moderators please clarify

[Varanophile]

Subject: Whites tree frogs - legal stuff only - NO SLANGING.

Thread now locked, any further threads started on this topic will be removed.

So we can not discuss MAF and whites tree frogs? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that people can post accusations about others on fnzas, but if the person defends themselves then its a no go? Maybe have a look at the comments you allowed to remain that started the whole thing..... then it all settles down into a serious discussion and you jump on it.

[Zev]

The opportunity to discuss both the situations you refer to was given in the first two threads, but this resulted in posts that served only to discredit and goad the other party and were therefore locked.

The third thread was left unlocked in a hope that both sides of the story could be heard with some impartiality and be more factual than personal. Despite the request from the original author that it was not the place for slanging but to put the facts out in the open, this was not what transpired.

[livingart]

would be good to have a open discussion

thought you guys could act like adults and have an intelligent discussion

gave the topic a lot of leeway but it degenerated again :roll:

[acanthurus]

Just having a read now,

I admit I can see some heated discussion, but a fail to see anything I would call slanging on the thread as it stands currently. Many of the topics were important in regard to the future of our hobby and to dispel some commonly held myths. I would have thought that this forum was a perfect place for this discussion.

Could you please clarify your position, in particular regard to what is off limits for further discussion.

Cheers.

[phoenix44]

On joining this forum, we agree to its terms of use.

Now there is some leeway given for certain topics. But this particular one had to be restrained not once or twice, but three times.

Why on earth would any one in their right mind let it continue?

[livingart]

Could you please clarify your position, in particular regard to what is off limits for further discussion.

Please read

Fishroom Forum Rules:

Posting:

Think before you post, because of the threaded conversation-like nature of discussion boards, we reserve the right to refuse a user’s request for a mass deletion of their own posts. Thus if at some point in the future you choose to unsubscribe from our boards be aware that your posts will remain and users or their accounts will not be deleted.

Topics of this type will be removed and action taken against the poster(s):

- sensitive topics (political, religious, sexual reference or sexually oriented content etc)

- subjects/content not suitable for children to read

- profanity, swearing or implied swearing

- disrespectful, obscene, vulgar or abusive posts

- posts intended to create a reaction

- personal attacks and/or slander

- illegal, or promoting illegal behaviour

[Varanophile]

Read the last thread...it was not abusive, it was a discussion. I ask again why were Henward's original comments or 'slander' were not pulled...they are clearly against the rules you stipulate. Just want to know how this forum operates. I'm not trying to be cute.

Please read

Fishroom Forum Rules:

Posting:

Think before you post, because of the threaded conversation-like nature of discussion boards, we reserve the right to refuse a user’s request for a mass deletion of their own posts. Thus if at some point in the future you choose to unsubscribe from our boards be aware that your posts will remain and users or their accounts will not be deleted.

Topics of this type will be removed and action taken against the poster(s):

- sensitive topics (political, religious, sexual reference or sexually oriented content etc)

- subjects/content not suitable for children to read

- profanity, swearing or implied swearing

- disrespectful, obscene, vulgar or abusive posts

- posts intended to create a reaction

- personal attacks and/or slander

- illegal, or promoting illegal behaviour

[livingart]

Read the last thread...it was not abusive, it was a discussion. I ask again why were Henward's original comments or 'slander' were not pulled...they are clearly against the rules you stipulate. Just want to know how this forum operates. I'm not trying to be cute.

if you consider henwards comments slander then perhaps you should keep a copy

then you will be able to have that determined legally

when those comments were posted it was not known they were slander

V. acanthurus then quoted from the judges ruling

and the rest is history

[Insect Direct]

Oh come on, Henward was off the rictor scale, hope he got a warning at least. Other party pushed the limits yes, but atleast it made sense. From my eyes one party was looking for a 'reaction', the other merely responding, and rightfully so.

There was actually some good discussion around Henwards muddled up posts. and no doubt some good discussion yet to be had. What a waste, yet another case of lock/delete the interesting thread that had some real meaning behind it.

[alanmin4304]

I found some of the information that came out of the discussion very interesting. The original post, on reflection, probably should not have been allowed to remain but was not replied to at that time (possibly for legal reasons). The posts have been locked rather than removed and that allows the posts to be read in the future. It was felt that a fair chance had been given to respond to the original post and answer any accusations made but without blaming one side or the other it was becoming a slanging match and what needed to be said had been said so little would be gained by allowing it to continue.

As was suggested, anyone wanting the complete story can apply to the court persuant to the Official Information Act and would therefore be party to the "actual truth"

[livingart]

Henward Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:57 am

no direct rebuttal to what was posted until

Acanthurus Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:35 am

once it was realised by mod team there were contradictions

the thread was removed last post Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:40 pm

next thread started Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:30 pm

in that topic both henward and varanophile requested it be replaced

mod team needed to discuss replacement that takes time

Moderators

If youc ould put that topic up again, that would be great....

if its bagging me, iw ould be curious as to what someone in that position could and would possibly say...........find it funny actually.

Or at least email me a copy of what was said!!

im sad i missed it

'Mr Pace' is defending himself against allegations by 'Mr Tan'.

I note moderators allowed comments to be made about be, but I am not allowed to defend myself..curious.

If Henward is cool with it being up, and I am too, then can we have it back....please.

I have the transcripts of Henward calling MAF and all the emails to back it up...can I post these, or will they be removed?

This forum needs a bit of excitement! Com'on moderators put it back up.

I didn't mean the pizza thing. lol.

we then spent a bit of time trying to edit and sanitise posts from the 2 protagonists

there was enough there under the sites rules to have issued warnings

then banned both sides

then would have come the accusations of over moderation :roll:

[Insect Direct]

Fair enough.

But forget the personal issues, they can sort it out like men elsewhere. There's issues bigger than both of them.

I'd just like to see a bit of thought go into the legal side of this hobby, otherwise what next...

[livingart]

some people can't forget the personl issues

while we let personalities come into it the exotic reptile hobby will stay fragmented

we might say we are for the hobby but actions speak differently

[Varanophile]

Now that's a clarification. cheers.

Henward Posted: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:57 am

no direct rebuttal to what was posted until

Acanthurus Posted: Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:35 am

once it was realised by mod team there were contradictions

the thread was removed last post Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:40 pm

next thread started Fri Sep 17, 2010 5:30 pm

in that topic both henward and varanophile requested it be replaced

mod team needed to discuss replacement that takes time

we then spent a bit of time trying to edit and sanitise posts from the 2 protagonists

there was enough there under the sites rules to have issued warnings

then banned both sides

then would have come the accusations of over moderation :roll:

[livingart]

i will argue a case to have discussions on legalities of keeping exotics in nz put back on the forum

but it will need to be kept on topic

[acanthurus]

Sounds good.

Its a shame that the other posts kept getiting side tracked with what was essentially a side note that in the end had very little to do with with the outcome of the case. I do agree though that after the original post had been left up then Haisley did have a right of reply. If I had read garbage like that written about me I would have probably used some colourful language too.

I would even argue that the reply was a little restrained. Particularly when you consider the choice not post certain witness transcripts and copies of email transcripts that paint a somewhat different picture to those claimed by certain 'innocent' bystanders. I know he has his reasons.

I guess you will have to make up your own mind who you believe, and hopefully we can move on to a more productive open conversation.

[livingart]

sorry to say acanthurus but that is the sort of post that starts the whole ball rolling again

and could be considered posting to get a reaction

[livingart]

Sounds good.

Its a shame that the other posts kept getiting side tracked with what was essentially a side note that in the end had very little to do with with the outcome of the case. I do agree though that after the original post had been left up then Haisley did have a right of reply. If I had read garbage like that written about me I would have probably used some colourful language too.

I would even argue that the reply was a little restrained. Particularly when you consider the choice not post certain witness transcripts and copies of email transcripts that paint a somewhat different picture to those claimed by certain 'innocent' bystanders. I know he has his reasons.

I guess you will have to make up your own mind who you believe, and hopefully we can move on to a more productive open conversation.

highlighted words that are emotive and will probably prevent

a more productive open conversation

[repto]

Haisley got off lightly if you ask me.

(rest of comment removed pending discussion)

[henward]

i will agree to not reply mentioning names and specific cases.

im done to be honest, i got it off my chest.

sure some may think i was off the scale...... perhaps...... i dont really deny that.

and yes i got a warning, rightly so.... because i did get into specifics......i intended to do so, and i was spanked for it

so wont do it again....

if we keep on topic, there is nothignw rong with the topic then.

and i think the mods agree with that.

statements designd to get a reaction... well, i wont make them anymore. acanthurus, you can make them - i certainly wont dignify your existence and provocation with a reply into specifics

lets move on this band wagon and discuss legalities with the hobby and maf.

IN that note.

We have this discussion so many times....... why doesnt anyone do anything about it?

i have written to politicians before about this, but they dont prioritise it at all. the risk to our economy and wildlife vs the joy it gives hobbyist... simply, no one cares about the hobby.............

Unless you get a politician that decides he too will be a reptile hobbyist....then nothign will really change

[livingart]

statements designd to get a reaction... well, i wont make them anymore. acanthurus, you can make them - i certainly wont dignify your existence and provocation with a reply into specifics

another one

you say you won'r make them then in the same sentence make one :roll:

[alanmin4304]

Are you suggesting that we stay off the original subject of Whites tree frogs and the court proceedings associated with that, and discuss the keeping of reptiles generally and the involvement of Maf with that?

Your comments: " i certainly wont dignify your existence and provocation with a reply into specifics" Is the sort of remark that resulted in the original posts being locked.

LA you got there first

[acanthurus]

Sorry mods,

Will leave it at that.

(Sorry but do need to point out repto's little bit of hearsay above )

[livingart]

it is the original subject of Whites tree frogs and the court proceedings associated with that, more importantly the judges findings, that is important to the keeping of reptiles generally and the involvement of Maf with that

[sneaky2]

:lol: