|
Post by MyAdia on Apr 11, 2011 11:23:43 GMT -5
Purpose and One Rule of Royal Opinions Welcome to Royal Opinions! Royal Opinions was started on 10 April 2011 as a harassment-free haven for people to express their opinions about royals, especially the Monaco Princely Family. The guiding principle of Royal Opinions is the freedom to express one’s opinion with minimum moderation. Members contribute topics to opine from various sources such as, public events, news articles, blogs, media commentary, television items and of course photographs. Posters are free to express their personal opinions on any aspects of these sources, including the veracity of the information presented. Likewise, members are free to opine about their fellow members’ expressed opinions. Thus, a corresponding sense of responsibility is expecting from members to exercise the freedom to express their opinions with minimum moderation. Royal Opinions have just ONE rule in addition to ProBoard’s terms and agreements you agreed to when registering: One Rule: DO NOT insult, criticize, pester or threaten fellow posters in any manner. Lack of adherence to this rule could with in a warning or immediate banning depending on the case. Understandably, some members may find some expresses opinions about royals personally insulting, may find some topics morally offensive or may find it difficult to have their own opinions questioned or challenged. If so, Royal Opinions may not be the right forum for you. Royal Opinions have members from all over the world from all walks of life, thus members may have different understanding and standards of what is considered personally insulting, critical, pestering or threatening. Below are some guidelines about Royal Opinions’s ONE RULE: - An expressed opinion about a person or topic that is contrary to your opinion (either negatively or positively) is not a personal insult or personal criticism aimed at you.
- An opinion is “A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.” Thus, opinions are not facts and posters are free to express their opinions without having to provide evidence to support it.
- However, posters are free to question or challenge the content of any expresses opinions without it being deemed a personal attack (assuming the challenge does not include comments personally aimed at the poster who made the opinion). The more obvious challenge to an opinion is providing information that disputes the poster's comments or expressing your differing opinion. This is an anonymous discussion forum, so posters are also free to challenge any opinions or information that are based on personal knowledge - as long as they adhere to all elements of the ONE RULE.
- Persistent demands to a poster to provide evidence to support an opinion can be considered pestering.
- Likewise, persistent petty and annoying comments made every time a poster expresses an opinion that you disagree with can also be considered pestering.
- Comments made to silence posters, such as claims of defamation of character, because they express an opinion about a royal (or another person) that you disagree with can be considered threatening.
To report any comments that you feel is a violation of Royal Opinions’s ONE RULE, please use the Report to Mod button at the bottom of the offending post. If you have any questions about Royal Opinions’s one rule and purpose, please feel free to discuss them in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Apr 20, 2011 15:34:45 GMT -5
I really have to expand on an example of challenging a poster's opinion - beyond the more obvious like providing information that may contradict what the poster stated. A big pet peeve of mine is the Double Standard poster and the poster who wants you to be an Equal Opportunity Opinionater.
Noting that a poster is using a Double Standard is not a personal attack. A Double standard poster is a poster who applies a standard, an ethical belief or a moral either at all or more strictly to one person (or group) than to another. For example, it is a double standard when a poster criticizes Mary’s educational attainment because that poster may feel that Mary’s degree is from a non-prestigious Australian university, yet the same poster may praise or deem Charlene being a high school dropout as either unimportant or just fine. A caveat is when that poster may say that he/she understands why an athlete may not have completed their educational, which is different that saying the above. Please do not get into arguments with people who continue to use double standards; it is really a waste of your energy.
However, a poster can criticize Mary’s educational attainment because that poster may feel that Mary’s degree is from a non-prestigious Australian university and not have any opinion about Charlene or any other royal’s educational attainment. A poster does not have to be an Equal Opportunity Opinionater – meaning if they criticize one royal for a certain attribute they then have to criticize another or all that may have a similar or lesser attribute. Everyone poster is free to choose to opine about any royal or topic.
|
|
|
Post by countess on Jul 14, 2011 8:58:48 GMT -5
I've dealt with flying monkey flunkies and i know how much trouble they cause and always screaming "litagation". they're messing with robbybobby, he's messing back (i like his attorney) i've copied off eringers blog the laws in the US for future reference for the flying monkey flunkies that try to waste our time > and a fair warning, if you send me a PM , i will post it with all available information >i can find on you, (ask michela, i've proven i've got the guts) on the open forum, you may call it "bullying" i call it paybacks are hell. The United States, in order to protect the free speech rights of its citizens against such forum shopping plaintiffs, has passed laws forbidding US Courts from recognizing foreign defamation judgments (28 USC 4101, et seq.). Any court judgment obtained in the UK, France, or Monaco will be unenforceable in the United States.
If you decide to pursue legal action in the United States, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the alleged defamatory statements are false, that the statements harmed the plaintiff’s reputation and that the plaintiff suffered damages. www.eringer33.com/
|
|
|
Post by MyAdia on Jul 14, 2011 12:22:41 GMT -5
Thanks Countess - they do not and NEVER scared me! As I told them before, I would love for someone to try to sue us for defamation (their favorite scare tactic for shutting up non-glorifying opinions about their idol Charlene). Can you imagine Charlene suing us because we say that she is a pathological liar and a con artist. I would love for her to actually prove my posts about her not qualifying for the Beijing Olympics as a lie. Charlene is not as stupid as her flunkies are. So, I suggest that they check in with the master manipulator schemer before they threaten to sue. Way too many royal message board administrators gave in to these bullies or fell victim tho their behind the scene schemes that shut down boards/sections and shut down any negative discussions about Charlene (they will allow you to say that you don't like her outfit - but nothing substantive).
|
|
|
Post by creativemind on Jul 14, 2011 14:04:53 GMT -5
i also think those who cave have a secret desire to be a part of the "royal inner circle" ... so whatever they can do to "kiss butt" ... live vicariously ... whatever you want to call it ... even when it comes to royals, i seek the TRUTH! even if the world of those i follow turn out to be a sham.
p.s. i also will not hesitate to post nasty pm's with all available information. flunkies, monkeys, loonies -- outside your pollyanna world, this info is easy to find! have a nice day!
|
|
|
Post by mrszinck on Jul 14, 2011 15:25:47 GMT -5
I do not understand people send me a PM, they not post on the open forum. There first message go to me? Why?
Stay away from my PM! It goes straight to the open forum… ;D
|
|