Richmond has a better list.
- Apr 26, 2004
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.
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.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?
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".Baloo said:I did wonder if I'd be moderated but I think context here is important.
Can we post a rumour if we don't implicate anybody? Just "somebody"? Because I've got something.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.
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.Tony Braxton-Hicks said:The context of Baloo's post is still important for the record.
is this where the term "allegedly" was derived from - to get around said litigation?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.
Disco is correct doherz.doherz said:and does that covers ones arse Rosy? The media seem to use it a lot.
Pretty grey area, best to stay away from it if you ask merosy23 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.
who was it? which club?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.