ex-webby

Guys and gals

As crap as this is (and I hate it as much as you do), we cannot publish name and shame, or private details of people on scoobynet.

There have been a number of ebay issues recently where people have quite understandably wanted the scoobynet community to "open a can of whoop ***" on them.

I totally understand where you're coming from and I'd love the world to be a different place, but this has causes us some quite serious potential legal issues in some cases, and creates an inordinate amount of work and cost mopping it all up.

I'm very sorry, but we can't allow this, and I sincerely hope everyone in the community will help to protect us from this situation in future by alerting us to these threads, and of course, by not posting them in the first place.

Thanks for your support

Webby

druddle

10-4 Webby. Loud and clear.......

ex-webby

thank you sir

Kieran_Burns

iTrader: (1)

It was him!!!

Him over there! That one....!




Being Serious:
We need to be reminded that while we can SAY something in jest and have it taken as such, the moment something is put in print (and this IS in print); it becomes evidence.
Therefore anything written in a forum can be used to bring a case against someone, and this is the problem that the Site hosts have.
I was surprised at the whole Hightee thread as that skated very close to the edge and the only redeeming fact was that the information put up was all freely available.

druddle

<Runs for the nearest pub......>

Seriously, apologies for the thread, it was born out of frustration that this thing goes on.

Will

It is crap that we cant name and shame as i have been ripped off on there, took the company to court etc etc and cost me much more in solicitor fees etc etc than what they stole from me. So understand where you are coming from webby

ex-webby

hey guys, its all completely understandable, and I don't blame you.. unfortunately we just can't do it anymore.

Appreciate the comment

thank you!

mart360

COnfused?

How can proggys like watchdog print / publish storys about fraudsters & scammers and get away with it?

frequently the Sn PC brigade jump on posts, quoting lawsuits and libel et al, yet the same comments are seen in the press with no problem whatsoever.

How do you suggest ripped of members get resolution, if at every juncture, the scammer has more "rights" than the victim?


Mart

BOB.T

I think Webby is selling shonky goods on there and just doesn't want to be caught out!

ex-webby

By being paid a huge ammount of money to put on the program, allowing them to pay researchers and legal teams to investigate for themselves the validity of any claims, and then select individually what words and comments they publish.

Do you want us to set up a medical team as well to help all sick members? Maybe a restaurant to help all hungry members?

We can't solve the entire world's problems I'm afraid. But as I hope you'll now understand from my comments above, things are very different on a popular forum such as this compared to a scripted and edited tv show with funds coming out their ears.

mart360

No but supporting the members occasionally would be nice :

come on webby, its not yours anymore, sso you dont need to tow the party line anymore.


erm if i recall you recently sold said company, or did you gave it away for free then?


Mart.

ps
( i see where your comming from, but its threads like hightee that make SN)

Mart

Nate

iTrader: (2)

Well ..... I really think that Ebay has got above its station now, as I have heard that anyone that has registered a domain that has the word 'Ebay' enywhere within it's domain has been told that they are to NOT renew the domain when that time comes, and to also close their websites that contain the same Sa(i)d name.

I will put my hands up to finding most of the info contained in the Hightee thread, but I did carefully select the info that was publically available, and I did not publish names and addresses of her family either

Just asking, but is it the legal side that is causing problems, or is it Ebay directly, because if it is Ebay, they do really seem to be quick off the mark if I have ever done something wrong (i had a listing for an item that came in 2 sizes, and mentioned that the winner was to tell me which size they required at auction end), I got an Email saying I had contravened their T's & C's and that I was getting around the Ebay listing fees as I was offering 2 items on the same listing.

Seems if it is Ebay causing the problems, I feel like ............. No cannot write that on here, I may get done for it

i know exactly where you are coming from Simon, but it is a real shame that every thing is now weighted in the favour of criminals .

ex-webby

mart

I think we'll leave it there!

-

Nate

Nothing from ebay at all. I also agree that its a real shame, as I said in my first post.

The world is a ridiculous place in some ways, but that's life.

Jamo

iTrader: (23)

is this a direct result of the hightee thread?

ex-webby

no. it has nothing to do with the hightee thread.

jods

Could the legal position be negated by prefixing with "This is my personal opinion and not that of scoobynet" before outing some robbin git?

The Rig

iTrader: (13)

Proper cop out

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

TBH this is essentially blocking of free speech and IMHO completely and totally wrong.

Surely this is worth a battle? No harm if the material is true and lets be honest, eBay is a monoploy and should not be doing this.

From OUT-LAW.COM: IT and e-commerce legal advice and support

"The case law which has developed in both the US and the UK has tended to support the proposition that an ISP and/or web host will not be liable for third party content, provided that they do not perform any editorial function."

5t.

Dream Weaver

Isn't something only libellous if its untrue?

Is this only Ebay scammers that we are not allowed to name and shame or is it anyone?

I guess this is another nail in the coffin for eBay, once they lose the negative feedback thing eBay will start to fall down and people will jump ship

ex-webby

Unfortunately not

Check your law guides. There is no such thing as "free speech". It doesn't exist. Its a fanciful idealistic ideal, which is simply not allowed by law. ScoobyNet isn't responsible FOR the law, but is obviously responsible TO the law.

Absolutely. If you would like to stump up the cash and the time to do it (I assume you mean for every free speech issue, not just this one) we'll 100% go for it. I would estimate a starting budget of approx £250K a year, as long as we chop out the really obvious ones straight away. And obviously, only if we don't lose any legal battles. Let me know!

When you've spent 6 months of your working life not earning any money, but fighting a legal case, and spent 50K in costs, it doesn't really matter. Its like being hit by a bus and saying "it doesn't matter, I was on a zebra crossing at the time, so its not my fault".

Just have to exercise common sense. This has nothing to do with ebay specifically, but the concept is the same.

They'll be fine, trust me. The negative feedback system is very carefully regulated, at great expense, as its just such an incredibly valuable part of their system. I wish we had those funds, but by the same token, we don't need that system anywhere near as much... we're not ebay, so I'm not sure why it would be such a massive issue for scoobynet to be the place to chastise fraudulent ebay sellers.

-

The world is the world. The law is the law. We operate within both. Unfortuantely that means we have to play by the rules.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Respectfully i would say that is exactly what is not happening.

For the reasons highlighted (lack of funds and time) SN is allowing its self to be bullied into silence by a bigger boy. The law should be the same for all no matter how much wedge they have but it seems that isn't the case.

5t.

EDIT The Government had a lot of protests about free speech with the religious hatred laws. This is no where near as extreme but i believe Rowan Atkinson has a point and the govt. said the new laws would not hinder freedom of speech - also known as freedom of expression - a basic right under international law Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ex-webby

With genuine respect, in reply.

You've misunderstood.

Once more. This is NOT to do with ebay. It is to do with individuals.

The law IS the same for all.

Look. The offer is there for anyone to pay for, and spend the time on, dealing with this issue. If you are not personally willing to do that, it really isn't fair to ask us to.

The facts remain. ScoobyNet does not want to spend the majority of its year dealing with legals cases, and paying out to people who have been "wronged" in terms of what the law says, especially when we know deep down they really have stitched somebody up.

Instead we'd like to put our efforts into continuing to improve scoobynet for you all.

This is a very minor thing, that takes up a minute fragment of the wants and needs of this community (way less than 100th of a percent). Is it really worth putting 80% of our time and money into it?

ScoobyNet is a great place. It isn't the end of the world that it can't be used for the specific service of slagging off ebay sellers and the like.

mart360

Sorry Simon, I don’t know which law guides you have been reading or counseled against, but Free speech is very much legal “and” part of British law.

Whilst the term free speech is a misnomer, and could in your case be what you are referring to, the correct definition is the “freedom of expression”, which are articles 19 & 10 of the Human rights act, and adopted into law in 1998

The following have been found on the WWW & wikkipedia and refer to the issue in question. I have made bold the relevant points. there is a section which does refer to the act not being absolute, (italicised) however it goes onto say that this is the exception not the norm.



Quote"


The following are extracts from the WWW and from the human rights act
Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human-rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States First Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies, it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.


Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.


Who,s rules Simon? yours? or the new owners

Mart

Shark Man

The rule is simple, whilst this policy remains:

Treat every Ebay user as a potential scammer. The same applies for any internet based private or retail sales medium (e.g Scoobynet classifieds ).

That is to highlight the facts that many users are genuine, but one must practice measures to ensure that thay are safe from scammers...

It is the users own responsibility and best interests to ensure this; not Ebay's, Paypal's, your Bank(s) or even the Police - whilst they do claim to offer protection from scammers, this should be considered as a last line of defence, not a first line.

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

The problem webby faces here is obvious: we can argue to we're blue in the face about freedom of speech, sticking up for SN members etc... It's free!!!!

If webby is called to make such arguments in court in defence of a post that appears on SN (that doesn't even represent his own opinion or a grievance he holds with a member over a dodgy transaction), that most certainly is not free!!

Easiest way of dealing with it is just to stop such situations from cropping up in the first place!

Bit of sympathy here guys: webby has to clean up after you've had your fun!! And S'netters can be a messy bunch!

Ns "I'm so gonna be called 'webby's beeatch' for this post" 04

ex-webby

NS04 You creep!!!!

I'm obviously joking!

You've put it well. There are just realities here, and twisting my words, or clever arguments as in some of the above posts won't change them.

The bottom line is this. If someone else wants to put their livelihood on the line for it, they're more than welcome to. If they can also stump up the massive amount of time it takes to deal with it as well, then we will allow all of these things.

If you're not willing to put up, then don't ask me or anyone else to.

The legal system is the legal system, people are people, and as I said before, the world is the world. We can't wave a magic wand and change that, so the decision is simple :

1) Ban the naming and shaming of alleged (unproven) ebay scammers and the like.
2) Be regularly (and probably successfully) sued for helping to organise the harrassment of these individuals.

As with all difficult decisions on ScoobyNet, its about balancing up the risk v reward. This one wasn't that difficult a decision. The reward is tiny (a load of people phone someone, it doesn't solve anything, and it doesn't give the scammed individual any benefits at all apart from some kind of satisfaction), and the risk is huge (potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds a year in settlements - or possibly more).

Decision made. If you really can't understand why this is the case, I think its unlikely any more explanation will get you nearer, so I'm going to lock this now.

-

Thanks for everyone's support in this.

Simon