 Poster: A snowHead
|
I just went onto the ski club website to have a look at the messages for today, if any, only to find that the forums all appear to have vanished, there is no link to them from the front page anymore.
My mistake they are nowhidden under the members only section 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
So it would appear - is this simply to save a space on the left hand menu or could it be a further attempt by the SC to display disdain for anything resembling a forum 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
"We know that many of you are very disappointed about the Ski Club's recent decision to remove the Open Chat Forum. The Club would like to thank all of you who have made your views known. The Club has taken these views very seriously, and many valuable points have been made. We were hoping to come back with positive news at the end of last week, however, after very careful consideration of both the benefits and the risks, the Club feels that we are sadly not in a position to be able to reinstate the Open Chat Forum."
Taken from: http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/default.asp
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Sorry WTFH, you've lost me there 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Yes, I composed an e mail to Laura Zachary sometime ago warning that the Club's decision to make it a members only affair would have this effect though when I joined the SCGB I did not quite expect the discussion forums to have been decimated in such a profound way. Frankly, they have got what they deserved for such a ludicrous policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| kevin mcclean wrote: |
| Frankly, they have got what they deserved for such a ludicrous policy. |
Hmm. What they've got is freedom from the resposnsibilty of monitoring the forum, and the bandwidth cost of running it. What we've got is an open forum run in a way that the SCGB would find difficult, but which suits userrs here. Seems to be a lot of winners 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I agree Nick but potentially the open forum discussions were a fantastic platform from which the Ski Club could benefit in a variety of ways, not least the ability to dismantle the stereotypical view of what the organisation is about. It appears to be the case that the technocrats at the club, not the idealists who hold skiing at their heart, won the day and it's simply a shame they took this decision. The open discussion forums were without doubt the greatest tool by which the Club could connect with the general skiing public and create a broader awareness of what it could do for them-surely this is vital? By mainatining the open discussion forums (and yes, cost is a factor) the Club would have continued to send out a clear signal that it was an open, flexible and dynamic organisation with an inclusive mentality. Unfortunately the decision to close the open forums destroyed the earlier good work and sent out the mesage that exclusivity reigned. Given the success of this site, it's a decision they cannot reverse. Another example, I'm afraid, of the unimaginative technocrats ruling the roost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I have no great desire to re-ignite this discussion (see the SC threads and others for full history) but I would point out that the SC forum was funded (and therefore owned) by its members - on their behalf but without consultation Council chose not to bear the responsibility and costs Nick refers to.
This site is owned by 1 person (and yes, I know DG and others have questioned that) who bears the costs and ultimately the responsibility I suppose, although the monitoring task is shared.
As someone who agrees with the sentiment that we are "winners" in having access to this site I would urge all those who feel similarly, and are able to, to support the site via a donation, so that U can keep up the good work. Yes I do have an "interest" here, but it's not financial, I do not have any connection with U other than this site and this is a purely personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Alan Craggs,
As one with many pressures on my purse, I have a problem donating to a site owned by one person. Snowheads is not a registered charity, and admin (quite rightly) gains any financial benefit in the long term.
I am very glad that U has chosen to put up this site, but it is not a mutually-owned benefit. I'd feel differently if it were.
Quite understand - and respect - that others may feel differently, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an outsider to SCGB, I realize I don't have an official "need to know", but I must admit that after hearing bits and pieces about the SCGB forum by numerous but fragmented accts on Snowheads over the past several months, I'm getting more and more curious what prompted their decision.
Was it some sort of bitter flame war (like on rec.skiing.alpine), improper use or bad language on their forums, a dispassionate high-level decision (eg, they simply didn't want to continue bear the costs of supporting the forum), or something else? I've been on quite a few Internet forums and have a general interest in their dynamics, what makes them succeed or fail, etc.
If, for some reason, it's not appropriate to get into the details in public, but you can shed some light on this for me, feel free to send me a private msg or a regular email to physicsman000@yahoo.com. It's all very puzzling when looked at from my perspective.
Thanks in advance,
Tom / PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Physicsman, I think it would be fair to say that it's puzzling from the perspective of many former SC forum users as well, be they Club members or not.
As I understand it the Club closed the open forum after taking legal advice, but since (I believe) that advice has never been published for us to see we are not able to give it due consideration.
Some abuse of the forum did occur, but in the context of internet forums generally I get the impression that it would have been considered to be very minor. Whether abuse was the reason we don't know, but if it was then the remedy was "instant amputation" - the only attempts at "moderation" were few and far between by the sole techie in charge of the site.
Some criticism of the Club itself and its raison d'etre had been voiced, and some have hypothesised that this precipitated the action.
The fact is, we just don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
And therein, Alan, lies the problem-we simply don't know. I've been out of the loop for several months and have just finished looking at the archived petition to reverse the SCGB decision and I have to say, I'm getting worked up by their sheer obstinacy. For people who hold the Club dear to their hearts (ie David Goldsmith, et al) this must have been a very disappointing decision for the Club to make. At the very cusp of making a major breakthrough in the skiing community, the SCGB's board decide to bury their head in the sand under some legalese. How bloody convenient! Now that I'm a member I feel I can articulate my views with a little more authority and I shall be attending the next AGM, whenever it is. If the board of the SCGB really closed the open forums because of criticism of its history, class structure and other allied matters, then it really ought to consider why they are in charge of such an organisation. I have the hump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If i remember correctly just before the time of the forum closing, there was a thread entitled "what does the ski club actually do?" or something along these lines. This generated alot of attention from members and non-members alike, and as you can imagine became quite heated.
Thee seemed to be a high volume of opinions being that, well they actually didn't do much at all apart from the forum and therefore what was the point of joining. As you can imagine this probably got SC's back up quite considerably and a few days later the forums were closed, and the initial message when non-members tried to log on was along the lines of, why should SC provide a forum on which alot of people were actually just negative about the club itself.
As many people have already stated on this site, i think closing the forum to non members was actually the worst thing ski-club could have done, and although they refuse to overturn this decision, probably from a pride point of view i feel that, alot of initial effort by the SC initially setting up the forum in order to atract new people, has been undone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Nick Zotov, I'm not trying too much to make you change your views on donating to a privately owned site, (I've yet to make a donation myself, though more through inertia and not wanting to give Paypal a cut) I'm just filling in the background.
In defence of donations, I don't think Admin will be making a profit out of the site, certainly not one that will repay the hundreds of hours of work he has put in on this. The donations are to cover the costs of hosting the site and paying for the excess bandwidth to the server. In the early days there was a thread about this, you should be able to find it with the search function.
Edit: I did a quick search. try: http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=208 .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| kevin mcclean wrote: |
| ....and I shall be attending the next AGM, whenever it is. |
In that case you might like to read this scgb thread
The AGM will be on 30/11/04.
IMO, you will not be able to change policy as an ordinary member at the AGM, even if the chair allows you to speak. There are 2 ways, I think, of affecting policy: lobby council members (and perhaps senior members of the staff) directly, or get nominated and elected as a member of council (and be prepared to accept the resulting resonsibilities as a company director).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Nick Zotov, of course I respect your position and since its inception snowHeads has made it clear that any donation is voluntary. I have to say though that I do not understand the logic of your position, unless you are scrupulous, for example, in not buying newspapers or any other products/services that are owned by one individual. I have no problem with the concept of paying for something I find of value. Still, chaque chien etc. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Kevin, The story, briefly, seems to be that the Council decided to close the forum to non-members. Some members of Council were then taken aback by the almost unanimous condemnation of that decision by members who actually accessed the forum (Nick came along later). An attempt seems to have been made by some Council members to have the decision reversed and the Club posted to the effect that the Council was to meet and a positive outcome might be expected. However, at that meeting it seems that some members prevailed in demanding that legal advice be obtained at that stage. The legal advice (it is unclear what form this 'advice' took or who provided it) was then interpreted as a justification to maintain the Members Only (MO) decision already taken.
All attempts to coax the real reason out of any one who might know are essentially ignored. However, Nick is absolutely correct to say that the only way to obtain any alteration is via the elections to Council for which nominations are due in August. You would have to ask David Goldsmith what might be happening in that respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Quote: |
but it is not a mutually-owned benefit. I'd feel differently if it were.
|
but it is mutually-beneficial. I'd feel differently if it wasn't 
| Quote: |
| In defence of donations, I don't think Admin will be making a profit out of the site, certainly not one that will repay the hundreds of hours of work he has put in on this. |
Thank you everyone for your support. Many people have been generous in many ways, some financially, some by their effort, but I can assure anyone who might suspect otherwise that I am most definitely not 'raking it in' via snowHeads. I have been focusing on it full-time since Feb but am, in fact, rapidly approaching the point at which I can no longer give it such intensive attention without ending up homeless or worse: not being able to ski next season 
Don't worry, snowHeads' survival is assured, but the spaces between future developments, extensions and improvements may become a little longer unless a more steady 'revenue stream' begins to flow. There are a couple more entries in the shops now and I hope to populate that further soon - so any ideas/offers/connections welcome! Should you require anything these people offer, using them benefits snowHeads and I think it's a better approach to advertising than blasting u with pop ups every time u log in!
| Quote: |
| I've yet to make a donation myself, though more through inertia and not wanting to give Paypal a cut |
If anyone does have an issue around such things, PM me and we can make other arrangements.
Meanwhile, if anyone's looking for a little php/mysql work doing... I do a nice line in discussion forums - I hear scgb could do with a little development in this area
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Alan Craggs wrote: |
Physicsman, I think it would be fair to say that it's puzzling from the perspective of many former SC forum users as well, be they Club members or not.
As I understand it the Club closed the open forum after taking legal advice, but since (I believe) that advice has never been published for us to see we are not able to give it due consideration. |
Warning very lengthy legal blurb follows! It is interesting because it is taken from an Australian legal study that actually quotes the Ski Club email announcing its closure of the public forum. It looks at the implications and possible solutions for administrators of media such as public Internet forums.
| Quote: |
The AG proposes:
The Act would create a defence for 'distributors', or employees or agents of such persons, who show that:
• they did not know that the published matter contained the alleged defamatory material, and
• it was reasonable for them, having regard to the nature of the publication and any facts of which they were aware, not to monitor the contents of the matter.
The defence resembles the defence of 'innocent dissemination' at common law but it would expressly cover new technology and situations where they were not already covered by Commonwealth legislation. This would be done by creating a wide definition of 'distributor'. The defence would not be available to persons who are authors, editors and commercial publishers (the latter being defined to include public broadcasting) and others who determined, or were concerned in the determination of, the content of the matter.
The group proposes:
(a) Broadcasters, Internet Content Hosts and Internet Service Providers should be given clear immunity from liability under defamation and should not be required to check material for defamatory content prior to broadcast or publication.
(b) A statutory innocent dissemination defence should clearly be made available to all of those who play an innocent role in the production process. In a newspaper context, this would include photo editors, printers and others with a technical role.
In a broadcasting context, it would include cameramen, videotape editors, make up artists etc.
(c) A notification regime be introduced where liability arises only in circumstances where a notification is received as to potentially defamatory material and this notification is ignored.
The group proposes the introduction of a defence of innocent dissemination that increase certainty and takes new technology into consideration. While a broadcaster is aware of the jurisdictions a broadcast is received in, it is very
difficult for Internet publishers in comparison to know the extent of a website publication. The Internet, as an international medium for the exchange of information, has enabled global publication. As a result of this, Internet publishers (including individuals who might join a web-forum or write a weblog) are potentially liable under multiple foreign laws and legal systems.
This exposure, along with the issue of publication, has led to the closure of some web forums, an example of which is set out below.
The edited text of the email illustrates the dilemma faced by genuine organisations seeking to provide information and venues for discussion and the exchange of ideas on the web:
The email was sent by the Ski Club of Great Britain in January 2004.
"Dear Registered User,
We know that many of you have been very disappointed by the Ski Club's recent decision to remove the Open Chat Forum. ......We appreciate that the Open Forum provided a good medium for members and non-members alike to exchange information and clearly there are the benefits of a community sharing information and making friendships. We also recognise that it could be a potential source of new members for the Ski Club. In view of the strength of the opinions expressed by both members and non-members, the Club has debated this at its highest level. We have also taken legal advice. There are two areas of very real concern to us.
Firstly, the legal liability to which the Ski Club might be exposed by items posted in the chat forum. There is no way round the legal position that the Club is technically "publishing" anything that anyone posts in its Chat Forum, even if we published disclaimers. This isn't just a Ski Club problem -all chat forums face similar issues.
Secondly, we are concerned about the impact that some of the threads may have upon the Club's partners, such as rep resorts, and our ability to go on delivering our wide range of services both at home and abroad to the Ski Club's 27,500 members. After very careful consideration of both the benefits and the risks, the Club feels that we are sadly not in a position to be able to reinstate the Open Chat Forum, because of the difficulties outlined above. The Club has decided to retain the Members Chat Forum and invest in moderation, of which only very little has been done up until now, and we are installing a new 'report this post' button which members can use to help in the moderation process. We are reasonably confident that the Club can moderate a Members Forum, but doubt that we have the resources to cope with the much larger Open version.
We realise that many of you will be disappointed by the decision not to reinstate the Open Chat Forum. However the Club must take account of the serious legal issues that have been raised. It's an area of new and evolving law. Closing the Open Chat Forum was not a ploy to make loads of new Ski Club Members, which has been suggested; it was done to protect the Club and its relationships. You may like to know that the Ski Club of Great Britain is run on a not-for-profit basis, which means that any profits made are re-invested into the Club for the benefit of the members......
Yours,
Ski Club of Great Britain"
19.1 Proposal a new innocent dissemination defence
We support the proposal of an innocent dissemination defence that would cover new technology and provide additional certainty. In addition to providing certainty to distributors, the defence should clearly be made available to all of those who play an innocent role in the production or distribution process. In a newspaper context, this would include photo editors, printers and others with a technical role. In a broadcasting context, it would include cameramen, videotape editors, make up artists etc. The possibility of extending liability to these people may seem absurd, however, it is a real one.
In at least one case, all of the people on the credits of a broadcast were sued. Those not released by the plaintiff included the camera man and the video tape editor. The Court declined to strike out proceedings against those individuals. (See Levine J in Commisso v United Telecasters Sydney Pty Ltd & 8 Ors [1999] NSWSC 51).
Furthermore, we suggest that a notification regime be introduced where liability arises only in circumstances where a notification is received as to potentially defamatory material and this notification is ignored.
19.2 The position at common law
Defamation is a strict liability tort. At common law, each person who participates in the publication of defamatory material to a sufficient degree is potentially liable to a plaintiff for publication of that statement regardless of whether he or she intended to identify the plaintiff or for it to be defamatory of the plaintiff. In this way, a person who plays a minor role in publishing material on the Internet is potentially a party to the publication of the material, whether or not he or she knew what was published. Hence, each person who participates in the publication of defamatory material "publishes" that material for the purposes of defamation. Furthermore, each person is a "joint tortfeasor" and hence is equally liable to compensate a plaintiff for damage done to the plaintiff's reputation as a result of the publication of defamatory material. For instance, the High Court noted in Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd :
"the journalist, printer, publisher and distributor are joint tortfeasors in respect of the ultimate publication of a libel in a periodical or book."
The High Court has stated that a person who participates in the publication of defamatory material is not liable for publication if that person can show that:
(a) the person was a subordinate publisher rather than a primary publisher of the material;
(b) the person did not know that the material was defamatory;
(c) that ignorance was not due to any negligence on that person's part; and
(d) that the person did not know, and had no ground for supposing, that the publication in question was likely to contain defamatory material.
19.3 Problems with extent of publication
In Australia, it is currently unclear as to whether persons who facilitate publication of material prepared by others on the Internet, such as Internet service providers and bulletin board hosts "publish" material as required for the purpose of defamation law.
Whilst there are no Australian cases that consider this issue, an English case has indicated that an Internet service provider which received, stored and could delete a newsgroup would "publish" a defamatory posting under common law principles of defamation.
Justice Morland said:
"the defendants, whenever they transmit and whenever there is transmitted from the storage of their news server a defamatory posting, publish that posting to any subscriber to their ISP who accesses the newsgroup containing that posting. ...The situation is analogous to that of the bookseller who sells a book defamatory of the plaintiff ... I do not accept ... that the defendants were merely owners of an electronic device through which postings were transmitted."
19.4 Innocent dissemination as a defence to defamation
The severity of strict liability of publication has led to the development of the defence of innocent dissemination. Innocent dissemination can be applied to negate responsibility for publication and therefore operates as a defence to defamation.
The defence of innocent dissemination is currently available to a person involved in the chain of publication who can demonstrate that:
(a) he or she was unaware of the defamation; and
(b) his or her arrangements involved reasonable care, ie his or her ignorance of the defamation was not due to negligence.
This defence is usually available to distributors and vendors of newspapers and magazines, but is not available to original publishers.
19.5 Thompson v Australian Capital Television
A problematic application of the innocent dissemination defence was in Thompson v Australian Capital Television where the High Court held that the defence is not available to a television station that rebroadcasts a "network feed". Indeed, the full Federal Court held that in the circumstances, the rebroadcaster of the program in question failed to exercise due care by failing to take the relevant precautions relating to the risk of defamation when it knew that the broadcast was a current affairs program and therefore was potentially defamatory.
It is important to note that a US case with a similar factual scenario as that in Thompson took a completely different approach to that of the High Court. In Auvil v CBS 60 Minutes, the US court said
"it is difficult to imagine a scenario more chilling on the media's right of expression" than requiring regional telecasters to check material for defamatory content prior to broadcast.
19.6 Protection for Internet Service Providers
Clause 91 of Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) provides some protection to Internet Content Hosts and Internet Service Providers. It operates to exclude the operation of laws that would subject an Internet content host or Internet service provider to liability where the host or Internet service provider "was not aware of the nature of the Internet content". It also exclude laws which require or would have the effect of requiring "an Internet content host to monitor, make inquiries about, or keep records of, Internet content hosted by the host".
It is not clear that clause 91 is wide enough to provide protection for Internet Content Hosts and Internet Service Providers from liability for defamatory material of which they were unaware. It has been suggested that the clause 91 defence is sufficiently broad to provide Internet Content Hosts and Internet Service Providers with some protection from liability under defamation law.
However, it is reasonable to suggest that, on the basis of the decision in Thompson, that an Internet Content Host or an Internet Service Provider which knew that material on a website was potentially defamatory, for instance a current affairs story, would be "aware of the nature of the Internet content" and therefore would not be protected from liability in defamation.
20. DAMAGES
Damages for defamation in the various jurisdictions may be recovered for:
(a) loss of reputation;
(b) actual financial loss; and/or
(c) aggravated damages.
In most jurisdictions exemplary damages are also available (except NSW).
20.1 Proposal
Whilst the group accepts that damage for loss of reputation is appropriate, it should be confined to an amount which bears a relationship to other forms of loss, represents a true reflection of the plaintiff's deserved reputation and is necessary to protect that person's reputation. The plaintiff should be required to adduce proof of damage.
Traditionally, damages have included components for hurt to feelings and distress. The group does not believe this is appropriate if the proper focus of damages is a person's reputation. To that extent, any award for aggravated damages should not relate to hurt to feelings but to conduct which is deliberate and has the effect of increasing the damage to the plaintiff's reputation.
Equally, as exemplary damages are only recoverable for "conduct showing a conscious and contentious disregard for the plaintiff's rights and deter him from committing the conduct again" which has no relationship with damage to reputation, they should be excluded.
Such a form of punishment has no role in a law designed to promote public discussion, if punishment is to attach to the law, it should be in the province of the criminal law. If that were to occur, the chilling effect on all publishers would be dramatic. There is a significant risk that a jury, not having knowledge or experience of levels of awards in similar cases, may decide damages having regard to subjective and/or idiosyncratic factors. For consistency across all jurisdictions guidance should be given in any legislation as to the limits on damages, as well as for the reasons set out in section 10.4 above, and they should be capped, as discussed in section 7.2(c) above.
20.2 Bad Reputation
The group supports the retention of a plea of "bad reputation" as a matter relevant to damages.
It is self evident a person should only recover damages that reflect their deserved reputation. This is recognised in the current law by permitting a defendant to make such a plea in mitigation of damages.
This should be retained or reflected in any section relating to the recovery of damages.
21. INJUNCTIONS
Under the current law injunctions are rarely granted.
The group believes that any proposed legislation should create a presumption against the granting of injunctions.
The following factors should be considered in relation to any proposed injunctive relief:
(a) publication should not be restricted unless it is certain there is no lawful excuse for publication, including arguable defences;
(b) a jury should determine what is defamatory and a court should not impose its preliminary view on that issue;
(c) is the matter relating to a matter of public concern or an ongoing public debate.
If a power to grant injunctions is granted it should be made subject to the above matters, the proposed provisions in section 4 above and only if the plaintiff provides evidence supporting falsity of the defamatory matter.
22. CRIMINAL DEFAMATION
As stated above, punitive provisions are likely to have a dramatic chilling effect. Whilst such provisions remain in some jurisdictions, they are seldom used. The group is of the view that criminal defamation is an anachronism and archaic and should be removed from the statute books.
We do not propose to outline the arguments in favour of this but refer to the reasoning of the Commission in ALRC 11.
23. CONCLUSION
We urge the Attorney-General to adopt our proposals to ensure that any uniform defamation laws are contemporary and represent good law.
Each of the signatories to these submissions supports the above proposals and the group is willing to assist the Attorney-General in formulating legislation that accurately captures their objectives. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Well-spotted PG! So far as I understand it, this reiterates what we already knew i.e. there are theoretical risks in having a message board, but however real those risks may be they do not, in principle, disappear by restricting viewing access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
