Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: brendan's issue with moderating

  1. #11
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    832
    This clearly has nothing to do with the website owners as you so snidely comment other than the fact that they set the rules of the forum....quote Forum rules..
    You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc. If you are posting something that could be considered controversial you need to include the link to the source in your post.



    I have been through the posts by the persons you mention in regard to their contributions
    let's start with Barney..
    post 1..Claimed six cases of Positive swab. No source mentioned.
    post 17 Claimed to have put irrefutable evidence ON ANOTHER SITE. No source mentioned.
    Post 23 Claimed to have read 2 reports of 6 positives.
    post 25 Claimed a reported sample of 3500 against a threshold of 200 No source mentioned.


    Each of these claims rejected in a press release from HRNSW (no positives) posted later by Trish.


    Now Trish.. Most of her posts are links to articles and where relevant to the issue of Cobalt Chloride testing of horses in Australia; no issue.
    post 18 List of detected samples No Cobalt listed. No comment link only.
    post 22 Press release from HRNSW as above.
    post 32 Press article from USA about rumours and US intent to test.
    post 40 Article from US. No source nor link to the article original.


    Danno
    post 39 Article written by person with BA Eng / Philosophy. (Sciences????)
    post 41 Reprint a previously posted Press story again at odds with HRNSW.
    His other posts are responses to comments by others.


    If all or any of these posts provides any backup evidence let alone scientific then please point to it because I am not the only one here missing it.


    IMO it's just plain mischief to claim a link between Harvey's post and what has been posted on the Cobalt chloride thread in respect to Backup evidence and how moderation has handled these.
    Last edited by teecee; 03-24-2014 at 03:24 PM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by teecee View Post
    This clearly has nothing to do with the website owners as you so snidely comment other than the fact that they set the rules of the forum....quote Forum rules..
    You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc. If you are posting something that could be considered controversial you need to include the link to the source in your post.



    I have been through the posts by the persons you mention in regard to their contributions
    let's start with Barney..
    post 1..Claimed six cases of Positive swab. No source mentioned.
    post 17 Claimed to have put irrefutable evidence ON ANOTHER SITE. No source mentioned.
    Post 23 Claimed to have read 2 reports of 6 positives.
    post 25 Claimed a reported sample of 3500 against a threshold of 200 No source mentioned.


    ach of these claims rejected in a press release from HRNSW (no positives) posted later by Trish.


    Now Trish...
    post 18 List of detected samples No Cobalt listed. No comment link only.
    post 22 Press release from HRNSW as above.
    post 32 Press article from USA about rumours and US intent to test.
    post 40 Article from US. No source nor link to the article original.


    Danno
    post 39 Article written by person with BA Eng / Philosophy. (Sciences????)
    post 41 Reprint a previously posted Press story again at odds with HRNSW.


    If all or any of these posts provides any backup evidence let alone scientific then please point to it because I am not the only one here missing it.
    Teecee says: "He (Harvey) doesn't need to provide evidence to back up someone else's views."
    Yet it seems when Danno and Trish post a link to someone else''s view they need to find backup evidence? I am unsure as to why.

  3. #13
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    832
    Oh what happened to Barney???? Wasn't he part of this too.
    This thread was all about Barney claiming 6 positive tests. A number of posts were posted to claim same. Newspaper articles were posted as evidence to back up claims.
    That is fine...except.... The governing body that was responsible for these claims DENIED all such claims.
    I asked the questions...
    Are there 6 positives to Cobalt chloride or not. Newspaper reports back up the claims as posted by Trish and Danno. NO PROBLEMS.
    HRNSW deny the claims and post a media release to that effect. Posted by TRISH. NO PROBLEMS.
    I posted a comment to the effect that posters are saying one thing about this without any evidence.
    Other posters (Trish) posts denials from the body that should know..i.e. HRNSW. along with others about the effects of Cobalt Chloride.(NO PROBLEMS)
    I asked Can we have some evidence one way or the other. or let it ride.


    The interesting thing here is...
    there has been NO MODERATION ACTION taken against Danno, Trish nor Barney for what they have posted regarding this issue. here are no deleted posts, bans or anything open to the moderators on this issue. That is because nowhere did I say that DANNO, TRISH nor BARNEY specifically needed to back up what they had posted. Nor did I say that any other of the posters to the thread specifically needed to do likewise.


    My post was posted as a member rather than a moderator, something I am told is best not to happen so now I will refrain from posting personal comments during my term as a moderator. If I was to post then to save confusion with the writer's tone and feelings I should write to the readers aspect. Something we could all practise IMO.
    As a wee aside the person offering me that little bit of advise advises that there remains to many comments on the forum where the subject can conceivably be successful in a libel lawsuit. I need to be more vigilant in protecting ALL parties. That is the crux of moderation.
    I still look forward to a resolution to this 6 positive swabs. Do we have 6 as claimed or do we have two as advised by HRNSW We know of two.
    There has likewise been NO MODERATION ACTION taken against Harvey. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest there should be.


    Harvey's post that has Brendan so concerned of a double standard.


    Boldenone
    Harvey quote...
    Last year Boldenone was the subject of much discussion.

    Thought it was interesting to see the following in the NZ trainers association report:

    Third party quote (Not Harvey).. (Secretary NZ Harness Racing Trainers and Drivers Assn) not HRNZ as Brendan alluded.
    "The HRNZ Board is currently grappling with two decisions concerning illegal substances. On the one hand, they are pressing for the banning of all steroids, on the other they are deciding on whether to raise the allowable level of TC02 in horses from the current 35 m/mol to 36m/mol, which is apparently the level accepted by every other racing jurisdiction in the World. While the Association strongly supports the fight against drug use, there is one steroid, Boldenone, which is still very much subject to conjecture (in fact has been clinically proven) to be found in horses through other means than administration. It seems incongruous that the Board is adamant on the steroid issue to bring us into line with the rest of the World, yet (despite recommendations from the RIU and others dating back to 2012) is stalling on following the standard policy on TC02."
    Harvey for his part and the three members listed by Brenno are on a level playing field along with all the other posters to the Cobalt chloride thread.
    But the question of the initial post remains to be answered.


    For now I shall return to moderating. Brenno's original post about my biased moderating needs action...if he hasn't done it already.
    Last edited by teecee; 03-24-2014 at 06:30 PM.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Horse Of The Year Greg Hando will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Greg Hando
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    962
    Thought this might help with the Boldenone thoughts.

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...62922401,d.dGI
    Have whoever you want on but don't ever have yourself on

  5. #15
    Administrator 3YO admin will become famous soon enough admin's Avatar
    Real Name
    Jules Boven
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Occupation
    Marketing Manager
    Posts
    275
    Horses
    Charge Forward
    Hey team,

    This is a complex issue and I don't have the industry knowledge or science to comment on the facts at this point. Right now I don't feel like trawling through 15 articles and an mp3 to gain a cursory understanding.

    I will say that the statement below is entirely baseless. If our rules are strict we are only trying to prevent legitimate legal issues (e.g. if somebody says something they shouldn't have, a la the rules, we get unfriendly worded letters from solicitors). Myself nor anybody at Harnesslink have never instructed moderators to bias content or moderation on this forum in favour of our advertisers/friends or otherwise - and vice versa for any enemies - real or imagined. Nor have I personally ever done so or anybody else at Harnesslink to my knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by aussiebreno View Post
    Deary me I've just had a lightbulb. Harveys comments aren't potentially threatening to the website owners, yet the other opinions and linked articles are. Nothing wrong with that of course.
    I understand some conversation has stifled and a few people are upset. We're between a rock and a hard place on this and from past experience it's easier and safer to moderate strictly - I know that's not the ideal option and it annoys me too.

    One possible solution is to have a private forum within the Aussue section only visible for members with, say, over 300 posts. That way we could be a little more relaxed about things. The basic rules would still apply but we could then err on the side of the ol first amendment. Thoughts?
    Please read the rules before posting.

    Harnesslink Marketing Manager

  6. #16
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post

    I will say that the statement below is entirely baseless. If our rules are strict we are only trying to prevent legitimate legal issues (e.g. if somebody says something they shouldn't have, a la the rules, we get unfriendly worded letters from solicitors). Myself nor anybody at Harnesslink have never instructed moderators to bias content or moderation on this forum in favour of our advertisers/friends or otherwise - and vice versa for any enemies



    ?
    That's what I was getting at, people claiming the six positives etc could potentially mean Harnesslink get a solicitors letter, so by enforcing a strict standard on these potentially threatening posts protects the sites owners. Whereas with something like Harvey said there is zip chance of getting a letter from a solicitor so extra proof wasn't required. I didn't mean to infer it was to protect your image or anything, just protect you from a lawsuit.

  7. #17
    Administrator 3YO admin will become famous soon enough admin's Avatar
    Real Name
    Jules Boven
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Occupation
    Marketing Manager
    Posts
    275
    Horses
    Charge Forward
    Ah sorry breno I misunderstood - fair enough and all true unfortunately.

    The flip-side is that although we get the legal threats the people on the other side of them are usually most concerned with going after the individual that made the comments, and we genuinely don't want what people say here to get them in strife. Think of it like a nanny state

    Quote Originally Posted by aussiebreno View Post
    That's what I was getting at, people claiming the six positives etc could potentially mean Harnesslink get a solicitors letter, so by enforcing a strict standard on these potentially threatening posts protects the sites owners. Whereas with something like Harvey said there is zip chance of getting a letter from a solicitor so extra proof wasn't required. I didn't mean to infer it was to protect your image or anything, just protect you from a lawsuit.
    Edit: Fun fact is that a fair few troublemakers here have not been foiled by moderators but by litigation or threats from people and organisations with deeper pockets then they. They then request documentation from us requested by their lawyers (post archives mostly, - the public facing content have always been deleted by a moderator by that point). I can't help but think it wasn't like we didn't try to warn them, like over and over and over.
    Please read the rules before posting.

    Harnesslink Marketing Manager

  8. #18
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,806
    Quote Originally Posted by admin View Post
    Ah sorry breno I misunderstood - fair enough and all true unfortunately.

    The flip-side is that although we get the legal threats the people on the other side of them are usually most concerned with going after the individual that made the comments, and we genuinely don't want what people say here to get them in strife. Think of it like a nanny state



    Edit: Fun fact is that a fair few troublemakers here have not been foiled by moderators but by litigation or threats from people and organisations with deeper pockets then they. They then request documentation from us requested by their lawyers (post archives mostly, - the public facing content have always been deleted by a moderator by that point). I can't help but think it wasn't like we didn't try to warn them, like over and over and over.
    Yes, you are quite entitled to protect yourselves (and others at the same time). It is just a shame the world we now live in where rverybody must tread carefully.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts