Removing my post because I am a 'competitor' and then removing my post about that before discussion

L[Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 17:25
Last edited 04/04/2015 - 17:25

Last night I put on this subforum a post asking why my post on the 'Free Wills' deal was removed on the grounds of being a 'competitor', when (after disclosing I was one in my first sentence) much of what I said was simply information that was being asked eg. why would that 'simple' will not be sufficient. On my last viewing, my post had the most upvotes in the whole thread.

The crux of my original post was that it is important when estate planning to know that you are dealing with a certified practitioner, and that the deal for 'Lawyer Assist' (whatever that is) was no cheaper than what myself, or many others practitioners, offer every day. I am in the industry and able to answer questions about the deal, as I have about other legal issues (which seem to be increasing in number on the forums) without expectation.

I expected a discussion about whether this was right, but instead a mod wrote a quick reply, which I skim read and resolved to come back today to reply to, and see if there was further comment. Now it is is gone!

What I can remember from that mod's reply to that post is one sentence I wrote, taken out of context, as justification for deleting my whole post.

While I understand the poster of the deal reporting it, I vehemently disagree that my original post should have been deleted - it contained answers to questions which have since been asked on the deal! If I was too strong in my wording, a request from the mods would have seen me happily edit the post.

Instead, there is little information on the deal regarding whether it is suitable for potential customers, unanswered questions about probate etc, and a lack of awareness of whether certified practitioners are used in a service which costs twice as much as a similar deal I, and others, have posted in the past! That is not a 'competitor' ridiculing a deal - it is a comment from someone in the industry on the value of the deal.

More importantly, when the correctness or otherwise of these posting rules were questioned, discussion has been removed!

Please, I would like discussion (including from the mods) whether these posting rules can be changed, and views of members on same. I would like my post reinstated. I am not making any comment on the legitimacy or otherwise of the specific offer, but censorship like this is not conducive to good deals or encouraging businesses.

Site Discussion

Comments

  • happychild100 on 04/04/2015 - 17:56

    Did you post in the TWAM forum first to talk about it?
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/forum/10041

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 18:20
      +1

      No I didn't, because I wanted the opinion of members of the site as well as a mod. After all, members are the ones that upvoted my deleted comment, and have asked questions on that particular deal (and others) which I've answered.
      I understand the approach of the mods is to delete a comment when a complaint (possibly from the poster of the deal) is received. In my view, it is seemingly without considering the context or contribution and I have little respect for that approach.
      Maybe it is my legal training to question the rules / law, but to be frank, I am 'pissed off' that I have been deleted twice without discussion.

      • Moderatorneil on 04/04/2015 - 22:08

        OK, I think you are a bit confused.

        This deal, Free Will Kit (Normally $39) from LawPath was posted for Lawpath.com.au.

        Oxleyroad, a competitor to lawpath.com.au (Springdalelegal.com.au) negative voted the deal (as well as a comment).

        This violates our voting guidelines:

        If you have any association or relationship with a competitor's business or organisation, do not vote.

        The vote was revoked and the comment attached to the vote removed.

        Secondly in regards to your comment. From our FAQ for merchants

        Posting unfavourable comments about a competitor is not permitted. Additionally, posting links to your products/deals in a competitors thread is also not acceptable. Both are considered as being conduct unbecoming and will invoke a penalty.

        Your comment, particularly this part, which promoted your own business "My obviously biased advice - take up an offer such as mine (for half the price!) or a similar deal from a wide range of legal practitioners. I'm not saying this is not legitimate, but dealing directly with a solicitor is the best option." is an issue (in addition to the fact you negative voted in a competitors thread as previously mentioned).

        Also from our commenting guidelines

        Store reps should not comment in a competitor's thread and link to their own store.

        I understand the approach of the mods is to delete a comment when a complaint (possibly from the poster of the deal) is received.

        Incorrect. We follow the guidelines listed in Help.

        The OP did post and it was moved to TWAM, we responded instantly with an explanation but the OP has not yet responded, the post was certainly not removed.

        From both sides of the coin, we do not want employees or those associated with a company to positive vote their own company's deals. On the flip side, we don't want competitors bad mouthing each other and negative voting their competitors deals.

        EDIT: We have sent a PM to the user with a link to the TWAM thread.

        • Oliver on 06/04/2015 - 17:14
          +1

          Why is it against the rules for a competitor to post a reply on a bargain to say something along the lines of, "As someone in the industry, this may seem like a bargain to a layman but I can tell you it's nothing special due to example A B or C, eg one of these examples is my own product/service"?

          To me that would seem constructive and allow the users of ozbargain to gain more knowledge about the topic and decide for themselves what the best deal really is.

        • Moderatorneil on 06/04/2015 - 17:59

          @Oliver:

          I'll repeat my comment below which explains it:

          Acme Widget Company is in court for whatever charges and a fair jury needs to be selected.

          • One juror is a senior manager for Wiley Coyote Widget company, a competitor to Acme Widget.

          Do you think this jury member should be excluded from participating in the case? Courts would agree that this is a conflict of interest.

          Other conflicts of interest:

          • One juror works for Acme Widget Company.
          • One juror is the wife of an employee of Acme Widget Company.
          • One juror works for Smith Marketing, a company that is charge of promoting companies such as Acme Widget.

          All of the above would be recused or excluded from sitting on the jury.

          This is the big picture. We attempt to keep the commenting and voting as honest as possible. Obviously you can't remove all bias however there is a clear conflict of interest in these situations. All have vested interests in the outcome of the case.

          The OP has been posting deals on OzBargain in direct competition. It's not just someone in the industry. Negative votes affect the posting abilities of stores.

        • Oliver on 06/04/2015 - 22:31
          +1

          @neil:

          This example can't be compared directly to the situation in this thread for one main reason:

          In the court example, the competitor will be part of the team deciding the fate of company A (the jury).
          In the situation in this thread, the competitor acknowledges their bias or conflict of interest, puts forth a contrasting viewpoint and lets the objective 3rd party (the users) make up their own minds based on two points of view.

          Thus the most apt example to give would be:

          Company A is a lawyer, company B is the opposing lawyer, and the users are the objective 3rd party - the judge or jury.

          So I'm sorry but I have to disagree that your analogy is not entirely relevant to this particular situation.

  • loulou1 on 04/04/2015 - 18:19
    +1

    My honest opinion is that the only reason you posted the 'bargain' was to say it was rubbish. Then to say why the type of service you offer is so much better. If your service is a bargain, post it up for the community to vote on rather than talk about it under the guise of posting a competitor's bargain.
    To me it feels like a bit of 'bait and switch', you lure the bargain hunter in on the premise of a free will (by a competitor) only to say why it is unsuitable and why they should use your service.
    If you honestly felt like the offer by the competitor was a bargain you should not the have gone on to post negative comments about it.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 18:24

      Thanks for your opinion.
      I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. I didn't post the original deal.
      With regards to my comment, I am not saying at all that my service is better. But I have said to be careful that the service is offered by a qualified solicitor, and that the price for 'legal review' is, in my industry experience, not a deal. People upvoted that advice before it was deleted. Apart from that, I have nothing against the deal, and I hope many use it.

      • loulou1 on 04/04/2015 - 18:26

        My apologies, I assumed you had posted the original deal. I misunderstood what you were saying. Are their rules about competitors making comments on deals?

        • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 18:27

          Yes, my original reply (which now I have no copy of) was deleted on those grounds because a 'user' made a complaint. But my reply was made as someone in the industry, just as I have given replies on tax etc, which have all been strongly upvoted.

        • loulou1 on 04/04/2015 - 18:30

          ok now I understand (the blonde is strong in me). I think there is nothing wrong with a healthy discussion about the merits of a deal from those in the know as long as there are grounds which are not subjective on which that discussion is based. But I guess rules are rules.

  • BigTed on 04/04/2015 - 18:57

    I think this is a tough call.
    Anytime a deal is posted I think comments from people who work in the actual industry involved are useful.
    As for wills deals, I think it is absolutely worthwhile having someone who is familiar with estates to comment.
    I don't think this is as simple as a competitor bashing a deal.
    Unfortunately the inflexible application of rules can sometimes produce perverse results.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 19:13

      I couldn't agree more BigTed.
      That's why I'm asking the mods to reconsider the rules and reinstate the post, and to consider 'competitor's' posts more thoroughly in future.
      That said, in my view there is no excuse to delete my post last night which raised these issues.

  • GnarlyKnuckles on 04/04/2015 - 19:50
    +1

    Frankly, it's ridiculous to ban the very people who know most about a subject (i.e. industry insiders) from commenting on that subject, when a relevant 'deal' is posted. Surely that is not the rule? Anyone should be allowed to post any information they can contribute, as long as it's 1. true, and 2. Not advertising.

    What possible legitimate reason could there be for a 'blanket ban' on people in the industry posting information in the discussion thread that follows the posting of a 'deal' in that industry?

    EDIT/ subsequent addition:

    OK I've just checked out the 'rules', and I'm assuming that your post was removed based on this one:

    "5. Posting unfavourable comments about a competitor is not permitted. Additionally, posting links to your products/deals in a competitors thread is also not acceptable. Both are considered as being conduct unbecoming and will invoke a penalty."

    So I'd like to see the post of your that was removed; because based on your description of it at least, it doesn't sound to me like you actually breached this rule/s. Can a mod paste the 'offending' comment into this forum, so we can all see what we think of it in the context of this rule?

    • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 20:03

      Yes, that's the rules relied upon. To be fair, I did downvote the deal, and mention I had posted a similar deal previously, which maybe I should not have done, but I did/do have concerns about the deal, which I raised, and I disclosed that I was a 'competitor' in my first sentence. It is up to members of OzBargain to read my post and treat the deal as they wish.
      Regardless of the rules, my post provided valuable information, and was upvoted 6 times when I last saw it. For it to be deleted without record, then my post asking about that to be deleted, is simply wrong.

      • Lysander on 04/04/2015 - 21:12
        +1

        I understand your frustration especially since I see where you are coming from.
        Just to spare you future stress: just accept this site as what it is.
        It is not democratic, it is not too big on free speech (especially if you disagree with some of the "power posters" or mods), decisions are not laid out openly and are discussed on their merits. There are plenty of threads criticising those rules which, in my humble opinion, shows there is merit in the criticism. Sometimes people are not treated fairly or nicely sometimes (which is why people do not post anymore - again, see the appropriate threads). I have seen people get away with outrageous things because they post a lot while others were banned for less outrageous things.

        But after all, that is OK as the people who own the site make the rules, and that is their prerogative. You do not have to use the site and can use alternatives (which some people I know do after bad experiences here).

        If I was you, use your time for billable hours, let the people take the "dodgy" deal posted and run into problems, and the next time such a deal is posted it will be removed.

        Unfortunately, from my own experience, often people do not listen before something happens but then are quite keen to listen after the event and hope you will help them sort out the mess. Sometimes people do not want to be helped and there is nothing you can do about it. Just ignore and move on.
        I know it's a fairly pessimistic view but that is my professional experience.

        So, in short:

        Don't bother with arguing on here as you will just waste your time. There are a lot of helpful and nice people on here but also some that aren't which like complaining and don't like criticism.

        All the best.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2015 - 21:35

          Thanks for your support.
          Just to clarify, I don't think everyone that used the deal will run into problems, and I don't think it should be removed. Just that estate planning is an important issue, and I want to post my industry knowledge to support people, including prices, and advise that people should use an admitted practitioner, as listed on specified roles.
          I used the example of my previous deal because I am an admitted practitioner, and this deal had twice as many upvotes!
          If I was billing hours over Easter maybe I wouldn't be worrying!

        • Moderatorneil on 04/04/2015 - 22:12

          It is not democratic, it is not too big on free speech (especially if you disagree with some of the "power posters" or mods), decisions are not laid out openly and are discussed on their merits.

          Sorry but that's untrue. The guidelines are mostly shaped by discussions with the community, moderators and best practice. In relation to the competitors critizing other competitors, this is a policy that Whirlpool also has and keeps the community honest (or slightly more honest anyway).

          This is why we have a site discussion forum.

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 04/04/2015 - 22:17

          One of the best posts I've read in a while Lys.

        • Davo1111 on 05/04/2015 - 00:59

          Perhaps you and the others should create a post in the site discussion about the issues. Make sure you cite examples though.

        • Lysander on 05/04/2015 - 02:49
          +2

          @neil:

          Sorry neil but with all due respect I disagree. There have been instances in the past when I thought Ozbargain has been very unfair. I know people who have been banned merely because they defended themselves against certain people who like to provoke, antagonise etc. but these people did not get banned as they are very prolific posters. Seems a bit unfair and undemocratic to me.
          If you want to be truly democratic, put posts or comments like that of the OP to the community to decide whether or not it should be removed (a bit like Switzerland with their referendums).
          You or another moderator simply deciding with no recourse to a third, independent party (I do not count another mod as such) is simply not democratic.

          Also, it seems the people who post the most in forums are listened to the most (I mean quantity over quality), not those people with the relevant knowledge.
          This is partly due to your voting system.
          Also, certain people here are like vultures (I won't mention names) when posters forget things or make mistakes.
          You, as site operators, should look at it this way:

          people like me or the OP take valuable time out of their day to help people here and share what they think is good value. In the case of the OP not too many people are actually capable of assessing if it is good value or not as they lack expert knowledge.
          To then be attacked by certain people if something is forgotten or they don't like the format etc. is not only insulting but rather outrageous and discourteous and will result in people not posting any more (which in turn affects the bottom of your balance sheet). You should ban those people that provoke, attack others like vultures etc. but of course I understand from a business point of view you cannot ban certain people (although long term that might be beneficial)

          Often it is not a sharing community anymore but rather very competitive with people reporting other people merely because there is criticism of the post. To be honest, sometimes this behaviour borders on a form of "online denunciation" and is a bit like the Stasi (East German Secret Police) used to be (as you can view in the movie "The lives of others").

          And as I mentioned before: I strongly suggest you do something about the increasing number of legal topics being posted here where some users inadvertently give what might be construed as legal advice as that might entail liability for the users, and for Ozbargain for facilitation. I know as a fact that people from the Law Society of Queensland do spot checks on sites and forums and take appropriate action where necessary. I can only assume the other law societies do the same. Remember, they are all after money an explore every avenue possible to them to ensure they get it.

          By the way, in a true democracy I should be able to vote on your comment, too, shouldn't I? It does not seem to be the case for me - at least it does not show plus or minus sign for your comment.

        • Moderatorneil on 05/04/2015 - 10:30

          @Lysander:

          I know people who have been banned merely because they defended themselves against certain people who like to provoke, antagonise etc.

          Commenting guidelines. If any user breaks these guidelines then we will act. Discussing, joking and differing opinions is encouraged and allowed. However responding to an argument, by,for example personally attacking the person or groups of people is not acceptable. Maybe this is what you are referring to? In any case, you wouldn't get a permanent ban on the first incident.

          You or another moderator simply deciding with no recourse to a third, independent party (I do not count another mod as such) is simply not democratic.

          I think that is a great idea technically which works well for governments/ in the real world. However, I'm not sure how that would work in the online world especially given the vast quantity of incidents we have. There are 7 moderators in which we are in constant discussions.

          but of course I understand from a business point of view you cannot ban certain people (although long term that might be beneficial)

          Business & Moderation are completely different. Again, it has to do with commenting guidelines.

          people like me or the OP take valuable time out of their day to help people here and share what they think is good value. In the case of the OP not too many people are actually capable of assessing if it is good value or not as they lack expert knowledge.

          That is much appreciated so thank you. I wonder if there is a way to point out an "expert" on certain topics?

          And as I mentioned before: I strongly suggest you do something about the increasing number of legal topics being posted here where some users inadvertently give what might be construed as legal advice as that might entail liability for the users, and for Ozbargain for facilitation.

          Thanks. Others have reported the same legal issue and is something we aren't familiar with. We have flagged that for moderator conversation and further investigating.

          Appreciate the feedback. If you have any specific examples of issues that you would like to discuss, please do so. Or if you are not comfortable here, you can do so in the Talk with a Moderator forum.

        • Lysander on 05/04/2015 - 14:41
          +2

          @neil:

          I do not want to drag this on but to close this off:

          1. The tone on the website needs to be changed as often first time posters or irregular posters get set upon by certain people like vultures. I am sure you are aware off who I am referring to. That has reduced my posting frequency and I am aware of other people who are put off by that, too. This issue has frequently come up in the forums previously but nothing much has changed in my opinion.

          2. I am aware of certain past incidents involving certain people (to a large extent the same ones) where a helpful poster was constantly provoked and attacked and when the poster defended himself/herself, the poster was banned rather than the attackers and provokers. In my opinion, the reason for that was because the attackers post a good amount, write in forums etc. I find that very unfair and can tell you that in a court, the situation would have come out reversely due to the constant provoking and attacking by these people. I do not find this fair or democratic. If you go through your records you will know which incidents I mean.

          3. In the real world, if people do wrong, they get punished but once the have served their punishment their rights are reinstated. On Ozbargain, if you are banned, you are banned for life. I would not call that a fair and just treatment.

          4. If referenda work in Switzerland, surely it can work on Ozbargain as I think it is safe to assume that Switzerland has a lot more people than Ozbargain has members. However, if that is too much to organise, I would recommend the famous motto "In dubio PRO reo" to be implemented on OB rather than the opposite which is what it often seems like.

          5. As regards the experts, it would be a good idea. However, and I am only speaking for myself here, I am not willing to provide things for free such as detailed legal advice if (a) others do not do the same, and (b) the site the free advice is provided on makes a lot of money. In other countries such activity is done on non-profit sites and works really well (for example, for free medical advice). Let me be clear - this is not an attack on OB or its business scheme but I am doing enough free work as it is (so much that I am living below the poverty line quite often - not complaining here) and I am simply not willing to make other people rich which I think is understandable.

          6. Finally, I do believe that posters should also be rewarded financially for posting good deals. Maybe it is just me but I do find it a bit unfair that OB keeps the bulk of income through affiliate links etc. when the users/posters provide the value to the site, namely the posts, especially those power posters who invest a lot of time in the site. It feels a bit like those lovely deals where psychologists get to rent a room in an existing practice and then have to pay 50% to the practice owners despite the fact that he or she only provides the room (not any other services, equipment, clients etc.) while the doctor and psychologist does all the work and provides the value.
            Without the users and the deals they post, OB would be fairly irrelevant.
            Therefore, please reward the users (maybe a model like HumbleBundle where OB keeps 20% of all revenue generated through aff link of a particular post for costs of running the site, and the remainder is then given to the OP or at least donated to charity (whatever the OP decides).
            Even Google pays the people who posts successful Youtube videos - surely a nice Aussie business can be as nice as Google. ;-)

          7. While I understand that business and moderation are two separate things, they are interconnected. The guidelines were surely drawn up and later modified with the business in mind and with facilitation of the business in mind. After all, holding a referendum on certain issues is a lot more work than one mod or seven mods simply deciding which in business terms is a lot more cost-effective (think work time).

          8. It would be helpful if the mods corrected those people that think that OB is a site operated out of love (just like the mods correct any other incorrect fact about OB). While it may have started as a hobby, it is now a business and the mods (at least some of them) do get paid. That I would call true honesty and transparency.

          I am sorry if that sounds all a bit unfair or harsh but I do support fairness, transparency, and social justice and equality. It is not meant to offend.

          Finally, dear neil, I wish you a very Happy Easter. May you find all the eggs hidden around you.

        • Moderatorneil on 05/04/2015 - 23:49

          @Lysander:

          Thanks for the feedback albeit a bit harsh.

          The tone on the website needs to be changed as often first time posters or irregular posters get set upon by certain people like vultures.

          I agree. First time posters who post poor/average deals sometimes do get criticism. We do what we can to reward positive contributors to OzBargain, have contest, meetups and push a positive attitude. However, we also want honest comments and reviews on stores and products. Would love to hear suggestions.

          I am aware of certain past incidents involving certain people (to a large extent the same ones) where a helpful poster was constantly provoked and attacked and when the poster defended himself/herself, the poster was banned rather than the attackers and provokers. In my opinion, the reason for that was because the attackers post a good amount, write in forums etc. I find that very unfair and can tell you that in a court, the situation would have come out reversely due to the constant provoking and attacking by these people. I do not find this fair or democratic. If you go through your records you will know which incidents I mean.

          Everyone is treated the same on this site (swear on a stack of Officeworks catalogues). Both prolific posters and limited posters have broken our commenting guidelines. We are not out to permanently ban people and often a chat in TWAM clears things up. We have 7 moderators and we each need to act as consistently as possible in every situation. I'm sorry but I have no idea what incident you are referring to.

          In the real world, if people do wrong, they get punished but once the have served their punishment their rights are reinstated. On Ozbargain, if you are banned, you are banned for life. I would not call that a fair and just treatment.

          Sorry, this isn't true. If someone personally attacks someone else (I think that is what you are referring to) AND it's their first offense we don't permanently ban. I'm not sure where you got that information from. Again, we always push for a discussion in TWAM.

          If referenda work in Switzerland,

          Sorry, I have no idea what that is however I have been to Switzerland and they do most things great albeit expensively. :)

          As regards the experts, it would be a good idea. However, and I am only speaking for myself here, I am not willing to provide things for free such as detailed legal advice i

          Sure. You do what you feel is comfortable. I thought when you said expert, I was thinking more of some type of badge. Or what they have on ExpertsExchange.

          Finally, I do believe that posters should also be rewarded financially for posting good deals.

          We do reward posters on a monthly basis. Not just for posting good deals but positively contributing to the community.

          While I understand that business and moderation are two separate things, they are interconnected. The guidelines were surely drawn up and later modified with the business in mind and with facilitation of the business in mind. After all, holding a referendum on certain issues is a lot more work than one mod or seven mods simply deciding which in business terms is a lot more cost-effective (think work time).

          I can 100% tell you that business has nothing to do with deal posting guidelines especially given that I've been with OzBargain 6 years as an unpaid moderator and 3 as a paid employee. Is there a section of the commenting or deal posting guidelines that you think this is occurring? If you are keen, you can go through the historical changes of the guidelines to see the changes throughout the years.

          It would be helpful if the mods corrected those people that think that OB is a site operated out of love (just like the mods correct any other incorrect fact about OB). While it may have started as a hobby, it is now a business and the mods (at least some of them) do get paid. That I would call true honesty and transparency.

          You can see the list of staff and moderators. 3 of them are unpaid volunteers. There are 33 power users who dedicate their time editing and correcting deals. I think just to lump OzBargain as some employees running a website to make money is a bit simplistic. The website wouldn't be what it was without the dedication of power users, moderators, and posters who all love bargains.

          While I disagree with some of your points, it seems we need to do a better job at communicating policies, posters, and other things about OzBargain.

          Thanks for the suggestions and have a great Easter lysander.

  • RockyRaccoon on 05/04/2015 - 07:55
    +6

    oxleyroad

    I understand what you are saying, and also what the moderator, Neil is also saying.

    For someone who deals with the law, surely you can understand that there are lines drawn everyday, and that sometimes stepping over the line means the law gets you where otherwise you would have got away.

    Please correct me if I have got this wrong.

    1. You voted down the deal which is not allowed as a “competitor”. Sure that vote could have been removed and your post let stand. But like the law, sometimes the perceptions get muddied by other actions, and splitting one action off from another requires very careful consideration at the time. Like a will, one part could affect another even thought the intention wasn’t for that to happen.

    2. You also promoted your business - yes I would agree it was a fine line, yours and others promoted at the same time. But taken with the voting down, it gets harder for careful considered judgement to be made. Hell thats why we have courts and appeals where lawyers make big money dealing with variations meant one way but construed as another.

    So while now you raise some points that could be used by a mod to more carefully consider your case, these were not known by the mods at the time the decision was made. The deals are time sensitive, so spending hour considering making a decision, isnt really possible.

    Moderation isn't easy and I agree it's not consistent all the time.

    Like the Law, sometimes you get thrown out of court before you can argue gthe rest of your case. That's why we use lawyers as they know the system and can reduce the possiblity of this. e.g. and ironic, a property written will.

    Judges get it wrong and it's a well known game, to select your Judge based on their past interpretations. There are a number of mods here, and each has their own interpretation, within the overall boundaries of the guidelines.

    I dispute the call they made with free range eggs, but in the end, the bargains here mean I like it or in my case work with the system to see if it can be changed. ;)

    The problem for most is they see the voting system as something it isn't.

    Positive votes indicate popularity
    Negative votes mean "warning"

    • neil aus on 05/04/2015 - 08:42
      +2

      +1 for great summary!

      I'd like to point out that ozbargain does not purport to be a utopian society, nor should it, also that mods are not paid for the work they do.

      • Lysander on 05/04/2015 - 14:04

        If I read correctly, this is not correct. I remember reading that OB employes three or four people full time who DO get paid.
        Through all the affiliate links OB website generates a substantial amount of revenue per year.
        If you do not believe ask the mods or search the website.

  • Deridas on 05/04/2015 - 11:53

    Neil, I wish I can upvote your comments. I appreciate all the hard work and dedication you and the rest of the mods out on Ozbargain with minimal personal reward.

    Thanks.

    • Lysander on 05/04/2015 - 14:05

      See above. There are some personal rewards called money and wages.
      The posters are the ones who do not get paid with their reward only being "votes", and as you might be aware some people here post a lot and invest a lot of time in their posts. Those people are the ones who "work" for free and that should really be thanked on a daily basis.

      • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/04/2015 - 04:26

        "The posters are the ones who do not get paid with their reward only being "votes"…"

        That's straight-up wrong, and you've clearly missed the entire point of the website; which is to reap financial rewards by being made aware of bargains/cheap stuff/deals, and to in turn, help make others aware of bargains/cheap stuff/deals, so they can reap financial rewards. There's also monthly prizes, affiliation-link sharing, etc., but that stuff is actually by the way. We, the users, come here to find out about bargains; and to share them with others in return.

        The creators of the website have 'done the hard yards', for years, to set the whole thing up. And they put in many hours to ensure that it keeps functioning/ some sort of order is maintained. For that, like any other website with thousands of grateful daily visitors/contributors, they get some money out of it.

        It seems to me that that is the part you don't like (or are jealous of, or something?); the fact that they've managed to set something up, that others like/happily contribute to daily, which makes them some money. It's not like they're alone in this… think FaceBook, Twitter, Ebay, any dating site, etc. etc.

        • Lysander on 08/04/2015 - 05:03

          Maybe it was before your time but Amazon affiliate links were allowed which allowed the users who "did the hard work" and found bargains among thousands of items to also make a bit of money. That was removed and now all money from affiliate links goes to the website despite the users still putting in "the hard work". News to you?
          Also, the power posters should receive more rewards than those who post little as they invest a lot more time. I mean if you work more you deserve more wages than your colleague who works very little, isn't that right??
          I do not mind OB making money - I just think it is matter of degree and the money should be distributed a bit more fairly (the chance of a prize and reward does not qualify for that in my opinion, in the same way that the chance of getting paid for my work does not count as a financial reward).
          Look, we just disagree on that. So no hard feelings.

          P.S.: There are a lot of sites where people put in the same amount of work or even more and yet they are free (think Creative Commons, Wikipedia, Wikimedia etc.).

        • GnarlyKnuckles on 08/04/2015 - 05:15

          @Lysander:

          "I mean if you work more you deserve more wages than your colleague who works very little, isn't that right??"

          That statement is absolutely 100% irrelevant, because OzBargain is not a situation involving colleagues. Making that statement is naively simplistic, in fact.

          If your boss tells you you have to work more than some other colleague of yours, then of course you should get paid more than that dude. That is a completely different situation, which is the fundamental point you do not seem to understand; or pretend not to understand. I genuinely believe that you think that by repeatedly publicly suggesting that the site-owners 'give money back' to the site users, you will endear yourself to the users. We live in the real world though, so you are wrong about that.

        • Lysander on 08/04/2015 - 05:19

          @GnarlyKnuckles:

          Sorry to disappoint you but that is what I believe. You don't seem to be able to handle beliefs that deviate from your own. It is not about endearing oneself to the users of the site. I simply believe it is fair.
          However, I do acknowledge that it is the site owner's prerogative to do whatever they like and that is OK, too as it is their site. But as you mentioned, if as a result the level of participation is lower than it could be, that is also the prerogative of each individual.

        • RockyRaccoon on 08/04/2015 - 07:56

          @Lysander: Easily solved. Start an competitor to Ozbargain that does all the things you suggest. Someone who has created the environment to share all the great deals.

          Scotty and his team have done that and as Scotty knows I have strongly disagreed with some of the things he has done. But without the hard work, the insight and the judgement he made, this forum wouldnt be here. Other forums havent had the same traction because of the efforts he made.

          As for the point on the referrals, we have some here who profit very well out of those, the current system is still open to abuse, check who posts iherb deals regularly. So sharing will never be equal to the effort made.

          Other sites have let the affilate deals take over, over time it just attracts those who want to share for the $$, and everyone else moves on to sites like Ozbargain, where there is some sharing of the affilate referral amongst all.

          Just because someone gets an email from a referral site 5 minutes before someone else and posts it, doesnt mean the deal wouldn't be missed.

          As for Ozbargain making money, that's just like you are asking, they make the forum available, so we can post deals, without that first step, the site which has to be paid for, the deals wouldn't exist. So are you saying the site shouldn't get paid, while the deal poster does, but without the site the deal poster wouldn't be able to get paid either.

          Amazon deals are not included in affilate bonuses permitted as they are paid in currency AND require a website link, which is different from other affliate programs. So it's a different league to other affliate programs.

          BTW if you want to start a competitor, I may be interested as a moderator, if you can generate enough from Amazon to pay for a salary :)

        • Lysander on 08/04/2015 - 17:13
          -1

          @RockyRaccoon:

          I advocate fair sharing of revenue generated, for both posters and OB. That's all.
          By the way, there are some other sites around. Some people (myself) included choose to share some deals there, some deals here, some deals somewhere else again.
          Thanks for your offer of being moderator for such site but I am sure there would not be a shortage of applicants, including people who have no job currently, so in my crazy social justice sense, I would give those people preference as the less people in Australia are out of work, the better.

  • [Deactivated] on 05/04/2015 - 22:38
    +1

    Well, my topic has raised quite a bit of discussion.

    I don't want to get into Lysander's posts about the direction of the site - I can see both sides there.

    I also take RockyRacoon's points that the law can go both ways, and sometimes it can be a 'fine line'. In that vein, I don't hold any personal grudge against the mods, but intrinsic in that is that law (the rules in this case) must change to reflect prevailing attitudes, and to what is fair, and I stand by my original statement that my post should not have been deleted. Maybe if a poster did not disclose they were a competitor, there would be grounds, but (and particularly when there is little time to make a decision) mods should act conservatively when considering deleted someone else's informed IP.

    I also stand by my neg - if as Rocky Racoon says, it is intended as a 'warning', that is exactly what I intended. I do not think the deal is bad for all members, just a warning that people should use qualified professionals, and it is not for everybody. If the mods cannot apply the current 'competitor' rules without deleting my contribution, then the rules need to be changed. For the upvoters of the comment, for the people who are considering the deal, for others who may not understand the deal, or for people who may want to get a better value or different service elsewhere.

    I received a message last night from one of the mods that said my original forum post was moved, not deleted, which is good, but there was obviously some miscommunication there as I intended it to remain.

    This poor communication is probably also reflected in the fact my issue still has no comment from a mod, though strangely Neil has addressed some points raised on a different tangent.

    I will post my previous deal for value wills back up in a few months time, and I welcome any and all comments on it!

    I suppose the foundation of my disbelief at my deleted posts was that I am in a better position than most to comment on the deal, and I don't expect to be regarded as dishonest. Neil has intimated that all posters must be viewed that way unless mods know there is an expert on a particular topic.

    I can tell you, Neil, that a qualified professional is all that needs to be known. Lawyers, as an example, undertake huge amounts of training, and are subject to very strict Legal Profession Requirements, including honesty and transparency requirements. We pay large professional membership fees and insurance. In my view, if a professional states something relevant to a deal, whether it be an accountant, doctor, engineer etc the mods must accept that on face value. Maybe also accept the many upvotes I, and other informed posters, get!

    With regards to the large number of legal posts on OzBargain, I have received verbal assurance from my insurer that my professional indemnity insurance covers comment made in an official capacity online, so if we can come to a good outcome with this issue, I am more than happy to continue contributing to the forum.
    I would be happy to discuss with the mods a formal arrangement whereby I could offer some legal advice free of charge - maybe particular questions sent through the mods by email to me?

    • Moderatorneil on 05/04/2015 - 23:11

      that law (the rules in this case) must change to reflect prevailing attitudes, and to what is fair, and I stand by my original statement that my post should not have been deleted. Maybe if a poster did not disclose they were a competitor, there would be grounds, but (and particularly when there is little time to make a decision) mods should act conservatively when considering deleted someone else's informed IP.

      We have had many situations where competitors have badmouthed and/or negative voted deals (both declared and undeclared). You are a direct competitor who has posted deals for wills here. That is a huge conflict of interest and your comment can not be trusted. We apply this rule just as other sites (e.g. Whirlpool) do and need to do this consistently in all cases.

      mods should act conservatively when considering deleted someone else's informed IP.

      There is no being conservative or liberal, it's a straight forward rule that is in our commenting guidelines as well as our representative code of conduct.

      If you wish to warn people, you can do so in your own deal or in a forum post where you can address the issue.

      This poor communication is probably also reflected in the fact my issue still has no comment from a mod,

      We responded in TWAM 13 minutes after you posted, with no response from you. Please check the PM for the link to the TWAM thread.

      Neil has intimated that all posters must be viewed that way unless mods know there is an expert on a particular topic.

      No. That's not what I said or I meant. Lysander made a suggestion of pointing out experts which was an interesting suggestion.

      I would be happy to discuss with the mods a formal arrangement whereby I could offer some legal advice free of charge - maybe particular questions sent through the mods by email to me?

      I think we first need to discuss what our liability is with having legal posts firstly. If you wish to do an AMA, that could be something of interest.

      • [Deactivated] on 06/04/2015 - 03:13

        I now understand you take a very black and white view of what I view are some arbitrary rules, with seemingly little room for input. I have not heard any justification of the reason for this other than 'Whirlpool does it'.
        However, this is your prerogative.

        I would be happy to do an AMA in, say, the next couple of weeks. I cannot see any vicarious liability on your part in such an AMA, however you may not accept that view.
        I see that the only liability would be on my part which I would ensure would be mitigated.

        • Moderatorneil on 06/04/2015 - 12:09

          OK, I'll try again and give you a better example.

          Acme Widget Company is in court for whatever charges and a fair jury needs to be selected.

          • One juror is a senior manager for Wiley Coyote Widget company, a competitor to Acme Widget.

          Do you think this jury member should be excluded from participating in the case? Courts would agree that this is a conflict of interest.

          Other conflicts of interest:

          • One juror works for Acme Widget Company.
          • One juror is the wife of an employee of Acme Widget Company.
          • One juror works for Smith Marketing, a company that is charge of promoting companies such as Acme Widget.

          All of the above would be recused or excluded from sitting on the jury.

          This is the big picture. We attempt to keep the commenting and voting as honest as possible. Obviously you can't remove all bias however there is a clear conflict of interest in these situations. All have vested interests in the outcome of the case.

        • RockyRaccoon on 06/04/2015 - 13:32
          +1

          @neil: Never argue with a lawyer, they're professionals :)

      • MrBlank on 06/04/2015 - 15:12

        If you wish to warn people, you can do so in your own deal or in a forum post where you can address the issue.

        This seems counter productive. Warnings should go in the comments of the deal posted as that is where I would be looking as a 'potential user' of the deal. I wouldn't be looking elsewhere for such warnings.

        I've posted warnings about deals which don't necessarily detract from the deal but are valid nonetheless, albeit not as a competitor or with downvoting but if they make it explicitly clear that they are a competitor than I don't see any issue with them posting as we can decide for ourselves whether to or not trust their advice.

        Also just to clarify what are the explicit goals of upvotes/downvotes as I am now confused as to downvotes being a 'warning'.

        • Moderatorneil on 06/04/2015 - 18:03

          The statement you quoted only applies to those who are associated with the store or the OP as well as competitors. Everyone else should be giving warnings on the original deal.

          Voting Guidelines.

  • [Deactivated] on 07/04/2015 - 18:25
    -3

    Neil, to be frank that example is patronising, and partly simply wrong. Besides the fact there would never be a jury in such a matter, juries were originally composed of people who knew those on trial, or knew the circumstances of the matter, and there are good arguments for that. That is the argument I am making all along, but you are unwilling or unable to engage with it, or question the rules. Of course, nowadays, there are rules for juries but in some cases, no, those jurors would not be excused.
    I am not going to give you a legal or history lesson, suffice to say your commentary throughout this thread has added little insight, and a clear view that the rules are there and unchanging. I think you have done OzBargain an injustice where there has been an opportunity to liaise with some seemingly dissatisfied members.
    In relation to an AMA, I would like to do one. I do a lot of work online as I live in a regional area, including pro bono. I would like something organised in the next couple of weeks. It is something needed at the moment on OzBargain.
    I will not continue this thread. I can be contacted my PM.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join