The demise (or otherwise) of The Polite Discussion Board

[Mike4]

Just starting a thread on this as authorised by Stooz recently. Hopefully this is the right place.

Stooz was all like "There were also several warnings that the discussions were getting out of control", and then it turned legal.

The thing is, I'm wondering if this is a permanent change i.e. political discussion is just too risky for the survival of TLF due to legal liabilities, or if it is a temporary moratorium while something behind the curtain gets resolved.

[Itsallaguess]

The thing is, I'm wondering if this is a permanent change i.e. political discussion is just too risky for the survival of TLF due to legal liabilities, or if it is a temporary moratorium while something behind the curtain gets resolved.

Hand on heart Mike, I sincerely hope it's the first decent step in a long time that this site has taken on returning to the tag-line at the top of the page, and the one I signed up for back in November 2016 -



Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[stooz]

The format of discussions needs to be reviewed I think

[GrahamPlatt]

Glad to find that’s all this is. My first take on the headline was that one of our members had come to grief.

[Lootman]

Just starting a thread on this as authorised by Stooz recently. Hopefully this is the right place.

Stooz was all like "There were also several warnings that the discussions were getting out of control", and then it turned legal.

The thing is, I'm wondering if this is a permanent change i.e. political discussion is just too risky for the survival of TLF due to legal liabilities, or if it is a temporary moratorium while something behind the curtain gets resolved.

I guess I didn't see the thread in question as I do not recall anything getting more out of hand than the usual vigourous banter on PD.

That said I notice that my "number of posts" tally has declined a bit, which I assume can only happen when topics I contribute to are deleted. So maybe I was there and just have a thick skin for verbal abuse.

[Mike4]

I guess I didn't see the thread in question as I do not recall anything getting more out of hand than the usual vigourous banter on PD.

That said I notice that my "number of posts" tally has declined a bit, which I assume can only happen when topics I contribute to are deleted. So maybe I was there and just have a thick skin for verbal abuse.

Nor did I. I guess it all went downhill really quickly ending with lawyers being engaged by someone with no sense of proportion.

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

[XFool]

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

Me too, but no. Not subscribed.

(Could be some people are too thin skinned?)

[Lootman]

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

Me too, but no. Not subscribed.

The one thing I would have thought immunised PD from such issues is that the "opt in" requirement means that topics there cannot be found via search functions, and even most Lemons cannot see them posts. I do not know how many Lemons have signed up for it but I find it hard to believe that it is more than a few dozen.

I do find myself wondering what folks like ursaminortaur and Stemis are doing with all their new-found free time, however. (Not implying in any way they are culprits here).

[staffordian]

Nor did I. I guess it all went downhill really quickly ending with lawyers being engaged by someone with no sense of proportion.

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

I suspect if anyone did, and speaks of it here, the posts might be deleted if there was a contentious issue involved.

[Padders72]

I guess I didn't see the thread in question as I do not recall anything getting more out of hand than the usual vigourous banter on PD.

That said I notice that my "number of posts" tally has declined a bit, which I assume can only happen when topics I contribute to are deleted. So maybe I was there and just have a thick skin for verbal abuse.

Nor did I. I guess it all went downhill really quickly ending with lawyers being engaged by someone with no sense of proportion.

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

If the party who engaged the lawyers was who I assume it was, then he has done so previously for what seems to me like perfectly sensible reasons (and won) so since neither you nor I saw the discussion, for you to suggest a lack of proportion seems rather a stretch and quite a logical jump.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

Me too, but no. Not subscribed.

(Could be some people are too thin skinned?)

One of my many faults is I can be trite. An old wound and I find myself constantly apologising for it. May I with the greatest humility suggest that the term "thin skinned" could in itself be misconstrued as a negative remark about another person? I don't think it's a case of I am right by the way. But just that we are all capable of feeling offended. I will admit I am probably "thin skinned" and struggle at times not to become "defensive". And if I'm tired I become less rational and more irritable. That's just the way I am. It doesn't make me any less deserving of discussing various things though. But if that discussion is more about "control & denial" then it's not a discussion, it's something else. I think those who own and moderate TLF have better things to do with their time than keep the peace on a board where those who are using it aren't prepared to respect the privilege they have been granted.

AiY

[SalvorHardin]

If the party who engaged the lawyers was who I assume it was, then he has done so previously for what seems to me like perfectly sensible reasons (and won) so since neither you nor I saw the discussion, for you to suggest a lack of proportion seems rather a stretch and quite a logical jump.

Indeed. What can seem like "banter" to some people can be outrageous and extremely libellous to others.

I know of one case where a poster said that a Brexit supporter was more evil than a concentration camp guard at Auschwitz for supporting Brexit. Banter to some people. But this Brexit supporter happened to be Jewish...

"Banterer" ends up settling out of court for libel and being fired by its employer for making them a co-defendant in a libel claim. An easy claim for the employer to defend, but the object in adding them to the claim was to screw with the banterer's relationship with their employer.

[MDW1954]

I think those who own and moderate TLF have better things to do with their time than keep the peace on a board where those who are using it aren't prepared to respect the privilege they have been granted.

AiY

Exactly. Stooz doesn't want, or need, this hassle. He's home-schooling and running TLF on a laptop shared with his home-schooled son, while trying to earn a living.

Last summer, I spent far too much time engaged with one particular poster on moderation issues when I really ought to have been supporting my (young adult) children through their first-ever global pandemic. (Hey, mine too, but Dad always knows what to do, right?)

Think before you post please, folks.

MDW1954

[Mike4]

I guess I didn't see the thread in question as I do not recall anything getting more out of hand than the usual vigourous banter on PD.

That said I notice that my "number of posts" tally has declined a bit, which I assume can only happen when topics I contribute to are deleted. So maybe I was there and just have a thick skin for verbal abuse.

Nor did I. I guess it all went downhill really quickly ending with lawyers being engaged by someone with no sense of proportion.

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

If the party who engaged the lawyers was who I assume it was, then he has done so previously for what seems to me like perfectly sensible reasons (and won) so since neither you nor I saw the discussion, for you to suggest a lack of proportion seems rather a stretch and quite a logical jump.

I still find it hard to see any sense of proportion where anonymous posters see fit to to engage real life lawyers to protect their anonymous on-line reputations. But even so, that seems to be what happened.

Regarding the future of PD, there is a strong argument to dump it permanently. I pitched up here having for related reasons abandoned the previous special interest forum I used to post in regularly. There, I'd estimate 50% of the traffic had grown to be political comment (mostly but not all Brexit) rather than the topic of the forum, and most of it bad tempered and poorly (if at all) moderated.

The site owner was reluctant to moderate effectively as he valued the traffic his site was generating. The side effect of this was the bad feeling and warfare generated in the political threads overflowed into and polluted discussion in the on-topic and general social chat threads. This led to the less combative/opinionated members who used to post socially simply stopping posting and drifting away and the site became ever more dominated by the more unpleasant posters. The mood of the whole forum degenerated and stopped being a nice place to be, leading to me leaving too.

I don't see quite the same thing happening here as the modding is strict, but the overall effect is similar, in that allowing general politics to be discussed at all is turning out to be damaging the site.

[Padders72]

Nor did I. I guess it all went downhill really quickly ending with lawyers being engaged by someone with no sense of proportion.

I'm dead curious about what happened, did anyone here see it?

If the party who engaged the lawyers was who I assume it was, then he has done so previously for what seems to me like perfectly sensible reasons (and won) so since neither you nor I saw the discussion, for you to suggest a lack of proportion seems rather a stretch and quite a logical jump.

I still find it hard to see any sense of proportion where anonymous posters see fit to to engage real life lawyers to protect their anonymous on-line reputations. But even so, that seems to be what happened.

Regarding the future of PD, there is a strong argument to dump it permanently. I pitched up here having for related reasons abandoned the previous special interest forum I used to post in regularly. There, I'd estimate 50% of the traffic had grown to be political comment (mostly but not all Brexit) rather than the topic of the forum, and most of it bad tempered and poorly (if at all) moderated.

The site owner was reluctant to moderate effectively as he valued the traffic his site was generating. The side effect of this was the bad feeling and warfare generated in the political threads overflowed into and polluted discussion in the on-topic and general social chat threads. This led to the less combative/opinionated members who used to post socially simply stopping posting and drifting away and the site became ever more dominated by the more unpleasant posters. The mood of the whole forum degenerated and stopped being a nice place to be, leading to me leaving too.

I don't see quite the same thing happening here as the modding is strict, but the overall effect is similar, in that allowing general politics to be discussed at all is turning out to be damaging the site.

(my bold above)
Not all posters and their associated reputations are anonymous though are they? Some members here are are readily identifiable and some have been on the receiving end of actionable slurs before. Were everyone fully anonymous I would agree with you, but that isn't the case on this forum. Perhaps if everyone were identifiable and realised they are responsible for their actions it would lessen some of the keyboard warrior antics.

[johnhemming]

Perhaps if everyone were identifiable and realised they are responsible for their actions it would lessen some of the keyboard warrior antics.

What I think is key is that the managers of the forum can identify posters. Posters can still post under pseudonyms. That then gives legal protection to a forum for defamation claims. There are still GDPR issues and potentially other things like copyright/trademark.

I personally take the view to be identifiable when I post, but I accept that is not for everyone.

I also take the view that when posting it is best to avoid personal attacks on other posters, but sadly that is not for everyone as well.

I have quite a bit of experience with litigation both defamation and GDPR and am happy to offer free advice to the forum managers.

If things kick off legally then that can be a real hassle, but I think if a forum is based in some way in the UK it is best to make sure that people are identifiable where legal action may ensue.

[richfool]

I joined Lemon Fool for discussions on: "Shares, Investment and Personal Finance Discussion Forums" ....
.... as it says on the tin.

At times I found myself drawn into other discussions (on PD), which then became littered with sarcasm, particularly when others were not in agreement, and/or didn't respect a differing viewpoint to their own, so I removed myself from that board.

As I mentioned in another recent thread, as I find less and less material about investment related matters and particularly investment trusts, I am now slowly weaning myself off the forum.

[dspp]

If the party who engaged the lawyers was who I assume it was, then he has done so previously for what seems to me like perfectly sensible reasons (and won) so since neither you nor I saw the discussion, for you to suggest a lack of proportion seems rather a stretch and quite a logical jump.

Indeed. What can seem like "banter" to some people can be outrageous and extremely libellous to others.

I know of one case where a poster said that a Brexit supporter was more evil than a concentration camp guard at Auschwitz for supporting Brexit. Banter to some people. But this Brexit supporter happened to be Jewish...

"Banterer" ends up settling out of court for libel and being fired by its employer for making them a co-defendant in a libel claim. An easy claim for the employer to defend, but the object in adding them to the claim was to screw with the banterer's relationship with their employer.

I don't believe that the case that SalvorHardin is referring to involved TLF.

regards, dspp

[johnhemming]

If people are interested in defamation you can see and example where Withers LLP were threatening me and others, but ended up themselves in breach of the law here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... /37302.htm

[SalvorHardin]

I don't believe that the case that SalvorHardin is referring to involved TLF.

Correct. The case I mentioned had nothing to do with TLF.