To Xocat: Concrete Suggestion to Resolve This Matter

真係要存起佢....留黎做教材...

thanks 炮艇工兵  for his suggestions and article.  Attitude and language is good.  However, what you see is not so correct.  Let me correct.  Though I see some constructive positive suggestions.

Yes, my management style might not be something you like.  You can't make a movie or place that 100% of people like it.  Nobody in the world can do it.  I have to make those 10% of people get out of here and remain those who can be peaceful.  Just because 10% of people just shout and shout and influence those other 90% of people.Totally wrong.  Very wrong.  I did respond.  And the fact is: loksiu say/speculate something without concrete evidence support.  

The point is : he and his "friends" break our law of our forum.  Peace.  I only want peace.

totally wrong, he didn't merely ask a question.  He is 誹謗.  He said someone collects money for illegal stuff... what's your evidence?

方死方生，方生方死；給別人機會就是給自己機會.....不賢者居高位, 是播其惡於眾也



p.s. 灌水無罪, 話九之你

That's where I want to come in. Loksiu did not make a statement 陳述句 of accusation to the effect that someone received money......and did not name anyone in that utterance. Rather, he asked a question whether the forum could allow people receiving money.........to stay. Possibly he had 流料   in mind but even so, he did not 'say his mind'. You might say that from the context of the exchanges on that thread, it was clear that loksiu was indirectly referring to ('alluding to') 流料, but one could rebut by saying that it was an incidental (順帶) hypothetical question about an issue raised in general (a sidetrack you could say), not the issue surrounding 流料 in particular. Under the law of civil libel in Hong Kong, yes, to demonstrate  a person has committed libel against another, there is no need to provide evidence of 指明道姓. You can just demonstrate that the one 'alluded to' can be inferred without reasonable doubt to be someone. But in this case here, did loksiu make a statement? No. Can we make a reasonable inference that points to 流料? I wonder, given that loksiu's question sounded more hypothetical than accusatory to me.

And do the law-enforcement authorities in HK actively intervene if they ever suspect  a case of libel in the first instance? No. Proceedings start only when a case is filed to the court, for the matter is civil, not criminal, and the judge hears the case. Of course our forum is not a governmental agency nor a law court; we are only drawing an analogy. What, then, do I think you the administrator should have done instead?

I think you should have (or could have) reminded loksiu that his question could (possibly) provoke someone or be taken as libel (without saying that you personally think it amounted to 構成 libel) . Or you could even have remained inactive until 流料 or anyone else complained. Either way, you next step would have been to advise loksiu to take back what he had said and say the reason is to prevent an argument that might follow. If he did not comply, and an argument then actually ensued (no matter who started it), then ban the one who continued the argument. I remember that back in 2003-2005, this was how you intervened on the old forum-----you went in admist an argument, and threatened to ban. Then the argument (in most cases) stopped. That was what I appreciated then.

By now on this new forum, the above two-step approach may seem to you clumsier than a simple 'pre-emptive' ban which you imposed on loksiu this time. But I'd rather you took it in two steps (as you generally did back in the old days) so that both the manner and the outcome of your intervention are acceptable by most if not all (能服眾). With argument initiation not allowed here, if you are to intervene, intervene to prevent argument in your role as administrator and board master of 意見區. You need not have recourse to the notion of 誹謗.(You said loksiu did not know about the law of any big country. Did you check up the legalities involved in libel?)  Instead go back to the spirit of the forum rules: to prevent argument and ensure harmony. Hence intervene, when you deem it necessary, to prevent argument, without pre-emptively accusing anyone or 'stretching' what someone says beyond his words on the surface (i.e. saying that loksiu's hypothetical, generalised question is an attack directed specifically on 流料 in this case here.)

I earnestly implore you to remove your ban on loksiu and all the rest of them. If anyone of them did deserve a ban in the past, you did not ban him/her when the situation would warrant it (or you finally let him off, as in the case of your previous ban on loksiu which was subsequently removed). I am not saying that they did deserve punishment in the past (I withhold my view here); I am saying that  if at opportune times for banning them in the past  (if there were ever any) you chose not to punish them, this time all the more they should not be banned.

They might leave the forum altogether in the end, as stated by some of them on other threads. Let them leave in an honourable way (with their membership intact), even if they have acted in ways dishonourable in your eyes in the past.

Whitekitty

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-16 21:21 編輯 ]

xocat wrote elsewhere:

'If you insist that you're not on the side of crazybb or loksiu, you're innocent.'


I do not consider taking personal side necessary for me.
I side with procedural propriety.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-16 21:45 編輯 ]

請問 單打 係 single, or double 果種定係 sarcasm.

questioning someone sin is very impolite...  especially someone didn't have a sin.   And you didn't have concrete evidence.
If someone question about you to ask if you have committed that sin but without evidence publicly, you're very embarrassed...
Try it out for your friends, you won't even do it.
Just because you're hidden in the Internet, you did it.  And it is very impolite.
I repeat, no one is prosecuted...

I repeat, loksiu did not name anyone in that utterance.
I think you speculate he alluded to 流料.....'speculate', to use your word.

I repeat that I do not particularly approve of loksiu's manners in general.
I simply think that given what he said there and then, what should have been done is warn/advise him as long as there was no evidence that he spoke ill of 流料specifically.
'Evidence'.........to follow your requirement.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 13:43 編輯 ]

He is not speculating... he lead many many other users to think that 流料 break the HK law.  He is very successful in it.  Proven.  No need to use the word "speculate" any more... PROVEN AND PROVEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL... a lot of users believe in that and ask me why I allow someone break the law... very very successful...

If someone say it in the public and asked : "hey, I saw someone on the street promoting sex trade SEEM/LOOK LIKE your mother?  Is that true?".  Even if it is speculating... it is very very insulting...  so, here you speculate someone violate the law... that's more than meets the eyes...sorry, more than breaks the law... more than insulting...  

If you want to discuss with me, pls read every one of the post before posting... I see your strong language skill and writing skill, you need to improve your reading skill.  I also appreciate your legal skill.  But you have to understand more evidence...

You say: (At the end of the day) no one is prosecuted,
(just as messenger, 炮艇工兵,屈臣氏,fuk, 小潔etc. are unbanned finally).


But I consider procedural propriety quite important. It contributes to your credibility. It is part of a group's norms.

You didn't see it doesn't mean you he didn't do it.
He has the right to imply or use subtle ways to imply... that is insulting as well.. and that is 誹謗 as well...
And most importantly, he also explicitly say it... and proven, YES PROVEN, a lot of other members believe in him...

loksiu tend to break many many minor rules so that it is not clear.  But the whole picture and the accumulation is very troublesome to our forum... do you think I ban loksiu's decision is within 10 days?  No, it is already over 1 year...  I have that in mind for over 1 year...  so it is a hard decision to make... unless now concrete evidence is clear.

In that case, you should have banned loksiu earlier, when he more obviously misled others. You should have referred to earlier utterances of his, even if you banned him later.

You require us board masters to specify the post(s) in question that lead to a decision to ban. You say it is to let others undertand the rationale.
Please practise what you require. I hope you the administrator are no exception to this requirement.

Whether a particular subtle implication amounts to libel is for the judge to decide.
However, here you are:
The Executive, The Legislature, The Judiciary. All three branches of government in one.
What can I say?

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 14:07 編輯 ]

That thread is like "how to create a bomb" to bomb this forum... I will forget it forever... Will you make publish a article on how to create a bomb in the Internet?  That is obvsiouly illegal and devastating...

Everyone involved in that thread are highly suspected to bomb our forum or make us die... I'm sorry again and again that some good persons are accidentally killed, but I have resumed their accounts, and make them alive again, on the name of God, sorry, not God , on the name of xocat...    They are alive again easily ... provided that they are willing to talk to me politely, they have the right to have different opinions... but polite different opiniions are surely welcome.

I'm very troubled during that time I don't know who is my friend and who is 無間道.  Have you seen that movie?  I'm the one who is so afraid.  So frightened that I have to ban many of them... I have no choice during that time.  Now I see more clearly and willing to see more clearly and thus many have been unbanned, unless they are the group of loksiu...

ha ha... our forum still stay at the law technology of 包公時代... me too, I have nothing to say... just laugh...