Quatloos!

You could start each new discussion with the first post giving the links of the prior discussions and, when that gets superceded, a link to the next.

Maybe I could ask for clarification here. But could I get a little bit of a fuller explanation of why we've seemingly decided that UK sub judice rules apply to American posters on an American forum?

Jeffrey wrote:Maybe I could ask for clarification here. But could I get a little bit of a fuller explanation of why we've seemingly decided that UK sub judice rules apply to American posters on an American forum?

We didn't decide, the Brits did. I assume to ensure fair play. Wankspittle doesn't want to prejudice the case. Obviously as an American you are free to post what you want on an American website and Wankspittle, as the British moderator, is free to delete it if it offends British law.

webhick wrote:In high activity subjects, it might be worth shutting down an old thread once a major development happens and start up a new thread with the new development in the title.

I think that's an excellent idea.

Jeffrey wrote:why we've seemingly decided that UK sub judice rules apply to American posters on an American forum?

That question also occurred to me. But I quickly answered it: comity. It's a British legal matter, this board has many British posters and, from what I understand, a growing British audience. Their rules are designed to help ensure that an accused gets a fair trial, surely a worthy goal. Under those circumstances, we should abide by them.

I am cool with, I think it isn't a major inconvenience, and I am sure the information will be out there somewhere.

I just wanted clarification. If it's a courtesy thing it's fine but it was originally framed as if it we were somehow subject to UK rules.

I am very hazy about how trans-border law works, but I think the chances of UK authorities attempting any action against Quatloos or Quatloosians are very slim, whatever was posted. However, there is a greater chance that a trial could be considered prejudiced, so a defence team could apply to have a case dropped on the grounds that a fair trial was impossible due to adverse publicity.

We Brits are big on fairness, playing the game, straight wicket, don't kick a man when he's down, and so on.

Management has discussed the issue and as Wes says, we tend to generally respect the laws and this is the first time I can recall where there is a major difference in US law the law where the discussion is happening. We outside the UK may or may not be bound to follow British law but we will make every attempt to do so out of respect. Please frame your comments accordingly.

Gregg wrote: Please frame your comments accordingly.

littleFred wrote:We Brits are big on fairness, playing the game, straight wicket, don't kick a man when he's down, and so on.

Obviously that doesn't apply to uppity colonials. Don't make us come and burn your capital again...

Hercule Parrot wrote:Don't make us come and burn your capital again... :haha:

Please do. You don't need a reason.

A poster reported the editing of two posts for discussing outcomes of a pending case, which the poster denies doing. I have no way of seeing the posts; once a mod edits them, the original is gone. And it seems a little strange to review such a decision anyway, since predicting the results of TP/sov trials are a cottage industry around here. U.S. TP/sov trials. I had no idea that any such activities could be contumacious in the U.K.

That's why we asked Arthur to moderate the U.K. groups, since he is a long-time member who is from the U.K. I'm sorry that anyone feels mistreated, the more so since Q prides itself on having few rules. But we do feel that it is important to respect the rules of the U.K. when we are posting about matters there, and I don't know a better way to do it.

I just deleted 25-30 posts from the latest Crawford thread. Joinder's posts were not the only ones.

One more time: nothing is deleted from this board based on point of view. No one is prevented from expressing ideas, no matter how much the majority may disagree with them. When doing the editing, I took no note of a poster's point of view; if the post consisted of carping about other posters, it went. Bickering back and forth about who is stalking whom is not expressing ideas, it's venting. That's only an example. If a thread is about to be overtaken by pointless venting, it will be locked if nothing useful is going on; if (as in this case) useful information still appears, and the bickerers do not take a hint, their posts will be deleted. This happens very rarely. I would say this is the first mass deletion in at least a couple of years.

I hope it will be the last.

Joinder is now moderated. Following a warning a few weeks ago, Joinder returned to his/her baiting ways. After receiving complaints, I took a look at the recent posts - content-free, prolific and trolling.

Believe it or not, we would really rather not have to police the board. If everyone could act like adults, we wouldn't need to. The vast majority of us do, but we can't allow the persistent exceptions to take over the board.

As everyone has hopefully noticed, it is pretty hard to get yourself banned from this board. Probably fewer than a dozen posters have attained that exalted status in the thirteen years Q has existed. One of the surest ways to do it is to screw around with the board.

We just banned Joinder/legpull. It is all but certain that is one person, and not only because of IP. Joinpull can get his dumbass jollies elsewhere.

I see the complaints. When regulars start to feel unwelcome on this board, it is indeed time to do something. A word to anyone who is inclined to continue old personal grievances or bring in new ones - don't, if you want to keep posting here. No more warnings.

That said, a word on the other side: some things may annoy some people, but are not ban material. For example, someone reported a post in which Tuco quoted an earlier exchange and added only "I am never wrong". I understand that there is a history here, and that he added nothing to the discussion, but otherwise that's pretty harmless.

We really don't want to moderate. We want people to be adults. If they refuse, though, things will happen. I just deleted the last several posts in the "Ceylon" thread - including the complaints, which I heard and will act on but don't add to a discussion of Ceylon.

Enough.