Why The Jim Berry Clutch Thread Lock?

[2rismo]

(in other words, the statements are incorrect/false/lies)

Bingo!

"They explode" was one of the comments in the thread. This is clearly a general statement and both incorrect and false in nature.

Thanks for the 'advise' though. We're more than aware of what the implications are.

[JJay]

Bingo!

"They explode" was one of the comments in the thread. This is clearly a general statement and both incorrect and false in nature.

Thanks for the 'advise' though. We're more than aware of what the implications are.

Okay, so the statement of "They" was wrongly used, therefore, the word that should of been used was "it" as in "it exploded" however, if more then 1 person was to post that their clutch also exploded, then the word "they" could then be used.

we can get pretty technical about this as they do within the courts but if this has happened on more then 1 occasion, 1 already being reported as the case in the previous thread, then the word is well within its right to be used.

[2rismo]

I'd agree with you under normal circumstances but in this case (and even though after checking, it's "it" and not "they"), the statement was being made in reply to;

"If I were you I would seriously have a chat with Noel (fineline) about those clutches before you think of getting one. Major issues "

"any elaborations?"

"it explodes..."

Clearly the comment is in relation to "those clutches" with the previous making a warning "before you think of getting one". The first poster in this sequence also suggests that "those clutches" have "Major issues". This is not a specific statement as read and instead goes to support the claim that generally, these clutches have major issues.

You can argue this point all day if you like but it wont be with me. Like I said, if you ever fell that any of the staff of SAU have acted improperly, you know what to do.

[JJay]

I'd agree with you under normal circumstances but in this case (and even though after checking, it's "it" and not "they"), the statement was being made in reply to;

"If I were you I would seriously have a chat with Noel (fineline) about those clutches before you think of getting one. Major issues "

"any elaborations?"

"it explodes..."

Clearly the comment is in relation to "those clutches" with the previous making a warning "before you think of getting one". The first poster in this sequence also suggests that "those clutches" have "Major issues". This is not a specific statement as read and instead goes to support the claim that generally, these clutches have major issues.

The statement "have a chat with Noel (fineline)" was said, therefore, it was told to be taken into a private discussion behind closed doors.

Fineline said himself that he is not interested in getting into the finer points of it nor interested in getting into the "bullshit" of it all on a public forum as he has more brains then some on here not to air dirty laundry on a forum. So to excuse such facts as this, kinda dismissed the fact that nothing bad was said apart from someone's own personal experience.

You can argue this point all day if you like but it wont be with me. Like I said, if you ever fell that any of the staff of SAU have acted improperly, you know what to do.

Reporting you to a "moderator" of the forum will do no justice as you hold a Administrative power which overhauls any power a moderator may have to investigate such complains. This forum itself is known for it's Admin/Mod team vs the users on a frequent bases because the admin/mod team have to show that they are working within a team and they have to support what has already been said and done. This has already been shown on many occasions and in the end, when and if a user is in the correct zone, a admin/mod will not appoligise for it's incorrect actions yet, will stand by their own actions.

So I'm not getting involved in that.

The forum has it's reputation already for such things.

It's only up to you guys to fix such a reputation, not the users.

[IanB]

Noels clutch DID explode at the end of the day and I dont think jim berry did anything about it at all...

And if it can happen to one it can happen to another, I think that Noels input is valid. Its not to say its GOING to happen to all of them but it DID happen and therefore he has a right to state this. My clutch is starting to get on a bit in age and I suspect I will be up for a replacement soon, and its worth knowing that a JB Race clutch MIGHT (however statistically small a chance) take my legs off.

Its also interesting that JB didn't do anything about it, in effect he has said he is not at fault and that there was nothing wrong with his clutch. From what I know of Noel he doesn't do things dodgy, so I doubt it was a fault with the install, so one can summarize from this that it is within the normal operations of the clutch for it to explode and take half the engine bay and/or parts of your body with it, and the manufacturer see's no problem or cause for concern or apology with this?

Just my 2c.

[2rismo]

Reporting you to a "moderator" of the forum will do no justice as you hold a Administrative power which overhauls any power a moderator may have to investigate such complains. This forum itself is known for it's Admin/Mod team vs the users on a frequent bases because the admin/mod team have to show that they are working within a team and they have to support what has already been said and done. This has already been shown on many occasions and in the end, when and if a user is in the correct zone, a admin/mod will not appoligise for it's incorrect actions yet, will stand by their own actions.

So I'm not getting involved in that.

The forum has it's reputation already for such things.

It's only up to you guys to fix such a reputation, not the users.

If only you knew.

Assumption is the mother of all phuckups.

[SilverECR33]

big brother.

In a public forum people have the right speak. SAU needs a policy change. realistically they shouldn't be able to be held accountable, unless of course its deemed 'not public' but if this was the case, Make it a 'Public' forum again. And rid your selfs of any Responsibility.

What is a forum? a place for people to share information and experiences, and if people want to share their experiences good or bad so be it.

I mean.. if your not using the business name in the thread. what is the problem... i think its all getting lost in translation.

Edited December 15, 2008 by silverbulletR33

[SilverECR33]

I'm not going to get involved nor say anythin further then this, but just to remind you that the forum can only be sued if the comments are found to be of defamation character towards the business (in other words, the statements are incorrect/false/lies). If such statements are posted on the users behalf that are correct, then the forum stands the grounds of being allowed to have such comments posted legally as it concludes that the comment posted is in fact correct. If a business cant handle the truth being told to other fellow friends/members/enthusiasts, then they shouldn't be in business at all if they cant handle the bad criticism given.

This is Correct.

2rismo, you seem to be an instigator in enflaming the threads. Maybe you should hand the Raine's to someone else. Who is not as Bias as you seem to be.

[2rismo]

In a public forum people have the right speak. SAU needs a policy change.

And we point the constabulary in your direction when our new policy doesn't fall into line with federal law, do we?

[Duncan]

Just so everyone is clear on the rules you agreed to when you joined the forums, I've posted them here for your reference. There is also a link on the top left of each page

------------------------------

The general rules for the use of this site are as follows;

Treat all members with respect and courtesy - We will ban any member(s) who make personal attacks, threats or mistreats any other member in anyway (discretion is up to the moderator at the time of the offence)

No Spamming - This includes useless posts to increase posts, mass PM's and any mass advertising.

Defamatory remarks made towards businesses or individuals will not be tolerated on this website - We understand that if you have had a bad experience with a business you want to warn other people of said experience. Unfortunately, the same publicly expressed opinion could be viewed as libelous and/or constitute an attempt to deter business from any individual or business. Australian law holds the site owner partly responsible for any defamatory remarks posted on said website, and that is unacceptable. Informing people via PM's is tolerated as it is not a public message. With this said, feel free to post any information about a business or individual that you have had good dealings with.

All businesses are to contact SAUTraderAdmin before advertising anything on these forums

-----------------

Point 3 is pretty clear and anyone that is not happy with that rule can:

A/ Discuss it with Christian (PranK) and get him to change it

B/ Comply with the rules

C/ Leave these forums

D/ Receive warnings and eventually a permanent ban.

So...continually posting what can be seen as a negative comment (even if you beleive it is fact) is not allowed. Simple.

As for how each of us chooses to moderate, personally when there are 1 or 2 posts that break a rule I might take the time to moderate each, but once there is a whole thread which is in clear breach I would lock it. From reviewing the other thread I agree with Adrian's choice.

Finally, as Christian has said many times, the Admins and Mods on this forum are not above review, and if you have any issues take it up with him. Make no mistake, incidents are regularly investigated (taking a substantial amount of people's time) and if necessary action is taken against moderators, there have been a number of changes just this week.

Now, because this thread has a lot of discussion about the issue of what/why/how moderation occurs I am leaving it here for now. But if there are further comments breaking the rules above the people involved will receive warnings. If there are repeated incidents I (or another mod/admin) will ban you.

[260DET]

It is possible to comment on equipment failures without endangering anyone but it has to be done the right way. Like eg 'my clutch exploded', 'it was upplied by XYZ', 'they don't consider it is replaceable under warranty'.

Problem is people get emotional (hard not to if someone's feet could have gone with a clutch) and want to go further than merely commenting as above. This is just my opinion as an outside commentator of course but the use of neutral words helps to prrevent comment getting out of hand.

Now, is my full monty clutch dangerous

[Duncan]

yeah of course - and that original thread was left open when those comments were the only things posted. It wasn't until it continued for a significant amount of time that it had to be closed, and only because of the comments people continued to post. I thought FineLine has been very restrained and factual about the whole situation considering the actual and possible damage to car and person.

It is the 3rd parties adding negative comments but no further information/facts that make the thread unacceptable under the rules

[R33GTRKid]

you guys need to get new legal advisors because you have been told a load of rubbish.

Firstly, there is no such thing as libel or slander any longer, the new defamation acts in each state no longer differentiate between the two, they are simply called defamatory publications.

In general terms, "subordinate distributors" will not be found liable if they can show they did not know the publication was defamatory and that this lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on their part. Reasonableness is a relevant factor in determining whether an ISP has been negligent in failing, for example, to monitor material posted on its bulletin boards. Given the large volume of material on bulletin boards and the speed with which such material is posted, ISP's may argue it is an unreasonable burden to monitor all such material.

The issue of what is reasonable in determining negligence becomes more straightforward once an ISP becomes aware of defamatory material posted on its bulletin boards and fails to remove such material within a reasonable time. Once an ISP becomes aware of defamatory material, it is more likely to be held liable if the ISP fails to remove it. This has been translated that a website cannot ordinarily be sued until a business or someone else has asked for the alleged defamatory publication to be removed. Then and only then after failing to remove the alleged defamatory publication within the said time frame can the forum be sued. It is the defence of innocent dissemination.

Secondly there are a plethora of defences available to an alleged defamatory publication, including truth and a reasonable belief in the opinion expressed. The shops/business can always have the right of reply in a public forum which is another defence.

Importantly recent amendments to legislation in Australia ( Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) provide internet content hosts and ISPs with some measure of protection from liability for hosting or carrying defamatory material. This legislation seemingly overrides civil liabilities arising under legislation as well as under rules of common law and equity.

Again the defence is not available if the internet content host or the ISP is aware of the defamatory nature of the content which it hosts or carries. Persons defamed in web pages or on bulletin boards could therefore potentially deprive internet content hosts and ISP's of the benefit of the defence in respect of future publications of the offending web page or bulletin boards by putting them on notice of the fact that they are hosting or carrying material which is defamatory.

I carefully read over all of the comments made (from the point of view of a solicitor who sues on behalf of people said to have been defamed) and there was nothing but truth and/or reasonably grounds for the opinions expressed.

One point of view would be to say that all forums (not just SAU) should stop hiding behind legal falsities or incorrect assumptions about possible liability, as over moderation is a bad thing, it stops the forum from serving its purpose, that is allowing its members to freely discuss and express opinions on issues dear to their hearts.

The policy should be, firstly you need to air your grievance with the shop or business before you make it public and then if you get no joy, you can provide an honest and truthful account of your problem. Afterall the shop can reply if it chooses!

that is my $0.02, take it as you will or whack it with the mod stick, either way is fine

Edited December 16, 2008 by R34kid

[666DAN]

Maybe so, but as Duncan said we agreed to the rules on registering, end of story......

you guys need to get new legal advisors because you have been told a load of rubbish.

Firstly, there is no such thing as libel or slander any longer, the new defamation acts in each state no longer differentiate between the two, they are simply called defamatory publications.

In general terms, "subordinate distributors" will not be found liable if they can show they did not know the publication was defamatory and that this lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on their part. Reasonableness is a relevant factor in determining whether an ISP has been negligent in failing, for example, to monitor material posted on its bulletin boards. Given the large volume of material on bulletin boards and the speed with which such material is posted, ISP's may argue it is an unreasonable burden to monitor all such material.

The issue of what is reasonable in determining negligence becomes more straightforward once an ISP becomes aware of defamatory material posted on its bulletin boards and fails to remove such material within a reasonable time. Once an ISP becomes aware of defamatory material, it is more likely to be held liable if the ISP fails to remove it. This has been translated that a website cannot ordinarily be sued until a business or someone else has asked for the alleged defamatory publication to be removed. Then and only then after failing to remove the alleged defamatory publication within the said time frame can the forum be sued. It is the defence of innocent dissemination.

Secondly there are a plethora of defences available to an alleged defamatory publication, including truth and a reasonable belief in the opinion expressed. The shops/business can always have the right of reply in a public forum which is another defence.

Importantly recent amendments to legislation in Australia ( Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) provide internet content hosts and ISPs with some measure of protection from liability for hosting or carrying defamatory material. This legislation seemingly overrides civil liabilities arising under legislation as well as under rules of common law and equity.

Again the defence is not available if the internet content host or the ISP is aware of the defamatory nature of the content which it hosts or carries. Persons defamed in web pages or on bulletin boards could therefore potentially deprive internet content hosts and ISP's of the benefit of the defence in respect of future publications of the offending web page or bulletin boards by putting them on notice of the fact that they are hosting or carrying material which is defamatory.

I carefully read over all of the comments made (from the point of view of a solicitor who sues on behalf of people said to have been defamed) and there was nothing but truth and/or reasonably grounds for the opinions expressed.

One point of view would be to say that all forums (not just SAU) should stop hiding behind legal falsities or incorrect assumptions about possible liability, as over moderation is a bad thing, it stops the forum from serving its purpose, that is allowing its members to freely discuss and express opinions on issues dear to their hearts.

The policy should be, firstly you need to air your grievance with the shop or business before you make it public and then if you get no joy, you can provide an honest and truthful account of your problem. Afterall the shop can reply if it chooses!

that is my $0.02, take it as you will or whack it with the mod stick, either way is fine

[2rismo]

We can all read the "Defence of innocent dissemination" rules or check out Oznetlaw.net whenever we feel like it. The point of the matter in relation to your post is;

In general terms, "subordinate distributors" will not be found liable if they can show they did not know the publication was defamatory and that this lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on their part.

I felt that it was defamatory so we (SAU) can't really show that we didn't know something was defamatory if we thought it was.

Let's keep going, shall we?

Given the large volume of material on bulletin boards and the speed with which such material is posted, ISP's may argue it is an unreasonable burden to monitor all such material.

ISP's may argue that but I don't think it's unreasonable with the admin/moderator structure we operate.

Again the defence is not available if the internet content host or the ISP is aware of the defamatory nature of the content which it hosts or carries. Persons defamed in web pages or on bulletin boards could therefore potentially deprive internet content hosts and ISP's of the benefit of the defence in respect of future publications of the offending web page or bulletin boards by putting them on notice of the fact that they are hosting or carrying material which is defamatory.

You of all people understand that we (the mod/admin team) are not solicitors and as such, we take the appropriate preventative measures to avoid anyone (business or individual) from being defamed. Sure, some slip through the cracks but that doesn't mean we're happy about it or that it's right. Also, whether certain comments are defamatory or not (by a legal determination), we can and will do whatever we like with users' posts - especially if we think someone is being defamed.

I will point out that while this forum is publicly accessible, access is a privilege and not a right. See the rules for this forum that have already been posted if you need further clarification. In essence, it's not your forum but you've agreed to abide by the rules when you joined so you should do just that. Admin/Moderator discresion is exercised regularly and does not require justification of any type, other than that to other admins/mods when and if asked.

[R33GTRKid]

I do not think it is my forum at all and I enjoy being part of it, I understand it is a privilege and not a right being a mod on another forum with over 6,000 members.

I understand the rules and I abide by them entirely (apart from that one indiscretion when I first joined and chatted in someone's for sale thread (which I thought as a new user I could have been given a friendly PM rather than a warn which I cannot get rid of). I also acknowledge that modification does not require justification to the modded but to other moderators if and when asked and agree with that protocol 100% if moderation is kept in check by other mods. there obviously needs to be an appropriate hierarchy or anarchy will reign.....

my point is that if something happened, and someone told the truth about it, it can never be defamatory but I agree entirely that other third parties chipping in with hearsay etc should be deleted but why should the same apply for the person who first hand experienced the problem/issue and provided an truthful account of the event.

[FineLine]

2rismo put your cock back in your pants, We're tired of you floppin it out. If the task of being a moderator affects you to this degree I suggest you retire from the position and find something less stressful in life.

I have never seen or read so much tripe and bullshit in all my life. If as you state there is a posibility of ltigation against the forum then why do you simply lock the thread instead of deleting it, Or, could it be you simply like seeing your name in print.

Grow up and leave your egos at the door the damn lot of you. This would have to be the most ridiculous abuse of moderation I have ever witnessed on a forum.

No one is suing any one for anything any time. You know it, I know it. Grow up, Cut the crap, Lock the thread. move on.

[2rismo]

my point is that if something happened, and someone told the truth about it, it can never be defamatory but I agree entirely that other third parties chipping in with hearsay etc should be deleted but why should the same apply for the person who first hand experienced the problem/issue and provided an truthful account of the event.

Simon, the problem arises from laziness, poor grammar, internet slang, (call it what you like) not being clear about perspective, time frame, ownership or tense. If people aren't clear in what they're saying, that is, if there is any ambiguity in the nature or basis of their post, and a mod decides action needs be taken, then it will and it should happen.

[2rismo]

2rismo put your cock back in your pants, We're tired of you floppin it out. If the task of being a moderator affects you to this degree I suggest you retire from the position and find something less stressful in life.

I have never seen or read so much tripe and bullshit in all my life. If as you state there is a posibility of ltigation against the forum then why do you simply lock the thread instead of deleting it, Or, could it be you simply like seeing your name in print.

Grow up and leave your egos at the door the damn lot of you. This would have to be the most ridiculous abuse of moderation I have ever witnessed on a forum.

No one is suing any one for anything any time. You know it, I know it. Grow up, Cut the crap, Lock the thread. move on.

Case in point; If you were a moderator of this forum, what would your actions be in relation to the quoted text above?

[FineLine]

Case in point; If you were a moderator of this forum, what would your actions be in relation to the quoted text above?

I would like in a mirror.