Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: New Forum Rules: Something bad to share about a business, no forum Liability.

  1. #1
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default New Forum Rules: Something bad to share about a business, no forum Liability.

    Part of enjoying the outdoors here in Alaska involves ensuring that somebody gets a good deal on anything from choosing a reputable guide, to choosing a reputable flying service. This "not allowing negative comments" BS is getting old. The rules need to be re-written. I'm getting tired of this authoritarian style of moderation where you guys relentlessly adhere to flawed rules......then a one-way communication style ensues after the action is taken. People have a right to be warned about a flawed product, getting screwed by a guide, flying service, or other type of business transaction relative to the outdoors. The forum actually isn't responsible for individual comments or opinions......you guys just make it that way, not to mention your selective enforcement of this ridiculous rule anyways.

    It's pretty easy......set up a new "agreement to terms". In that agreement to terms, the forum member agrees that the forum itself isn't liable or responsible for an individual's comment, or report about a product or business.

    By creating such a flawed rule......people who attempt to spend their hard earned dollars can't be warned about bad business and could suffer a ruined outdoor trip, or significant financial loss.

    Every moderator here knows I "tell it how it is" and that involves honesty.......and honestly.......you're hurting the transparency of fair business by allowing only the good comments and not the bad. This isn't Russia or Egypt Mike and Brian......this is America......

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    My usual opinion on these issues is, "It's Mike's playground he makes the rule." But I do somewhat agree with what Mainer has to say. I can understand Mike's rule atleast as far as bashing someone that can't defend themselves and the high potential for false accusations. But at the same time it's tough to provide open, honest information if we can only say the good and not the bad.

    In my experience if a business or person is reputable and upstanding anytime someone posts negative info on a forum the person/business in question is quickly backed up by numerous posts of support. Just look at the one poster that tried to bash Wild West Guns, he was quickly rebuked and dismissed. Business owners and people need to understand that information travels fast nowadays. Whether it's AOD, youtube, twitter, or any other online source bad stuff will get out.

    I could support mainer's proposal. But in the end, it's Mike's playground, he makes the rule.

    Just my $0.02
    I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

  3. #3
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    One bad review trumps a pile of good ones. On the slope you can make employee of the month for 11 straight months and have one pee test and get fired. On the fishing grounds you can be super mariner that catches more than everybody, then one blue hair stumbles and accidentally falls off your stern and you chew him up in the prop and all the sudden you're boat isn't senior friendly. Get my drift? I think Brian and Mike let the rule slide when we're talking about the real losers, but bad reviews are hard to overcome.
    The rule I don't like is you can't mention the name(s) of those convicted of crimes, like poaching or fishing violations.

  4. #4
    Member Huntress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Somewhere between here and there.....
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    The rule I don't like is you can't mention the name(s) of those convicted of crimes, like poaching or fishing violations.
    fullbush,

    This rule came about when folks were posting every other day different folks who were being "charged" with a crime...out of the paper or trooper blotters. What it essentially boiled down to, folks were guilty (on here) before they were even given a chance to prove their case in court and of course once in court do we really know the whole outcome?..we only knew what was read in the paper or blotter. I don't think you'd appreciate it if you were down at the river unraveling a kids fishing line, trooper pops out asks for your license, alas you aren't fishing but you have a snoopy pole in your hand...well, here's your ticket and your name is posted allover the internet because someone read the trooper blotter..
    "In the interest of protecting my privacy I will no longer be accepting Private Messages generated from this site and if you email me, it better be good!"

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default

    Once upon a time I thought there was a post from the moderators stating that names weren't permitted when someone is charged with a violation. But if we are reporting what a person is convicted of, that was ok. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

  6. #6
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    Please keep it on topic folks, I'm just trying to keep this about transparency of business. Thanks.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    3,246

    Default

    If you had a business and I was a friend of your competitor, and said you cheated me how would you prove you did not? You donít know who I am and if you tried to defend your self, I would say youíre lying. That is why Mike has rules to protect businesses. It the only fair thing to do.

  8. #8
    Member skybust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    alaska
    Posts
    2,426

    Default

    Cant you do the post without names and then if someone wants to know the name send a pm?

  9. #9
    Member broncoformudv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    Mainer you have a great idea and I wish it was that way on here but it isn't and never will be. If you want o see things like that then stop by pristineventures they are a lot more friendly on calling it as it is.

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    M,

    I know Mike has seriously looked into it, and how it may be possible to make it work. But even with the options considered to make it work, because of the nature of the internet these days and competition and personal feuds etc, there is nothing to really stop someone who either has a personal grudge, just doesn't like the competition etc, to start posting negative info or get others to post info that isn't true. There is no way for the mods to know who is being honest and who isn't, and it wouldn't be feasible to just let the members they know are honest to post negative info.

    Members can still post and say, "Hey, this outfit really screwed me over...pm me for more info." Or they can go to other sites and post that info too if they feel strongly about getting the word out.

    I don't really have a problem with not allowing negative comments on businesses. There are just too many pot-stirrers on the internet, too many these days who want to fan flames and nothing more, and it's impossible to weed out the honest ones from the dishonest. Just my opinion, and you know what they say, we all got one <grin>.
    Cheers,

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default part B

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post
    Members can still post and say, "Hey, this outfit really screwed me over...pm me for more info." Or they can go to other sites and post that info too if they feel strongly about getting the word out.
    And then you run afoul of no personal/negative comments are allowed even in PMs. So no, that doesn't work either bushrat.

  12. #12
    Member AK Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Central
    Posts
    2,541

    Default

    I don't think a change is needed.

    I do understand the need to convey information that could impact a person's trip. There are ways to go about that. However, some of those means are not possible for new members due to the PM post count requirement.

    The issue at hand for Mike is libel. Even though he is not the one writing the libel, he owns the medium on which it was writen and allowed it to occur, which makes it easy for the libeled party to drag him into court. In most libel cases the author and the medium in which the libel occured get sued. He will easily win in court, but he has to go through that expensive civil process. Enough cost could be incurred that he would have to start charging for access to this forum.

    As it is there already are enough negative thinkers on here, and with little effort this place can turn into The Duck Hunters Refuge forums - also known as an internet septic tank which rarely gets pumped out.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default is there a conflict though?

    Quote Originally Posted by AK Ray View Post
    I don't think a change is needed.
    But is there presently a conflict in those rules? Don't they say both:

    1) If you have a negative experience don't name names and they can PM you to find out the details.

    2) No negative personal info allowed in PMs.

    Is it true that both of these are in the rules? Do they not contradict each other?

    Or more likely, I'm reading/interpreting them wrong, and I'll be happy to get set straight on this by anyone without issue or problem.

    So long as we don't get to the level of what is "is", we should be ok, shouldn't we?

  14. #14
    Moderator AKmud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    3,185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    But is there presently a conflict in those rules? Don't they say both:

    1) If you have a negative experience don't name names and they can PM you to find out the details.

    2) No negative personal info allowed in PMs.

    Is it true that both of these are in the rules? Do they not contradict each other?

    Or more likely, I'm reading/interpreting them wrong, and I'll be happy to get set straight on this by anyone without issue or problem.

    So long as we don't get to the level of what is "is", we should be ok, shouldn't we?

    "Negative personal info" is different than relaying a bad experience with a business. One deals at the individual level (not allowed), the other at a commercial level (allowed via PM).
    AKmud
    http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j96/AKmud/213700RMK1-1.jpg


    The porcupine is a peacful animal yet God still thought it necessary to give him quills....

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default Got it, gracias

    Quote Originally Posted by AKmud View Post
    "Negative personal info" is different than relaying a bad experience with a business. One deals at the individual level (not allowed), the other at a commercial level (allowed via PM).
    Got it, thanks. That is clear.

  16. #16
    Member alaska4ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Remote Skwentna
    Posts
    780

    Default

    I assume, you read and agreed to the rules when you signed up for this site.
    JOHN

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaska4ever View Post
    I assume, you read and agreed to the rules when you signed up for this site.
    I did not read anything when I signed up that said that I would refrain from politely and respectfully suggest changes to the site. The way I read Mainer's posts he is respectfully asking this site to consider making a change that he believes will improve this site.

    Even if you disagree with his suggestion, please consider congratulating his goal (to better this site) and his method (polite, respectful).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •