RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Are we being edited on this forum????(19 posts)

Are we being edited on this forum????High Gear
Jan 23, 2002 2:25 PM
I responded to two questions, one from fatmat121 and the other was jeebus. One question was were to find a headset and a stem at the same place and the other was on other web sites that have FREE classifieds. Both of my responses were erased! If this is happening, I think it's plain wrong and would like an explanation Greg.
re: Are we being edified on this forum???? ;-) nmDog
Jan 23, 2002 3:13 PM
re: Are we being edified on this forum???? ;-) nmHigh Gear
Jan 23, 2002 4:12 PM
Dog, your beginning to sound like my wife. Ha ha ha.
re: Are we being edited on this forum????Retro
Jan 23, 2002 3:31 PM
I've had a few things disappear, too. I figured it was just ordinary computer malfeasance. Now that you've kick-started the paranoia, though, the only specific things I remember have been, what can I call them? "Sharply worded responses," I guess, on some non-cycling issues. Still the best way to pass a slow day at work, though. Wonder if the conservative fringe has noticed the same thing.
re: Are we being edited on this forum????cyclaholic
Jan 23, 2002 8:21 PM
As a sometime poster in this forum, I can state categorically that, aat no time, have my writings been censored. Just the other day when I called XXXXXXX a XXXXXXXX, no action was taken to stop me. And when I criticized XXXXXXXXX for that stupid post he made about the XXXXXXXXXXX,(we all know that XXXXXXXX makes the best XXXXXX)well no one stepped in to stop me.

Now when we can get XXXXXXXXX to stop writing about XXXXXX and how to XXXXXXX them, then everything will be just fine.

I, for one, have seen no evidence whatsoever that any writings have been censored.

Stay XXXXXXXXX!
Sure they are!!Rusty McNasty
Jan 24, 2002 4:18 AM
I made some snide remarks about Airborne a few months ago, and they dissappeared overnight. If it's something to do with a sponsor (or something gross, like that enema pic), yeah, they edit them. Whaddya expect??
so much for our constitutional rightscyclopathic
Jan 24, 2002 7:10 AM
I'm sure lawsuit is pending right Dog?
What rights?TJeanloz
Jan 24, 2002 7:13 AM
As far as I can tell, this is a privately owned forum and has every right to censor whatever it wants.
Yes, see Terms of UseDog
Jan 24, 2002 7:44 AM
http://www.consumerreview.com/terms.asp

"However, we do reserve the right to delete or edit any reviews or other postings that are not, in our sole discretion, in the spirit of these basic values."
does "basic values" excludecyclopathic
Jan 24, 2002 10:53 AM
references to other sites?
or negative comments on sponsors?

if you read carefully all removed remarks were not violating the "guidelines" spelled out in "terms of use" so removing them would qualify as a "breach of contract".

as the metter of fact removing this very message would be ;-P
I think it means...Dog
Jan 24, 2002 11:10 AM
they can do whatever they want. No one has standing or power to argue about it. As someone said, it's their playground, their toys, their rules, and they are the referee. We get to play solely based upon their judgment and permission, and on their terms. There is nothing we can do, but to gripe a bit and see what happens. We have no rights whatsoever.

Of course, if they got too out of hand, the players might just go to another playground. That's your only remedy.

Doug
it also means..cyclopathic
Jan 24, 2002 11:16 AM
if you are a competitor or of liberty watchdog group you could sue and have site shut down. On technicality of cause :)
Look, I'm not TRYING to be a pedantic, a**hole lawyer, but some-bill
Jan 24, 2002 1:37 PM
times our destiny is our destiny.
The 1st amendment, without which there can be no illegal censorship, limits the actions of the state and the state alone. Other than the state, anyone can limit anyone else's speech (that's a bit broad, but close enough for our purposes) as long as they are not interfering with other rights. I couldn't for example shut someone down who was speaking by hitting him. The problem is not that he was trying to speak; the problem is that I hit him.
So there IS no general right of free speech. When there is a boycott of a television station for broadcasting a view someone else thinks is wrong or whatever, or when a sponsor says don't air that report, or when a network head says kill that story, it is not illegal censorship. I haven't looked up the proper definition of censorship to see whether censorship is even the right word, but the point is that it's not illegal censorship.
I think that people get confused because a private entity can't, for example, discriminate on the basis of race or sex, and people assume that the same applies to speech. Well, it doesn't. In fact, the ability to make discrimination illegal, however broadly accepted, is not entirely uncontroversial as a technical legal matter as to whether the state can compel non-discrimination on the basis of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. But I digress.
And there are no contract rights here. For there to be a contract, there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration, meaning that both sides must promise something to which they otherwise have a right to possess or do (I have title to this $5; I give it to you in exchange for Lance Armstrong's used hanky). Here, RBR.com offers us this space and in return, we offer . . . well, that's the problem; we don't offer anything. We play here because these people donate a playground. Yeah, they like our eyes and our activity, and they sell that to advertisers, but, believe me, it doesn't count. They get to set the rules.
And WE HAVE TO LIKE IT. Right Gregg?
even strongerDog
Jan 24, 2002 2:06 PM
"a private entity can't, for example, discriminate on the basis of race or sex"

Many times they can. I could form the "White Idiot Man Protestant Association of American States" (great acronym, huh?) and keep anyone out I want to (as long as I don't employ a certain number of people). May not be smart, but legal.

In any event, I'm supporting your case, but even more strongly. Yes, people tend to analogize some statutory protections to other situations in which they don't apply.

Doug
look billcyclopathic
Jan 24, 2002 2:54 PM
I never mentioned 1st amendment you did. How it would apply to RBR and can it be applied to RBR would be something left to Supreme court to ague (I think similar litigation brought against AOL failed for reasons you stated above)

On other hand there's no need for any monetary exchange for contract to exist. You’re asked to sign on terms of use when you register and it is as legally binding as fully signed contract. You are offered service (RBR board) in exchanger for obligation to follow Terms of Use (TOU)

If you read TOU you will find that RBR limits its own right of censorship to specific cases defined by guidelines, and yet the examples of censorship given in this thread go well beyond it. This is breach of contract. Using your words they might be setting up the rules but they're legally obligated to follow them.

Btw the contract is two way street. You have obligations as well and RBR can sue you for failing to fulfill them for publishing obscene material, harassing other customers etc.

But enough of legal side. Dog mentioned other aspect of "intrusive" censorship: "if I don’t like it I will leave the board, and that's the thing Gregg need to be concern with". Unless he is a pompous midget with room temperature IQ he would realize that it is to his best interests to keep everyone happy even if it may appear to hurt his pocket.
I agree with you on the practical realities. I also think thatbill
Jan 24, 2002 3:34 PM
your theory about a contract (note to cyclepathic: nor did I say that consideration had to be monetary) is interesting (was that you lurking in the back of Contracts class?). Still, I really don't think that there is an enforceable contract.
Let's approach it from another angle. Assuming that there is a contract, which I still disagree with (requires the intent to form a contract, which is a bit strained, don't you think?), but, for the sake of argument, if RBR breached, what would be your damages? (there is a pithy Latin phrase that goes here in the "answer" column, forgive me Lord, I know not what I do -- Damnum absque injuria? That's it. I think. No, I just looked it up. That's not what I was looking for. Something else. Pithy and Latin.) Basically, the principle is that your damages are so minimal and abstract that the law provides no redress. What is the benefit of your bargain that you have lost? The right to hang out with us scumsuckers? Nah, you'd be bounced out of court. And it wouldn't be because you couldn't get a lawyer or whatever, it would be on the principle that what you are being deprived of (unless you were bounced out of a government-run forum, which is, for the reasons discussed, entirely different) has no value. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. You can't buy it, you can't sell it. The law can't compensate you for it, so, basically, it doesn't exist. And you can't sue for nothing (you can sue for nominal damages under some circumstances, but I don't think that you have that here, either).
rightDog
Jan 24, 2002 5:01 PM
There isn't a contract; not all agreements are contracts; at best, it is a conditional, revocable license. While we agree to certain terms as a condition of being allowed to participate, RBR always retains the right to dictate the terms and to punt you any time they want, or do anything else less drastic, like editing.

Think of this analogy. If I invited you into my house to talk about something, but said "I want the discussion limited to xyz." Clearly, if you start talking about abc, I can ask you to leave. Nonetheless, even if you talk only about xyz, I can still ask you to leave. You are in my house. I make the rules. I'm a dictator/god there.

Bottom line, I think, is this: if you feel you have been wrongfully edited, e-mail Greg and explain why. You'll likely get further with honey than vinegar.

Doug
re: rightcyclopathic
Jan 24, 2002 5:37 PM
yes but if you'd invited me to your house, asked to sign that abc is off limits I can stay as long as I talk about xyz and then threw me out for talking about xyz and I could claim damages you'd be at fault wouldn't you?

I have no problem with Greg and I don't recall ever being "edited". I am merely pointing out that TOU is full of ill-put definitions which may hypothetically cause RBR trouble.

I as you also think that for RBR sake those "edits" should be kept to minimum as they make bad business practice.
I've been censored, sometimes I thought really unfairly, but,bill
Jan 24, 2002 7:45 AM
you know, it ain't my ball or my playground. So, what's fair? I know from experience, too, that Gregg isn't all that keen at getting into a tit for tat about his decisions, the wisdom of which avoidance I certainly must admire. He just doesn't like certain things, and, once it's done, it's done. I also think that he gives a little more leeway to an occasional gaffe by someone he feels is a strong contributor and an asset to the board.
Hey, this is a business. They want to have a cool place where a lot of eyes roam, so that they can sell advertising space to be able to afford to host the forum, and thereby sell more advertising space. This is America, dadgummit. I think it's a pretty good deal, all around. Not perfect, but, what is?