Why is the post concerning the Tarantula Outlet locked?

[Vulash]

It was locked right after it was mentioned moderators were deleting posts mentioning who owned this new "outlet". Yet there is nothing about them under vendor reviews. Is this because a purchase is required to post there?

I find this to be very alarming, and others should be alarmed as well.

If this issue can't be discussed in either of those forums, where, on these boards, can it be discussed?

 

[DustyD]

It was locked right after it was mentioned moderators were deleting posts mentioning who owned this new "outlet". Yet there is nothing about them under vendor reviews. Is this because a purchase is required to post there?

I find this to be very alarming, and others should be alarmed as well.

If this issue can't be discussed in either of those forums, where, on these boards, can it be discussed?

I don’t know the reason for sure, but in posts like these there can be unsubstantiated claims ( and I mean people saying things without providing proof).

There are legal and privacy and just common decency issues at play.

It can be a very complex issue and difficult to handle. And you won’t please everyone. I don’t think Arachnoboards handled it well, for example. They allowed an unsubstantiated claim to stand, at least for a while. They may have gotten better, but I stopped going there.

There probably isn’t anything in the reviews section because no one has bought anything from them to review.

No one likes being cheated, misled. It happened to me and appears to be connected to this current situation.

Just the same, things don’t seem to change with human beings. We don’t seem to learn from the past, whether it was the Inquisition, witch hunts, the “Red Scare.” And more recently the devil worship panic in the 80s when role playing games were considered evil and the child molestation and sexual assault scare of the 90s + where children were encouraged to tell on their teachers. Remember repressed memories?

 

[Not Savsonite]

I don’t know the reason for sure, but in posts like these there can be unsubstantiated claims ( and I mean people saying things without providing proof).

There are legal and privacy and just common decency issues at play.

It can be a very complex issue and difficult to handle. And you won’t please everyone. I don’t think Arachnoboards handled it well, for example. They allowed an unsubstantiated claim to stand, at least for a while. They may have gotten better, but I stopped going there.

There probably isn’t anything in the reviews section because no one has bought anything from them to review.

No one likes being cheated, misled. It happened to me and appears to be connected to this current situation.

Just the same, things don’t seem to change with human beings. We don’t seem to learn from the past, whether it was the Inquisition, witch hunts, the “Red Scare.” And more recently the devil worship panic in the 80s when role playing games were considered evil and the child molestation and sexual assault scare of the 90s + where children were encouraged to tell on their teachers. Remember repressed memories?

I think it's more along the lines of, who determines what is unsubstantiated? Unsubstantiated claims can very easily be dispelled, Lord have to be covered up.
When things start getting deleted, is there any reason to think admins would leave bad reviews? No. None reason to think honesty and transparency is going on. Zilch.
I'm willing to bet you negative reviews have been omitted much like any information that was dug up on them. No one will fess up, but now there's doubt that anything can be deleted for no reason other than "because I don't believe it's true". Great for debate.
Honesty had nothing to do with it.
Only thing it did was show who can and can't be trusted.
Was this site literally created out of spite for arachnoboards? I see a lot of "unsubstantiated claims" about arachnoboards that nobody is scrambling to delete?
Consistency is key, honesty helps.

 

[Lentulus]

There probably isn’t anything in the reviews section because no one has bought anything from them to review.

No one likes being cheated, misled. It happened to me and appears to be connected to this current situation.

This company, that isn’t open, already has reviews on AB. All positive, all from new members with no history who opened accounts to post rave reviews about how great they are. But yeah, nothing fishy about them at all.

 

[m0lsx]

Surely the issue is one of legal liability. Which, as I understand it, a discussion forum can be held legally accountable for, due to the fact that it has moderators.
If a poster makes it clear that the opinions are just that, opinions. Or if they simply make factual statements. Then fine. But if reviews get discussed & if that discussion is negative & if fact & opinion gets mixed. Then legally the forum could be held accountable.
As I understand it, it is also possible for companies to apply pressure & say legal action will be used if their company is even mentioned. They have that legal right & ability if they have the money to spend & a bad reputation to avoid.
One radio forum changed the name of a shady radio retailer to a word that sounded childish & silly after being threatened with legal action if they allowed discussion of the company. So every mention of the dealer got automatically changed by the site's programming to that childish & silly word. The company won, sort of.

 

[DustyD]

I think it's more along the lines of, who determines what is unsubstantiated? Unsubstantiated claims can very easily be dispelled, Lord have to be covered up.
When things start getting deleted, is there any reason to think admins would leave bad reviews? No. None reason to think honesty and transparency is going on. Zilch.
I'm willing to bet you negative reviews have been omitted much like any information that was dug up on them. No one will fess up, but now there's doubt that anything can be deleted for no reason other than "because I don't believe it's true". Great for debate.
Honesty had nothing to do with it.
Only thing it did was show who can and can't be trusted.
Was this site literally created out of spite for arachnoboards? I see a lot of "unsubstantiated claims" about arachnoboards that nobody is scrambling to delete?
Consistency is key, honesty helps.

When things start getting deleted, is there any reason to think admins would leave bad reviews? No. None reason to think honesty and transparency is going on. Zilch.

Hmm, I have had several comments deleted on Arachnoboards on this very same outlet company. So according to you, Arachoboards is hiding something.

What I wrote was my experience with two people associated with Eresus, but I was told that was not germane, even though both their names were listed in a posting higher up that was left in place. I disagreed with with their opinion but said it was OK to delete.

Arachnoboards also deleted an unsubstantiated claim. At least one.

(For some reason I could not add another statement of yours but here goes.)

You said:
“Unsubstantiated claims can very easily be dispelled.”

My response : If it is so easy to dispel, then why put them in there in the first place?

Just use facts. Read “All the President’s Men” by Woodward and Bernstein. It’s about Watergate and two reporters’ attempts to uncover it. At least several times they wanted to print information only to have the higher ups require more confirmation.

You missed or ignored one of my main concerns in all this and that is that it can be very hard to dismiss claims.

Look at all the people falsely accused during the real witch hunts, pedophile scare, the Red Scare. Inquisition. What about the terrible situations that black people faced and continue to face? Women continue to be downgraded and treated differently, all on false assumptions in an outdated view.

 

[Not Savsonite]

Hmm, I have had several comments deleted on Arachnoboards on this very same outlet company. So according to you, Arachoboards is hiding something.

What I wrote was my experience with two people associated with Eresus, but I was told that was not germane, even though both their names were listed in a posting higher up that was left in place. I disagreed with with their opinion but said it was OK to delete.

Arachnoboards also deleted an unsubstantiated claim. At least one.

(For some reason I could not add another statement of yours but here goes.)

You said:
“Unsubstantiated claims can very easily be dispelled.”

My response : If it is so easy to dispel, then why put them in there in the first place?

Just use facts. Read “All the President’s Men” by Woodward and Bernstein. It’s about Watergate and two reporters’ attempts to uncover it. At least several times they wanted to print information only to have the higher ups require more confirmation.

You missed or ignored one of my main concerns in all this and that is that it can be very hard to dismiss claims.

Look at all the people falsely accused during the real witch hunts, pedophile scare, the Red Scare. Inquisition. What about the terrible situations that black people faced and continue to face? Women continue to be downgraded and treated differently, all on false assumptions in an outdated view.

"My response : If it is so easy to dispel, then why put them in there in the first place?"
That is literally exactly my point, who determines them to be "unsubstantiated"? Your definition and the definition are clearly different things. If it is actually "unsubstantiated" facts can very easily dispute the claim. See my point?
To my knowledge none of the so called "unsubstantiated claims" were ever cleared up, just removed by whoever determined they were false claims.
It's LIES (not Lords) that have to be covered up.
I'm not on arachnoboards for much the same reason I'm not on here that much, there's a higher power with their own agenda, you can't question it, you can't mention it. I'm not gonna go create my own forum and talk down on arachnoboards, especially when I'm their clone.
If you want to moderate, moderate language, don't moderate findings then sit back silently why you did so.
Show your work like it's 4th grade.

 

[Not Savsonite]

Surely the issue is one of legal liability. Which, as I understand it, a discussion forum can be held legally accountable for, due to the fact that it has moderators.
If a poster makes it clear that the opinions are just that, opinions. Or if they simply make factual statements. Then fine. But if reviews get discussed & if that discussion is negative & if fact & opinion gets mixed. Then legally the forum could be held accountable.
As I understand it, it is also possible for companies to apply pressure & say legal action will be used if their company is even mentioned. They have that legal right & ability if they have the money to spend & a bad reputation to avoid.
One radio forum changed the name of a shady radio retailer to a word that sounded childish & silly after being threatened with legal action if they allowed discussion of the company. So every mention of the dealer got automatically changed by the site's programming to that childish & silly word. The company won, sort of.

Critics for newspapers would be swimming in lawsuits. Their editor "moderator" would be held accountable?
You can sue someone on a threat before you can sue them for a review.
Them threatening to take legal action, no legal foot to stand on. That would be my retort.

 

[Not Savsonite]

It was locked right after it was mentioned moderators were deleting posts mentioning who owned this new "outlet". Yet there is nothing about them under vendor reviews. Is this because a purchase is required to post there?

I find this to be very alarming, and others should be alarmed as well.

If this issue can't be discussed in either of those forums, where, on these boards, can it be discussed?

The good news is that it's out there that is a front.
The bad news, this forums reputation is tarnished beyond repair for those that were here for the whole thing going down.
For anyone in the future however, they'll fall prey thanks to the protection of the moderators on this site.
Should be ashamed, but that would require a conscience.

 

[Vulash]

I'm not sure why we're discussing how another forum is handling this situation. I'm certainly not going to champion them, but their application of their rules in this regard were applied fairly and consistently.

The ones here appear to have been applied on technicalities to protect a favored member. A member I've had positive dealings with here in the past that has now gone silent on the matter other than to leave laughing emojis on posts. I certainly won't be supporting either (the person or these forums) moving forward.

From what I can see, all facts that were stated were supported with documentation. This is more than baseless opinion thrown out there with nothing behind it.

 

[DustyD]

I'm not sure why we're discussing how another forum is handling this situation. I'm certainly not going to champion them, but their application of their rules in this regard were applied fairly and consistently.

The ones here appear to have been applied on technicalities to protect a favored member. A member I've had positive dealings with here in the past that has now gone silent on the matter other than to leave laughing emojis on posts. I certainly won't be supporting either (the person or these forums) moving forward.

From what I can see, all facts that were stated were supported with documentation. This is more than baseless opinion thrown out there with nothing behind it.

If they were done fairly on Arachnoboards, then why did they agree to delete an obvious unsubstantiated comment that they had approved of?

Where are the facts backing your claim that Tarantula Forums is hiding something and protecting a user?

Are you telling me that others, maybe even you, are not commenting about Tarantula Forums on Arachnoboards?

Kindly share the user/posting name you use on Arachnoboards.

 

[Vulash]

This thread was about how it's being handled here. I don't know what your obsession with Arachnoboards is.

I certainly haven't seen posts there about tarantula forums, but I haven't spent much time there lately. Nice accusation I guess, but my name is the same there.

Regardless, how it's being handled here was the topic. I don't care if 800 other forums also handled it wrong. What kind of twisted defense are you going for here?

As for the line about facts, is this a reading comprehension issue? I've stated my opinions.

 

[Not Savsonite]

The easy explanation, they don't have to explain their decisions to people they consider below them.
Pretty mature of you really think about it.

 

[DustyD]

The easy explanation, they don't have to explain their decisions to people they consider below them.
Pretty mature of you really think about it.

Yes Arachnoboards does seem to be holier than thou sometimes, thanks for achnowleging that.

 

[DustyD]

This thread was about how it's being handled here. I don't know what your obsession with Arachnoboards is.

I certainly haven't seen posts there about tarantula forums, but I haven't spent much time there lately. Nice accusation I guess, but my name is the same there.

Regardless, how it's being handled here was the topic. I don't care if 800 other forums also handled it wrong. What kind of twisted defense are you going for here?

As for the line about facts, is this a reading comprehension issue? I've stated my opinions.

Well reading comprehension is important if you want to understanding the issues. That’s the basic concept behind it. And you failed.

 

[Not Savsonite]

Is there an "IQ must be lower than 60" requirement to be an admin here on tarantula forum?
On arachnoboards they have the opposite criteria. I guess that's the difference in run by children, and run by adults.
Both end up with power trips, but I'll take adults over kids any day.
To each their own! As long as you're able to feel important, keep on keeping on!

 

[Not Savsonite]

Well reading comprehension is important if you want to understanding the issues. That’s the basic concept behind it. And you failed.

Reminds me of third grade when someone calls you stupid and you can't think of anything to say so you reply "nuh uh you are!"
Ignorance truly is bliss, and I envy you for that.

 

[m0lsx]

Critics for newspapers would be swimming in lawsuits. Their editor "moderator" would be held accountable?
You can sue someone on a threat before you can sue them for a review.
Them threatening to take legal action, no legal foot to stand on. That would be my retort.

The comparison between newspapers & a forum is a poor one.

Newspapers generally have good legal teams behind them to run any questionable topic past & who are paid to advise on the wording etc. Plus newspaper editors, would in general, have a far better knowledge of what is & is not acceptable than the average forum moderator. For example, how often do you see newspapers quote an unspecified friend of the family to give the impression they are making defendable claims?

There is a massive cost difference between what it would cost to sue a forum & a newspaper. Newspapers are in general more than happy to defend themselves & simply run the victim out of money.

Also, newspapers are businesses. Whereas forums like this are run from enthusiasts' back pockets. A media business, even if it loses a big libel case can simply Pheonix. (Fold the old company & pop up under a very similar names & with the same directors.) While an enthusiast facing the potential of tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees & potential damages is in a very different situation to a company.

And don't forget even if you win a legal case against someone who has sued you. It does not mean your defence costs against that claim are going to get paid. So sometimes even winning can leave you with massive debts.

 

[Josh]

I locked the thread bc there's nothing left to say. I'm gonna lock this one and the next one too.
I'm not proud of the way we handled this one but there's nothing left to do. I corrected things where they needed it, and we'll do better next time.
No need to beat a dead horse. Time to move on, folks.