Andrew Larsen [TAKE DOWN REQUEST]

[nzbrewer]

This morning I received a phone call from Andrew Larsen requesting the take down of the thread under this name.

I generally am reluctant to get involved in moderating forums as it stops people participating due to fear of post deletion.

The thread was a question asking if any one had had any dealings with Andrew. The first reply was positive from Croucher Brewing Company. The second was negative from an anonymous person. I could see why Andrew thought it was not in his best interests to have it posted on the internet.

I may have been more reluctant if the anonymous person had put there name and contact details to be able to stand up and answer to what they had posted.

Andrew tells me he has gone to the police this morning and going to his solicitor. (really?)

The post has now been moderated, and I am posting this message to ask people to use the forums more responsibly and if you are going to be anonymous and make defamatory comments then your user account will be banned from the forum.

What do you think?

Is this unfair?

Should the forum be left totally unmoderated?

[Barry]

Publishing law in New Zealand with regards to the internet, in effect requires the forum to be moderated. New Zealand is relatively unique in its stance that the site owner (deemed the publisher) is responsible for any content - yes even that posted by other parties anonymously or otherwise. If you don't moderate, you leave yourself open to libel suit. It's pretty simple, and the reason we find it difficult to sell clients on soliciting comments online - they really must moderate and it's a huge undertaking.
Moderate it's ass Luke, and may I respectfully suggest that you set it up so users must a) be an account holder and b) logged in before starting a thread. When I saw the initial thread I was flabbergasted that you could do so anonymously!

[Steve Baker]

Since moderating seems inevitable maybe Luke should publish some guidelines of what he doesn't intend to moderate. The purpose of these guidelines would be to reduce the number of moderation requests he is getting. Then he could respond to many moderation requests with a simple url ;)

If someone has a bad beer or a bad customer experience with a company they should be able to describe that experience here (as long as it falls short of defamation). And people who object to these posts should be encouraged to post replies.

[nzbrewer]

This is only the second time I have had to moderate this forum.

I would prefer that if someone has a problem or doesn't agree with something then they get on the forum and give the other side of the story.

[Steve Baker]

As a matter of interest, how many rejected moderation requests have you had?

[nzbrewer]

it's 2 for 2

generally people just get on with it. if someone isn't happy with 1/5 for appearance they usually speak up.

[nzbrewer]

actually that isn't true, I get brewers bitching offline about stuff that is said on the forum.

I tell them if they have something to say, get amongst it.

[Stu McKinlay]

Here here. good on ya Luke. We're all beer lovers in the end, we just want all beer to be its best.

Chris O'Leary took the bull by the horns earlier this year - it was good for Emerson's I reckon.

[Kempicus]

Yep i agree with that, best thing he could have done!

[Reviled]

*sigh* Thats actually really sad Luke and I cant believe you even put up with that sort of crap from people...

Everyone should just chill out, and as you say, if they have an opinion, get amongst it and dont just stew over it...

[jt]

I reckon it was a loaded question, priming to stir something up.

Criticism of beer is one thing, once you get personal though it's difficult to know where to draw the line (moderate)

cheers, jt

[Greig McGill]

He (or she I guess) did create an account. It was called "Anon". It's still there. How is that any different from someone calling themselves "Reviled"? Are you really called "Barry"? :)

The law is an ass.

[Kempicus]

my real name is Grunthos the Flatulent