In reference to the influx of shit list posts

I would like to know if there is anyway that these posts can be moderated... Like having to show proof maybe???

When we write one of these posts, we put up all of the evidence that we have in order to support our claim...

Most of the posts that we see on here now are just he did this, or she did that... etc etc....

This is a business, and if you just want to ruin someones name, then it just isn't cool.... Slander is well, i think illegal.... And is as bad as scamming..

Its nice to have the shit list because it makes people be wary about certain people, if the claims are valid. But its all the noobs scamming noobs, that are scamming noobs, or claiming to.

If there was a mod to the shit list part or something that would hear the claims and request proof before the thread is approved, then perhaps there wouldn't be as many claims...

I know that with all of these threads, it is more likely that there would need to be a few mods or something, but eh, its a suggestion...

Thanks for listening...

Jason and Amandalane: yeah amanda gets the plane...

It seems all to easy to throw mud especially for the immature. I agree there should be a set
of guidlines in posting a shitlist thread especially if it is directed towards a longstanding
member of BHW at least some chat logs and the accused should be given a reasonable
amount of time to respond to the accusation before the vultures jump on the bandwagon,
Possibly close the thread to all posts except for the accused for limited time.

Well we see it as a way to steer clear of people who do not do good business.I myself keep detailed records of all transactions and because I did i have even won against scammers using c.c. to try to beat pay pals rules.This is for sure we can not keep going in this direction.

Yes the person has to have verifiable proof to substantiate their claims. Or they risk infractions or being banned.

Best bet is just to ignore them and avoid them and not to worry about it. That's what I do and it works out fine.

what would probably be better is if somebody mediated (not sure who can do this or has the time) and then a list of scammers can be updated on the site, still lets people know who is suss without the flaming and useless posts that show up

basically both parties submit their evidence (chat logs, paypal statement whatever and the mode decides who is in the wrong)

You are mostly right....

Lets take this a step further.... Let the mods pick a jury of 12 members... At random, just like jury duty. They weigh the evidence of the post, and see if it should be made public... And here in the states its called a grand jury... That way a mod, and however many people they pick (maybe less than 12 is good enough), just not one person... So as not to seem to have bias.

This may be a good idea, because we are all citizens of this forum...

And maybe people would think twice before they post any old bullshit...

12 members? I think you would be lucky to get 3 unbiased people to be on this "jury" lol. There are def a lot of cliques on here and people who defend friends.

Not to mention the Mods are so busy that they don't even have enough time to address all the reported posts...

Fantastic idea, OP.

That's true, but hey, even if you get a few unbiased people, thats better than everyone being biased and one sided about something.

You are also right, this would be a hard thing to complete, having three people moderating this thread, and would take quite a while for things to get situated and everyone informed, but in the long run, I think that this would be a solution to consider. If your shit list thread had to go through someone elses hands before being posted, you would better be more sure and more honest with proof when you were submitting it.

I def agree with you about needing more than one person, but realistically it isn't an option right now unless we get more mods that are always active...I think the mods have so much to deal with. Maybe you should apply to become a mod =P
I also like your last suggestion to have the shitlist go through someone before being posted live, but then how long would it take for the thread to finally hit the board =P ?

See, now that we are having a kind of suggestion, answering, and a nice discussion, perhaps we can find a nice amicable solution....

Like people should before posting on that section... LOL

Edit:

I can't be a mod... LOL... I don't think they would let me.... I have been banned before, and some other stuff...