Deleted Posts

[Jack Olsen]

Must've been Wayne.

I don't know much about law, but it seems a stretch to think that questing some guy's taste in headliners would expose the board to legal attack.

Then again, I didn't read the whole thread.

[jester911]

I agree with most of what you guys say about not censoring or whatever, but what you have to remember is the guy that owned the car is a member here and he asked that the thread be deleted.
History shows that when a member is involved in a thread and he asked it to be canned that Wayne usually obliges.
I think that is fair if you take that into consideration.

[Superman]

Interesting. That sheds a whole new light on it.

Grassy knoll, huh?

[old_skul]

I think the difference is that he didn't start the thread. There's a certain amount of editorial control I think a thread starter earns; if he or she wants to kill of a thread that's one thing.

But if you make fun of someone's pet food store, they might sue you. It's been known to happen. This is a pretty good reason to fear litigation, even if that litigation is obviously frivolous. Win or lose, litigation costs money.

[reed930]

I guess I didn't fully appreciate people's fear over being sued. I guess I understand this line of thinking as an individual, but for a business? I mean, I think one of those exploding smilies gave my daughter nightmares last night. Please remove them from this site . . . or else. And while you're at it, you better remove the Porsche and BMW message icons unless, of course, you have permission from the manufacturers to use them.

I know this is a minor issue. I'm just surprised how fearful people are of lawsuits, frivolous or not.

[GoodMojo]

Originally posted by Superman
I am mindful of legal issues, but Wayne knows my position on censorship here. For three years I have advocated a mostly 'hands off' approach on the part of moderators. I think the 'magic' of this board depends on this freedom. I think these decisions should be made by peers (in this case, Pelicanheads), and I notice that we are excellent at it. Troublemakers are chased out of this place quickly and firmly by the group. It's beautiful, sociologically speaking.

But there's another reason. In my professional world, consistency is often a very difficult goal to achieve, but necessary from a legal perspective. If I censor nothing, and someone accuses me of improperly refusing to censor, my response is "Your Honor, these are simply the opinions of Pelicanheads, in a community discussion that happens to be accessible to the public....like a discussion in a supermarket only on a broader scale. I do not edit the conversation, nor do I manipulate or coerce it." But if I am responding to that same criticism and it can be shown that I do in fact manipulate or censor the discussion, then I have to justify why I chose to NOT censor one discussion while deciding affirmatively to censor another. It's of of those slippery slopes. Just don't get on these kinds of slippery slopes, I say.

But, this is not Jim's sandbox. It is Wayne's sandbox.

I seem to recall a ruling from a few years ago regarding the now largely defunct Prodigy Online Services (initials not withstanding) where a member sued for this exact reason. Prodigy lost their case because they chose to moderate their boards. A little digging on the net turned this up:

http://www.itc.virginia.edu/virginia.edu/spring98/policy/all.html

Remarkably, this issue did not come up again until 1995, when a New York state court addressed it in the now infamous case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy3. Prodigy had maintained a bulletin board called Money Talk, which was moderated by a board leader, whom Prodigy had contracted with to promote the service and control Money Talk. An unidentified user had logged onto Money Talk and made some unflattering allegations about a small investment-banking firm, Stratton Oakmont. The user called Stratton "a cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired" and claimed Stratton's president was a "soon to be proven criminal." Since the user was anonymous, Stratton had to sue Prodigy because no other defendant existed.

[arcsine]

Legal responsibilty discussions aside, what I cannot get my mind around is the concept that the builder of this car is sensitive about how it turned out. The builder would seem to want to attract attention to the car by their choices of body additions, wheels and interiors color schemes not to mention the addition of tweeters that will make ones ears bleed. This car has been designed (and I use that term loosley) to generate a response from those who view it and I do not think I am being too conservative by saying that it is certainly out on some edge.

I guess ultimately my problem is not that the thread was deleted. I understand Waynes responsibilty on this, but how can the builder justify asking the thread be deleted?

[juan ruiz]

Well I feelllll muchhh better, I too been wondering about this MODERATORS SYSTEM, Firts I was under the impression that may spelling had some to do with it but I guess not,
Is real Funny how some subjects stay in FOR DAYS when in reality they have very little meaning,but then again thats why we have a Boss good or bad he makes the calls.

[expat]

How come this isn't OT?Any sailors onboard?

I'm an avid sailor too, but if the moderators are going to delete threads, consistency should be maintained. I still don't get the removal of the 'Bombing in Bali' thread to OT while something like who's a sailor remains

(Sorry if the link above doesn't work - its about those of us who are sailors)

[bell]

Originally posted by expathk
its about those of us who are sailors

you know who else is a sailor..........





















sorry....couldn't resist
this is a great hread

[RoninLB]

for the 911 sailors..a pic of the German Navy passing close to guided missile destroyer USN Winston Churchill awhile ago...flag at half masted, sign says "We Stand By You"

[YTNUKLR]

In the guy's ad he says, "I am selling this car for a freind of a freind." Notice the spelling. ("I before E except after C.") The guy apparently thinks that car is "hella sweet." Well, it would be if he put ArmorAll on the tires and then raced through a winding canyon...of course, I hope he doesn't get hurt, just write the car off.

[Tinton]

I think Gary Carlton got it right here. If someone does something which is expected to bring a response from the general public, be it good or bad, I dont think they have reason to begin legal proceedings.

Unless it is like a collective plot being supported by a moderator on a public board or if they have reason to be offended(such as calling the guy a dumbass) then I can't see any cause for concern. Besides, no name was displayed right?

Legal action should be taken against he/she who modifies a car in such horrible fashion.

Just opinions.

Anthony.

[RatBoy4]

Hey, Hey, Hey. Be careful now, we wouldn't want to offend the circus car owner again and get the thread deleted, now would we?

[Green 912]

Well what a grand mess we have here!

The thread and the persons who posted on it had no ill intent twards the seller or car. Idle chatter on something we felt was a bit over the top. I too was one that posted and was subsecquently deleted. I normally don’t comment on other people’s cars in public, there are many people in the world and we all have our own idea on what is nice or “cool”. It was the add copy that prompted me to comment. The add was written with a certain amount of, shall we say, “Hucksterism” and that, for me at least, opened up both the car and the add to comment.

I am sorry that the thread cost Wayne time and effort and for that I apologize. This is a good forum for all to us and it should be, and for the most part is, treated as such.

To the seller of the “product”. You might stop and think about this add and the fact that the Internet is an open forum and with that openness comes both good and for some, bad. If the car had been offered with somewhat less “fanfare” it might have garnered less comment.
If you put something out there for all to see they will, and some might feel the need to comment, using the same rights as you. All the add copy in the world cannot change that. Get real and Grow up.

[N11Porsche]

Hmmm - someone else has noticed that O.T. post don't always get sent to never-never land. It just depends on who the poster is.........or if one of the moderators likes the post, regardless, if its Porsche related or not..........

[billwagnon]

I think the point of Wayne, our benevolent dictator, was that ALL posts can't be reviewed.

I don't think it should be taken personally.

I like the OT stuff in here because it's the only board I visit.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts
I did receive several emails from the seller. At best, they could be described as cryptic. At worst, they could be described as violent threats.

Ah yes, the seemy underbelly of society rises to the top again. And here we were assuming that lawyers were involved...I forgot about all the psychotics out there that feel violence is required to solve all life's "inequities". It's a sick world we live in...

I guess you guys will have to wait another day or two for the G50 Tech article

Luckily I have a 915

[Superman]

Okay, I learned something. Inconsistency may be unavoidable since moderators cannot evaluate every post. But I'm not sure but what this underscores my point. It sounds like your only hope for consistency is to adopt a general 'hands off' policy except in certain areas (like copyright and trademark infringements).

Yes, I also know that litigation is punishing, even when it is frivolous. I see clearly that there is a quantum difference between someone whose goals include protecting the financial interests of a commercial enterprise. What I would respectfully say here is that there are principles of right and wrong, and then there are erosions of those principles for reasons such as economics. However small the decisions and erosions may be, business people very frequently have to balance those two competing interests (right and wrong versus lucrative and expensive). I'm not criticising Wayne at all. I very much appreciate this site, and I respect Wayne. But there is a reason I am not more comfortable, financially than I am. And I believe the reason is not that I am mentally handicapped, or lazy. When I am considering an issue, I very often don't see the financial implications very well because they are small things standing behind the 'right and wrong' question.

Yes, I am one of those people who win the selected battles but don't achieve overal victory. Another way to state this is that for me, the ends do not justify the means. I am satisfied to win the battles I choose to fight, or even to fight the battles I choose to fight, regardless of whether I win. Failure to me, is fighting the wrong battles. I do that sometimes too, and regret it.

I'd have told Porsche to come and get me, over the issue of whether I can operate the Poorsh domain name. The theory is that courts will allow corporations to bully cybersquatters using this thin 'trademark infringement' excuse. Freddom of expression hangs in the balance. I say let's go ahead and test that theory.

No, I'm probably never going to be rich (though I cannot rule that out either), but I sleep like a baby and the guy in the mirror is a friend.

[reed930]

As someone who sees the seemy underbelly of society on a daily basis (hell, I practically live in it), I appreciate Wayne's concern over this issue. I guess it all comes down to your personal comfort level when dealing with "disturnbed" individuals. I decided long ago to live life my way, not take stupid risks and hope all turns out well. I think Wayne has done the same.

I don't think, however, that either the original post or this thread is "stupid" as Wayne calls it. Sure, there are about a million more important things going on in my life than this, but a discussion about censorship rules on an open forum is hardly a waste of time. Even if it were, most of my non-working life is spent doing irrelevant things. I think that's the point.