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.