Censorship + Moderation = Disservice

[Michael Crane]

Michael, you of all people know how ill-equipped a free forum is to deal with real trouble-makers.

I don't understand what you're getting at. Trouble-makers are easy to handle - delete them. Part of Moderating a forum is to keep trouble-makers under control, and it is quite clear within the Mazza topic who are trouble-makers and who are not.

You are right, this service is invaluable, but the real logistics behind something like "crimestoppers" vastly exceed the capacities of the people involved in running the forum. It is not something you can simply incorporate.

I disagree. It can be incorporated quite easily if the will is there. This forum is probably the only one a lot of people use. If you don't warn them about the 'bad stuff' then surely the opposite must apply, and not tell them about the 'good stuff'. After all, if you tell everyone that ABC is a great company and they turn out to be a bunch of lying thieving robbers, you have let those that fall victim to them, down.

[rossi]

Mr Crane wrote
from reputable members

How you can call FMM a reputable member as I have proven her to be a outright lier, being a senior forum member does not make you reputable member, just a boring person without a real life. Most of these people on this forum are maybe even the benefit cheats that are being reported as they all seem to have nothing better to do.................

[shanagarry]

There have been a number of well thought out responses here - and that's great. When I composed the post, my sole purpose was to ensure that those hell bent on dishonestly appropriating other's property were prevented from 'shouting-down' those of us who exposed their vile practices. I feel we might have got a consensus on that point.

I don't know the amount of work involved in taking Michael's suggestion forward (excluding 'known' crooks from the forum - through their IP address) maybe it's a starting point. I can hear the naysayers claiming they can go anywhere to get another IP address - but it's an inconvenience to them and it might just have them look elsewhere. Start with those whose unintelligible rants are on this topic.

The voluntary nature of this Forum does, I admit make the ultimate sanction virtually impossible but it does have a duty to ensure that anybody using this forum in good faith to enquire about and/or acquire a service - is protected (wherever possible) from the criminal fraternity that undoubtedly exists in our little piece of heaven here in Carvoeiro. Gambrinus makes a good point about due diligence but regretfully that does not extend to those who need to be protected from themselves. The criminal mind is forever on the look out for easy opportunities and a forum such as this is easy pickings for a determined thief - that's why we need a deterrent and if that's all of us - so be it.

Thanks to those of you with the good sense to persevere with this topic and offer an intelligent response despite the low-life trying to deter you.

[Michael Crane]

....I don't know the amount of work involved in taking Michael's suggestion forward (excluding 'known' crooks from the forum - through their IP address) maybe it's a starting point. ....

For a start it is an easy matter to deal with those that deliberately try to sabotage topics they don't want the rest of the members to see. Clearly there are a few who are well known to the Mods for such behaviour and it is quite easy to delete them. OK, so they'll come back under a new username - this is to be expected. Banning an IP address isn't practical because IP addresses are often shared and innocent members can get caught up in such bans; but there is a simply solution.

It is entirely possible that on this forum there is a facility available to Steen to approve a new member's early posts before they are made public. This would stop new users coming in with a comment that has not been approved first (on the plus side, it would also stop a lot of spam!). It might be a pain in the backside at first, but it could deter those bent on sabotage. Of course, such persons could post a few innocuous posts to begin with, but by that time the topic that first got them to post would have died down.

Persistent offenders (and there's one already on this topic) can be deleted whenever they post such comments, all it needs is a Mod to come in and delete the comment, something that can be done in a few seconds. If the current number of Mods can't cope with this then set on a couple more. They are all volunteers and there's no limit to how many a forum can have. Once offenders come to realise that their comments won't be published or will be deleted upon posting, the sooner they'll back off and let the forum get on without them.

[Gambrinus]

It is not just a matter of containment, although you are right in saying, that a number of users could be banned on the existing terms of use alone. This simply has not happened, because there is some merit to allowing their perseverence and incoherence to discredit them by default.

The key issue here is verification of facts.

Even if something is well documented, as was the case with Mazza, we here on the moderation side are still nowhere near knowing how much of what was said was 100% factual or even true. We rely on the credibility of those who contributed and it is probably fair to say, that most of what was said regarding the recent company performance is true.
However, not being staffed or equipped to do so, there is no way to independently check the claims of those involved.

Whilst this may appear to be a reasonably clear cut case in this instance, the fact that the publications went through on the forum means that we have opened the door for any number of such cases.

Who is to say that the next one won't be a complete fabrication set up to financially ruin somebody? How could we ever hope to prevent this with the means at our disposal?

[e-richard]

My personal view:

it [the forum]does have a duty to ensure that anybody using this forum in good faith to enquire about and/or acquire a service - is protected (wherever possible) from the criminal fraternity that undoubtedly exists in our little piece of heaven here in Carvoeiro.

I have sympathy with the reasoning behind this statement, and thanks for the healthy debate, but I must add that we head down an exceedingly dangerous path when it is suggested that "the forum" is responsible for policing the community. "The forum" is not an official body, it has no legal powers. Those are vested with the authorities - the police, the courts, the judges and juries of the land.

"The Foum" is exactly what it says on the tin. It is a place where anyone can post their own views, thoughts, opinions, arguments and suggestions. It is a passive vehicle enabling individuals to participate. Moderators are there simply to ensure such participation is done in a codial manner and within the guidelines.

So, to conclude with another snippet from Shanagarry:

The criminal mind is forever on the look out for easy opportunities and a forum such as this is easy pickings for a determined thief - that's why we need a deterrent and if that's all of us - so be it.

And may all of us continue to post our views, opinions and information - in a constructive manner.

[fmm]

I see. So it is fine for a member to continuously call me a "lier" (sic - sorry the member is illterate as well as dim) and nothing need be done.

As far as I can tell from Rossi's own admission, they are not Mazza. As they are obviously not me, I find it difficult to ascertain his reasoning that I am a liar as only Mazza and I know the truth.

So where are the moderators now?

[Steen Jakobsen]

I see. So it is fine for a member to continuously call me a "lier" (sic - sorry the member is illterate as well as dim) and nothing need be done.

As far as I can tell from Rossi's own admission, they are not Mazza. As they are obviously not me, I find it difficult to ascertain his reasoning that I am a liar as only Mazza and I know the truth.

So where are the moderators now?

Should we not leave it if we judge a statement says more about the offender than the offended?

[Michael Crane]

Should we not leave it if we judge a statement says more about the offender than the offended?

Nah! Just delete 'em!

[rossi]

the lies are in black and white on this forum for all to see, I feel sorry for you FMM, as it's clear to me that you have some sort of memory breakdown, and don't understand what you are saying from one day to the next, maybe in the future you should be more careful what you write on forums...............

[shanagarry]

So where are the moderators now?

All the time you are responding to them (Mazza people) - you are inviting them to throw insults - ignore

[rossi]

One more thing, it was FMM who highjacked your original message, therefore I hope the following relates to her.


Thanks to those of you with the good sense to persevere with this topic and offer an intelligent response despite the low-life trying to deter you. shanagarry
CVO Master

[shanagarry]

it is suggested that "the forum" is responsible for policing the community

My comment is directed at the way in which the Mazza affair started - it was an introduction from this forum - nothing more.

It is a place where anyone can post their own views, thoughts, opinions, arguments and suggestions.

Long may it remain so - as long as we keep it honest

[pato]

I suggest we leave it as it is, the main objective was to inform the posters that Mazza is a crook, I've taken that on board and as a property owner wouldn't touch her with a barge-pole. Her supporters seem to be a looney group and that concerns me even more than her reputation. The whole episode is getting confusing and complex she's been accused of dishonesty and caught "in flagrante delicto" and that's it

[rossi]

I suggest you all read FMM's messages on this site as they are all dishonest, and just for one day forget about the MAZZA issue as it now seems to me by the lies that have been made up in the last few days from this FMM person, and you don't need me to tell you, just read her messages. I now think that all the other statements about Mazza are all incorrect, as I don't trust any of you.