/other side of the coin. Quote: The postings related to technology security company Datamotion Asia Pacific Ltd and its Perth-based chairman and managing director, Ronald Moir. One posting appeared under the pseudonym of ''witch''. The way I read this article is that 'witch' referred to the Company and MD by name, in which case when tracked down the slanderer/libeler(?) can be charged. No problem with that as the party slandered (Coy and MD) are recognisable in everyday public life. What I am saying is that if I, froggie, was to say nasty things about you, Aussie, I don't think I can be charged at law with anything as nobody knows, theoretically, just who Aussie is. I think the worst that could happen is that I would be banned from the board for abuse. :) Yeas.....that is exactly the point.  But.....if I can establish that others here know exactly who I am........it could get interesting.  I readily acknowledge it is a frontier, and your point is solid.....but those thresholds are renowned for being crossed with landmark cases. Given just how popular this social medium has become, I reckon it is only a matter of time.

Agree.....
That is the whole point.

At this time any libel/slander charges of anon posters by anon posters is pretty remote.

Fair enough??

;)

muso wrote on Apr 5^th, 2014 at 12:03pm:

I've no idea why this thread could be construed as Feedback. It's going to Chat.

I am going to go out there on a limb mate.

Firstly, the OP most definitely is feedback - for you guys...

Secondly, I would think that your statement here could be fairly equally applied to almost every thread on every board, particularly once it has gone past meh, two maybe three pages.

Nice idea to try and keep people on track in threads, but, let's be honest here, almost all threads digress so far from the mark they become "chat" threads.... That would suggest that the chat board is significantly underpopulated.

I agree that this thread is now a chat, what I find oddly arbitrary is the distinct lack of other threads having been shifted here...

OK Fair comment. I'll split out the off-topic responses and move it back.