brendan's issue with moderating

[teecee]

It is also concerning that you are quick to condemn those who offer resistance to the usage of prohibited and possibly harmful substances, yet when there is a defence of prohibited substances you turn a blind eye. I point to this thread where HRNZ and Mightymo have said Boldenone is naturally occuring with no basis to back those words up. (HRNZ and mighty I could well be correct in what they say, I only bring it up to point out no science was linked to support it, which is Teecees gripe) http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...denone&p=30309




Thanks Harvey. Just to be clear my issue wasn't with your post, but rather how it was moderated in comparison to other posts. I am grateful for the link though and echo thoughts re not wanting to discuss boldenone. I just want a balanced judgement and fair go for what people have to say.

[teecee]

Brendan it has taken me a while to get my head around why you have concerns with how this was moderated. Specifically with respect to providing Scientific proof or for that matter any supporting evidence. I hope I can clear it up in relation to this post anyway.


Firstly......
Harvey has presented an article copied from the website of the NZ Harness Racing trainers and drivers association. The article expresses the personal views of a third party writer..(NZHRTD secretary). Harvey has simply presented the article seeking comment with providing an opinion either way. He is not barracking for one position nor the other. He doesn't need to provide evidence to back up someone else's views. They are not expressed as his. The article is posted for discussion.


Secondly......
The article produced by Harvey was written by somebody else not related to this forum. He did not produce the article primarily or otherwise for this forum, rather for members of his own organisation. He is not therefore expected to provide any supporting evidence to back up his views on that forum (NZHRTDA). This is akin to a member copying an article from a newspaper to the forum. The copied article would be supporting evidence of the poster's opinion. (as in required by the forum's rules). The author of the original article nor the poster doesn't need to produce backup evidence of their backup evidence.

[teecee]

The above is a response to the concerned expressed by Aussiebrenno with regard to how a post was moderator relative to others.

[aussiebreno]

From the cobalt thread.

It seems that this thread is full from start to end with numerous "inaccuracies" even despite the official releases on the subject by governing bodies.
Cobalt Chloride exists in several feed preparations. It is also to occur naturally as a trace element. Hence those governing bodies with real concerns and given some thought to the initial concerns and pending further substantive studies have placed a threshold level on its presence in test samples.
The presence of cobalt chloride in a test sample is not a positive swab.


As HRNSW have been at pains to state their has been no "Positive" detections by them. They have actively refuted the claims of others of 6 positive tests within their jurisdiction.
They are the only body currently testing for excesses in Cobalt Chloride.


The claims being made by others in the media and on this forum are not, therefore substantiated.
This thread remains open in the interim pending some substantiation of the claims made. If that is not possible then move on.

Why the need for this then. Harveys didn't need substantiation, yet articles posted by Barney, trish & Danno did?

[aussiebreno]

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.

[teecee]

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.

[aussiebreno]

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.

[admin]

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.

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?

[aussiebreno]

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.

[admin]

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

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.