Should we maintain a list of suspicious buyers and sellers?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

This sounds like you're just arguing semantics. In your example, you're sending an un-solicited PM to a mod, which they have to:
a. Read
b. Form an opinion
c. Post that opinion on the internet (which opens them up to liability)

The mods may not have to wade through "ANY" posts, but they are still spending a decent amount of time on something because you asked them to. Not to mention sticking out their necks in a legal sense.

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

How am I arguing semantics? There's no interpretation necessary when a criminal act has been committed.

And again, if it's so dangerous for the moderators, admins or forum owner, how is it that Sports Card Forum has the exact thing I am proposing openly displayed at the top of the site's home page?

http://opg.sportscardforum.com/scf/badtrader/page

There are at least six pages with 50 + names per page. User names, real names, the member's address, and a summary of what they did.

Know why the mods aren't liable for posting names to that list? Because there are facts which support their decision to include the wrongdoer on the list. And you cannot be accused of defamation when there are facts to substantiate your claim.

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by LukeLyon

There's not much point in continuing this conversation since Leon has already explained why it won't happen. The only part of your post I disagree with is where you say the mods aren't liable for what they post. They are. And just because you have facts that support your claim, doesn't mean that you can't be sued for libel or defamation. You would just have to defend yourself in court.

They are liable in the eyes of the law if they defame a person by spreading falsehoods about them.

They are not accountable in any way for what they post if said posting is supported by fact. A person would have to be an idiot to take somebody to court for defamation of character when the posting was clearly factual in basis.

There is no arguing this.

[the 'stache]

And by the way, LukeLyon, I am not trying to argue with ya. I am just clarifying.

Edit: I poorly worded one part of my post. A person can be accused of anything. I could accuse Kate Upton of being too damned gorgeous. /rim shot

If a mod on SCF posted somebody's name, and that person wanted to sue the mod for defamation, they could try. They wouldn't get anywhere, however, because no attorney would take the case when there is no actionable cause.