Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
baMarek

Hypocritical Rules on StereoNET

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, baMarek said:

Wrong. He would only be liable if he ignored defamatory entries which have been reported. 

 

Why do you say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

None, but defamation need to include a test of injury.    'Some guy' will have a much harder time demonstrating damages, than a company who is in the stereo-selling business.

 

It's irrelevant when it comes to rules. Defamation doesn't specify the extent of the injury.

And if you want to look at companies then please explain how one comment is more defamatory than the other:

1. Product XYZ of company ABC is rubbish

2. Selling practices of dealer ZWX are rubbish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

Potentially? .... The first test is whether it is true or not.

 

sure, but it's allowed to be published. Who has verified that it's true?

 

I guess my point is that there is an entire section of SNA specifically set aside to provide feedback that could sometimes be defamatory. Indeed this feedback is encouraged. So clearly there is no issue with this stuff being published.

 

 

Edited by Sir Sanders Zingmore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ugly said:

Marc's house, Marc's rules. Deal with it.

 

Absolutely 100% - simple as that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


34 minutes ago, Torque said:

Sorry @Marc that was not my intention to move that thread here. As somebody has pointed out - your site, your rules and I respect that. I do understand all the problems you might get into - fine. However writing that you don't know them. Well,  http://www.stereo.net.au/articles/expert-advice-and-service-with-melbournes-sound-reference   Is this your name under that text?

Yes, indeed interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on, didnt he say there was no commercial agreement - not that he didnt know the seller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marc said:

@Torque - you're continuing the topic and matter in here now.  If you have a problem you would like to discuss you can take it up with me privately.

For the record, I haven't chosen a side, nor do I wish to. I don't know you, and I don't know them. I don't know the facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sir Sanders Zingmore said:

 

sure, but it's allowed to be published. Who has verified that it's true?

 

I guess my point is that there is an entire section of SNA specifically set aside to provide feedback that could sometimes be defamatory. Indeed this feedback is encouraged. So clearly there is no issue with this stuff being published.

 

 

 

That's a good point. Does it mean any negative feedback to members who happen to have any commercial dealings in audio industry will be removed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


30 minutes ago, baMarek said:

 

It's irrelevant when it comes to rules. Defamation doesn't specify the extent of the injury.

And if you want to look at companies then please explain how one comment is more defamatory than the other:

1. Product XYZ of company ABC is rubbish

2. Selling practices of dealer ZWX are rubbish

One is a personal view and the other is an attack on the dealer that will have 2 or more sides to the accusation.

Everyone can say they do not like something as it is just a preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry @Marc that was not my intention to move that thread here. As somebody has pointed out - your site, your rules and I respect that. I do understand all the problems you might get into - fine. However writing that you don't know them. Well,  http://www.stereo.net.au/articles/expert-advice-and-service-with-melbournes-sound-reference   Is this your name under that text?


Why am I on trial here? I'm doing my very best right now to keep my cool. I've had absolutely enough of this issue and the particular member who seems to be making something that absolutely nothing to do with me, personal.

That article was written from supplied photos and a few paragraphs of information (often known as a press release). It was an act of goodwill to promote our industry and the members and brands within it.

I've never met the retailer in question nor visited them.

This is the last I will say on the matter.

There's also some rules within our website that normally we have a zero tolerance on. It relates to questions moderators actions publicly. I turned a blind eye in this case to allow response. However if the trial and vendetta has now shifted towards me personally, merely for providing a free resource to hifi enthusiasts then I'm not going to hesitate removing the privilege that is membership to stereonet, for those that continue to ignore our very simple rules.

I'm fairly pissed off right now, if it's not obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
That's a good point. Does it mean any negative feedback to members who happen to have any commercial dealings in audio industry will be removed? 


It's clear to me you're just looking for an argument. If you're not hear for the HiFi, I'd suggest you go elsewhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hang on, didnt he say there was no commercial agreement - not that he didnt know the seller?


Neither.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Marc, join the "pizza making and power cord" discussuon. Much more relaxing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You better remove this thread @Marc. I asked my question in a specific place and it was made a separate thread against my will. Now it attracts attention of people who may not be interested in the subject which only rubs salt in a wound. We may never agree on the core issue but it seems that you got upset, another audio fan has messed up Xmas and the seller is the only one laughing at us while reading this bashing. Please remove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:popcorn::popcorn:

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another no-win situation, @Marc :(

You moderate, according to the rules that all members agree to, you lose.

You let potential libellous threads continue, you lose.

 

The point is, SNA is not the place to come airing grievances against a business whom SNA has no commercial affiliation with (no, a generic press release does not constitute a commercial affiliation).

Especially when an OP uses possibly misrepresentative language and information. The speakers were purchased ex-demo (second-hand). Some wear is to be expected. The OP was provided photos. The OP decided to proceed with the purchase. The speakers arrive not functioning 100%, perhaps damaged in transit, perhaps during installation, perhaps something else. The seller has offered a legitimate option for the buyer to have the speakers inspected, repaired and possibly covered under a warranty of some description.

The seller has done nothing wrong here, the buyer has come on a public forum to rant and shame a business who have tried to provide a way to resolve the issue brought to their attention.

The language used in the initial exchange is possibly true, possibly not. That's not for us to judge, perhaps the buyer should try speaking again with the seller and bring that up, that's a private matter in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...