Deleted Posts
 

Yesterday, I posted a message about a truly "unique" car for sale on ebay. The thread was later deleted by the moderators of this site when the owner of the car objected.

To the best of my recollection, neither the original message nor any of the replies contained any false or threatening language. Rather, the posts contained people's sometimes humorous opinions on a car offered for sale. Such opinions are expressed about cars and products every day on this and other forums.

Now I know that private boards like this are referred to as benevolent dictatorships and that no one except perhaps Wayne has a right to post here. But I also know that a board is only as good as those who participate on it. It is truly a symbiotic relationship. Without this board, we enthusiasts would lose an effective and enjoyable outlet to discuss our Porsche-related interests. And without the activity on this board, Pelican Parts would likely not survive as a business, at least not anywhere near its current strength.

Now I am new to this board, having just bought my first Porsche in August. But I have been very active on others and feel that deletion of an entire thread simply because it offends one person is a bit heavy handed. My experience is that message boards tend to thrive the most when censored the least. Anarchy--no, a free flow of ideas and opinions--yes.

The deleted thread contained only some humorous comments on a customized Porsche. That those comments offended the owner of the car shouldn't change the principles of an open forum.

I welcome others' opinions. Thanks.

For anyone who is interested or who hasn't seen the car,original ad. Please no comments about the car in the ad--I would prefer not to have this post deleted too.

reed930,

Don't forget it's Wayne's BBS and I guess he's liable for it's content. Perhaps the car owner threatended legal action??

Cheers,

Tim.
____________
1983 SC Targa

Was this the car with the 'speedboat' interior? ;) -- Curt

Please do not consider my 1000 words here to be humorous. :eek:


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads/porche14.jpg

Tim,

Threatened legal action for what? Saying something is ugly? (Not that I'm referring to the car mentioned as ugly. Just a hypothetical). I would hope that the owner/moderators of this board have more backbone.

Well, I'm not sure really, Let's hope the moderator who deleted the post chimes in and let's us know why.

Cheers,

Tim.
____________
1983 SC Targa

Shhhhh! Thats Wayne's car.

UMM...How do you get out?:confused:

Somehow, I missed this one.....
 

Achtung, Moderators.....it's U-G-L-Y!
Can you delete the post *and* the car???

Yeah its Wayne's board so I guess his set of rules apply. It would be really sad to know that someone threatened anything and I'm sure that didn't happen.

I do note some unusal moderations lately however. For instance a thread on helping Sarah with her dogs costume went on for a bit while a thread on looks you get in your Porsche got moved to OT pretty quick. I agree with Victor that there's some anomoly it this situation.

Anyhow, I guess when you take into account the number of times people get to express (pretty freely) their thoughts here, the moderators in 99% of the cases to a great job.

This time I actually read the text in the ad. I don't think the seller can criticise us for making fun of his car or ad. I'd say he asked for it.

Demanding 9000 USD for that car is on the verge of swindle.

The owner of that 'car' acts as if his potentail buyer would be hanging out on this board. Hardly likely.

A buyer of that car will (most likely) not even have Internet access.

It is a shame the post was deleted.

Having been recently accused of censorship (I insisted that an intermediate disclaimer window came up before taking users off our site and onto an external site I considered "viral"), I'm sensitive to some of the issues here. This is in fact Wayne's world, and we are here as his guest. We have no constitutional rights here. I can venture a guess that the seller got wind of the thread and threatened Wayne in some way. One could argue that the posts here were attempting to restrain the seller's free trade, or were libelous. While that all is BS, recall my post awhile back about the online pet store and people that were paying money to keep from entering litigation with the crackpot owner of the business.

Better safe than sorry. Or is it better dead than red? Life was sooo much easier to figure out before the net and during the cold war.

Nostatic,

While it is certainly true that we have no right to post on this forum, I reject the notion that we are all here as Wayne's "guests." Those who post on this forum are the content of this site. Unlike someone who invites us into their home to watch a show, we actually comprise the show; we are both his customers and his product. I believe that Wayne knows this as well as anyone. Just look at what he is now doing to get the BMW board up and running.

I think that both administrators and members must be mutually respectful in order for a forum (and a business) to succeed. In the end, Wayne makes the decisions. But I have seen many people lose interest in once-popular boards when administrators forgot the importance of that relationship.

I wasn't talking about the way things perhaps *should* be, but rather the facts. Yes, it is a community, and without participants it ceases to exist. But the only person here with any real legal exposure is Wayne. As such, it is his call, and I don't think he has to explain himself. It isn't very often that he exerts any control, so I don't have an issue. In a litigious society such as ours, one CYAs first, and worries about decorum second. imho...

"While it is certainly true that we have no right to post on this forum, I reject the notion that we are all here as Wayne's "guests." Those who post on this forum are the content of this site. Unlike someone who invites us into their home to watch a show, we actually comprise the show; we are both his customers and his product."

We may not actually be Wayne's guests but we are not his products either. Wayne doesn't make money on this BBS, he makes it by selling car parts. It's the selling of car parts that supports this BBS in the first place.

Nostatic,

The problem with CYA at all costs is that if you start removing posts simply becuase they offend one person, you end up with a rather boring forum that people will lose interest in pretty quickly. Much of what makes a board interesting and gives it its character is the personality that comes through when people post.

Would you remove the post about the $750 license plate a few threads down? Or how about someone comparing two products and declaring one "better"? My point is, everything we say pisses someone off to some degree.

My P-Car is not perfect but at least my car is all the same color. Check out the passenger side door - it doesn't even come close to matching the rest of the car :D


<IMG SRC="http://www.pelicanparts.com/ultimate/image_uploads/P-Car5.jpg">

Yes, Clay, but it is this BBS that helps him sell car parts. I purchased my first Porsche in August and have already spent over $1,000 with Pelican. And I purchased through Pelican instead of other sources primarily because of this BBS. I think others do the same.

Agreed, but I think I can count on one hand the number of threads removed under potential CYA motives by moderators over the past year or so. Our slope isn't very slippery at this point in time.

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.

You know, I have to ask; does that thing have a 2nd alternator?

reed930, you are right on.

I will give you my opinion on this matter and the car... I know I will get in trouble for this and may subject myself to legal action but I need to be heard....

Here goes

*****COMMENTS DELETED BY MODERATOR******



LOL......

Yeah RJ; I saw what you wrote. Very interesting. Really makes you think.
Whatever you do though,don't go and repeat *that* on the BMW Forums. . . .you know Wayne wants our help over there.

actually I think RJ should be kicked out of the club for what he wrote. My gawd man, what were you thinking? And to involve your wife and pets like that....disgusting!

Island thanks for the comments, I will take your advice...

NOSTATIC: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT YOU AND YOUR ****DELETED BY MODERATOR*****



lmao....

Ya-ya nostatic, but it *is* legal in at least a dozen countries.

you gotta point. Want to buy a video of it?

I still want to know how you get out....

Hmmm, not sure. Does it have the out-takes? . . .or have they been DELETED !?

LMAO @ island and nostatic....

thanks I needed that..

Video clips available at: ***DELETED BY MODERATOR**

the out-takes are there, but there is 18 minutes of silence in the middle. And that comes right after footage of a grassy knoll.

Uh oh...

"grassy knoll" .. .ha, is that what you kids call it, these days.

Nostatic made a comment "But the only person here with any real legal exposure is Wayne"
If I was less lazy, I'd go back and find it, but someone recently posted a link to an article about a suit by Pets Warehouse (or similar name) against not only the host/moderator of a board, but the persons that posted the "offensive", "libelous" material on such board. So any post could be a hook for a law suit. Not that you'd be liable, but bear in mind that legal exposure vis-a-vis liability is one thing, but exposure to legal costs (ie having to secure counsel and go through the hoops of getting the court to say that you're not liable) is another, and it's still expensive. A lot of exonerated defendants are bankrupt.

Although Superman makes a good point, the fact that editing is ad hoc doesn't result in some kind of "automatic" liability. This is true even if the interference appears to be inconsistent, or -- the worst sin known to pop culture -- hypocritical. Wayne can fully explain and justify selective editing/interference/removal (pornography vs. vulgarity vs. politics vs. personal threats etc...) however, by the time he'd have to explain any distinctions, he'd already be being sued, so it's not that different a position to be in (he's *already* laying out the ducats for the defense -- see above), even assuming the explanation is reasonable.

So sterilize content completely or keep it reasonable. I'd incline to reasonability; therefore I'm still curious to hear from the grown-ups why the thread was deleted in the first place.

If in fact the thread had to be pulled due to the fact that some completely craven jackass threatened litigation because he didn't have the stones to come into this forum and debate/respond or even face the people who "insulted" -- or merely disagreed with -- him, then he can kiss my freckled a$$ and slink back to the circus in that car.

The foregoing opinions are solely my own and not to be attributed to any other person, living or dead, whether I bear resemblence to such person or not.

JP

Not exactly correct. Generally, anyone who diseminates a defamitory statement to the public is liable for damages to a persons reputation if the statment is proven to be untrue. The statements are evaluated at different standards depending on the entity/ individual against whom the statement is made. Surely everyone here has heard of the National Enquirer being sued for millions, etc.

Unfortunatly, Wayne would just have the deep pockets and may possibly be held accountable if he knew the statements were untrue and continued to all the post to remain. I agree with Wayne's decision if he has cause for concern. Such statments have the possibility of affecting him business wise, personally and financially.

Disclaimer: The foregoing is not considered legal advise and persons with any concerns should seek a qualified attorney.

Its Waynes Board
 

and we do not have to play if we do not like his rules. There are other boards so we have an option if we need our fix each day. Apparently Wayne must feel this way since we have not heard from him on this.

:D

Uh, anyway....I'm pretty consistent in what I moderate. I have never run across a circumstance that required the removal of a thread. I have banned one obvious flaming off-topic troll who was spouting profanity like a sailor. And I've moved many threads to the offtopic forums.

But if someone asked to have a thread deleted that contained information about their property and made fun of it, out it would go.

While Pelican Parts would probably win a court case in which it were sued for libel or defamation of character in the forums, it would be detrimental to the business, and therefore the community. Ergo, as a "moderator" doing what is best for the community, that thread would be toast. I stand behind whoever killed it. It was the right thing to do, unfortunately. Sometimes censorship takes on the guise of CYA.

I should have researched more on this forum.

...I hope I can get my bid retracted.
:D

but Paul, we the users are "anonymous", and hence more difficult to prosecute (yeah, I know we aren't really, but you get the idea). Wayne is knowingly and willingly providing this forum, and hence facilitates the process. He's the easily identifiable target.

Now back to that grassy knoll...