Rumours

Status
Not open for further replies.

TigerForce

Richmond has a better list.
Apr 26, 2004
47,186
188
A neighbour who has retired from the BOM says that after this mini-drought we've had, La Nina is returning to Victoria this year.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Tango said:
Well the fact that you just named a player and a club and connected them to illegal drug use is also liable?
Or is it all in the wording and how it is written?
It was a disappointing post considered the requests that have been made and it has been deleted. No point what soever in alluding to that kind of thing even if not suggesting it was the case.

Safest way is to run a post by the mods before publishing if there are any doubts. We could probably set this board so every post needed moderator approval before appearing but that would make a lot of extra work for the mods.

In regards to posting on this board I'd suggest if in doubt don't.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Baloo said:
I did wonder if I'd be moderated but I think context here is important.
There was still no need to name a specific player in regard to those allegations. If you wanted to give an example you could have just said "Player x" and "Club y".
 

Tony Braxton-Hicks

It's Tiger Time!
Aug 10, 2004
8,717
111
The Playboy Mansion
The context of Baloo's post is still important for the record. The bottom line is that some rumours could be defamatory until they're on the public record. So until someone is charged with an offence and it's publicly reported, keep it to yourself.

However, if the rumour is football-related, such as a potential trade, injury or contract negotiation, it's unlikely to be defamatory and suitable for the rumour board.

Or just pretend you're writing a satirical news spoof.
 

Danog

Tiger Superstar
Jun 7, 2008
1,519
0
Melbourne
rosy23 said:
It was a disappointing post considered the requests that have been made and it has been deleted. No point what soever in alluding to that kind of thing even if not suggesting it was the case.

Safest way is to run a post by the mods before publishing if there are any doubts. We could probably set this board so every post needed moderator approval before appearing but that would make a lot of extra work for the mods.

In regards to posting on this board I'd suggest if in doubt don't.
Can we post a rumour if we don't implicate anybody? Just "somebody"? Because I've got something.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Tony Braxton-Hicks said:
The context of Baloo's post is still important for the record.
He can re-post it using generic names if he wishes to. There's no need to implicate specific individuals and clubs in an example. Not as bad as claiming it was fact but still not necessary to name people to get context.
 

Ripplestick

Tiger Superstar
Jan 18, 2007
1,695
6
Danog said:
Can we post a rumour if we don't implicate anybody? Just "somebody"? Because I've got something.
I think if you say... a player has been caught doing 'something', then that is ok, no one is named neither is a club.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
34,108
70
Apologies.

The exaple was:

<Player's Name> is in talks with <Club's Name> with a view to joining as a FA next year - Fine, no issues with that rumour.

<Player's Name> is in talks with <Club's Name> with a view to joining as a FA next year because <Player's name> is on 2 strikes and <Club's name> provide thier players with better masking agents - This rumour couldn't be posted on any internet forums without running the risk of litigation.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
Danog said:
Can we post a rumour if we don't implicate anybody? Just "somebody"? Because I've got something.
Baloo's examples clarify it pretty well.
 

doherz

Tiger Superstar
Apr 24, 2004
2,334
0
Tigerland
www.informtech.com.au
Baloo said:
Apologies.

The exaple was:

<Player's Name> is in talks with <Club's Name> with a view to joining as a FA next year - Fine, no issues with that rumour.

<Player's Name> is in talks with <Club's Name> with a view to joining as a FA next year because <Player's name> is on 2 strikes and <Club's name> provide thier players with better masking agents - This rumour couldn't be posted on any internet forums without running the risk of litigation.
is this where the term "allegedly" was derived from - to get around said litigation?
 

Disco08

Tiger Legend
Sep 23, 2003
21,757
0
The word "allegedly" won't save rosy from a defamation suit if the rumour implies illegal activity against a specific person.
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
doherz said:
and does that covers ones arse Rosy? The media seem to use it a lot.
Disco is correct doherz.

You could, but I don't know why anyone would want to, post about a situation saying

An AFL player is under investigation for stealing wallets and watches from team mates bags in the locker room.

You couldn't say

*Insert player name* from *insert club* is under investigation for allegedly stealing wallets and watches from team mates bags in the locker room.

In both of those examples any responses trying to guess the identity would have to be removed.

If it's already discussed in main stream media it would usually be ok to repeat it here. We still have to be careful. I was contacted by the lawyers for information in regard to the AFL vs the media in regard to a court case and asked about posts on PRE. That info discussed here obviously was in mainstream media. I was also notified that discussion in PMs can be accessed and used for legal purposes. It's not acceptable to hint at something then send details by PM to those who request it.

Please send a PM to me, or one of the other mods, outlining your rumour doherz. We'll advise whether it can be posted or not and give suggestions how to best word it.
 

doherz

Tiger Superstar
Apr 24, 2004
2,334
0
Tigerland
www.informtech.com.au
rosy23 said:
Disco is correct doherz.

You could, but I don't know why anyone would want to, post about a situation saying

An AFL player is under investigation for stealing wallets and watches from team mates bags in the locker room.

You couldn't say

*Insert player name* from *insert club* is under investigation for allegedly stealing wallets and watches from team mates bags in the locker room.

In both of those examples any responses trying to guess the identity would have to be removed.

If it's already discussed in main stream media it would usually be ok to repeat it here. We still have to be careful. I was contacted by the lawyers for information in regard to the AFL vs the media in regard to a court case and asked about posts on PRE. That info discussed here obviously was in mainstream media. I was also notified that discussion in PMs can be accessed and used for legal purposes. It's not acceptable to hint at something then send details by PM to those who request it.

Please send a PM to me, or one of the other mods, outlining your rumour doherz. We'll advise whether it can be posted or not and give suggestions how to best word it.
Pretty grey area, best to stay away from it if you ask me
 

Rosy

Tiger Legend
Mar 27, 2003
54,347
3
doherz said:
Pretty grey area, best to stay away from it if you ask me
No worries at all. I thought, going by your comments, that you wanted to post about it.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
10,934
36
rosy23 said:
For those who aren't aware one of the removed posts claimed a certain individual, who they named, was guilty of injecting players with illegal substances. They also named a football club involved.
who was it? which club?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.