引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-16 03:13 發表
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?

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 ]

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 ]

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.

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:48 發表


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... PRO ...

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.

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:51 發表


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  ...

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 ]

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:55 發表
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 ...

Of course I know what you think of loksiu all along.
Many minor offences are already enough to convict an offender.

However, last time when you banned loksiu for the first time, I don't remember you explicitly listing his minor offences. I would have loved to read it. I remember people pressing you for it. Then you let loksiu off without ever specifying his guilt other than as making trouble.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 18:53 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 14:10 發表
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 am not sure if you had to race against time to stop the police probing into what was going on. I am not sure if time permitted you to first consult the moderators as to which ones in the group actually sided with loksiu/crazybb in their 'stirring up'. I am not sure if you did it on impulse.

Frightened? I remember that in a communication with you in the past, you commented if you were frightened, you should have started to be frightened seven years ago.
Seven (or six?) years ago...when batman emerged.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 18:56 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 14:21 發表


talked already.
no need to mention again and again for his wrong doings... many already.  by me...
You can see it in his signature... what he want to do:
http://forum.timway.com/f/profile-ui ...

No matter how not well-meaning enough loksiu was in the past, I don't think to make the forum die has always been his intention.
Rather, I think this arises from his current grudge against you coupled with his dissatisfaction with your handling of the previous crises in the past few months. Note: my speculation.

Note that last time after you unbanned him and gave him grace, he seemed to retreat to the private 'Cannon' and became less outspoken on the surface. Less critical. He did not speak as much as the others over the 'lagan' issue on the 141 board.

It takes time for members to grow on the forum. Unfortunately, there are from time to time sources of 'stimulation', just like 流料 this time. Some people are particularly reactive to stimuli. It seems also necessary to get rid of stimuli that take negative effect on not only a few people but very little positive effect on others.

Personally, I found 流料's report offensive upon reading it, though I did not bother to react or respond. But I understand why others reacted (strongly).

That's why if the current crisis had not arisen, while I tended to ignore 流料's report, I would also have continued to ignore loksiu's query (or 'subtle implication' in your words). But if loksiu was to be suppressed, it is only fair to suppress 流料 as well.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 16:33 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 15:02 發表


don't focus on people, focus on the stuff he did and what he write/wrote.

While I may have to name people, I do not focus on them but rather on things said/written. Do you remember I helped you incorporated this principle into the moderators' rules in March/April?

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 17:08 編輯 ]

Well, I think our exchange here on this thread is substantial enough.

Thank you for the time anyway.

To find something offensive or take offence is to do so personally.
A may take offence at something while B does not.
By its very nature taking offence is subjective.
'It just makes me sick.'
And taking offence is not accusation in itself.
Not everything offensive is automatically against forum rules.
This explains why though quite some people mocked 流料, very few if any asked you to remove his report.

You seem to have an obsession with evidence.
But please also distinguish between different notions.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 16:36 編輯 ]

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 15:12 發表
Well, I think our exchange here on this thread is substantial enough.

Thank you for the time anyway.

Maybe over onto this thread, where I question you as to how you handled 小潔's case:

http://forum.timway.com/f/thread-122933-1-1.html

I would appreciate your continued patience to me.

[ 本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 18:57 編輯 ]