Black List..... would like feedback from everyone

[The Mic]

Well bc i believe many of us have been ripped off by many places in the past, i also believe it is our responsiblity as NICO members and as consumers to let our community be aware of these places who would do such a thing. Unless there is already one here, i think we should start a black list, listing all the places and/or names of the owners from where we have been ripped off. The list should include people and/or places who : do not deliver in a timely manner, perform poor quality workmanship, dont deliver at all, deliver but essential parts are missing, deliver a poor quality product, etc.....

this should prob be posted by the Mods and edited in a manner that is presentable. I really think this would only benefit us because it would prevent us from getting ripped off from not ordering from those places and im sure we dont want the same place/ppl to do the samething again to other 240sx owners who know nothing about the car but whom yet want an engine swap. But idk, thats my opinion

I look fowards to the Moderators feedback on this

[nissanrcer240]

Im sure theres people who've had bad experiences with EVERY shop thats out there, so good luck with the list thing.

If you do make one, heres my pick...

Culpeper VA 22701The Wax Shop

/\ The location and the name of the place, if your ever in Culpeper, do not go there, I have friends who work out there and I can tell you that you cant trust anybody out there.

[ride4lame]

I think if this list is made, it should be highly regulated by mods. Everyone has had bad dealings with everyshop. Sometimes people screw up. If this list is made, it should only list places that are notorius for screwing up, and have a long history of doing it.

[Bubba1]

I think the idea is noble, but I'd advise against a formal blacklist. Too easy to corrupt it. It would be too simple for a person with a personal agenda to put a vendor on the list for the wrong reasons. I don't think having NICO share the risk of libel is the best way to go.

[The Mic]

I think if this list is made, it should be highly regulated by mods.

Thats why i state

this should prob be posted by the Mods and edited in a manner that is presentable.

I look fowards to the Moderators feedback on this

[The Mic]

I think the idea is noble, but I'd advise against a formal blacklist. Too easy to corrupt it. It would be too simple for a person with a personal agenda to put a vendor on the list for the wrong reasons. I don't think having NICO share the risk of libel is the best way to go.

Yet , sex offenders are registered for a reason, and treasonists are treated the same way. No entity shall be black listed unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act. Id say in order for an entity to be black listed; Any NICO member may submit a nomination to a Moderator (the nomination may be denied if there is an insufficient amount of evidence), then the moderator may submit the nomination to the Administration. The Administration shall act in all matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient to black list the single entity with supervision . This system i believe would be effective in preventing in future unpleasant encounters. I suggest we experiment with it and see what the black list can do.What is wrong with this idea? to extreme bc we might hurt others feelings? nay i say. this idea isnt flawless but it will do more good than bad at the least i believe. LEts just experiment with the proposal and put it to action for a probationary period, if it blows up in our faces than well scrap the whole thing. I think we should be less concerned with the image of NICO and more concerned about the interests of our community.

-I dont know about posting past experiences bc that might just start threads with just slander. Im just prosposing to the Administration just a Black list, Maybe captions under the name listed to show the details or something

[Exar-Kun]

that would take some doing, but if you guys want to post up experiences and things, Im all for it. just dont go overboard and bash the vendor until we can get "obht sides" or other peoples experiences.

I just put up the "good list" or "gold list" in my forusm of where to buy, places people have liked and have had good experiences with...

-chet

[Bubba1]

I'd personally like to be warned of disreputable vendors, that's why I really like your idea, but I think there's too big a legal risk to NICO for officially moderating and maintaining a list like that. NICO could easily get sued for slander or libel by any vendor that they put on that list. If I owned NICO, I wouldn't want to assume that liability. I'd much rather have the member who wants to make his complaint with a vendor public assume the entire risk. Sex offendor/treasonist lists are of people convicted of criminal actions and those convictions are a matter of public record. Comparing unproven civil disputes with vendors to convicted sex offendors is way too big a leap. The BBB is a far better place to maintain a list like that than NICO. I don't envision NICO doing it.

[The Mic]

well id say compare them to treasonists, i just used the registered sex offender part to point out that people are made aware of these individuals. Libel- to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation . An UNTRUTH would make the listing slanderous, all of the black listees would have factual evidence accusing them of conducting a business malpractice. And NICO administration would define the sufficient amount of evidence in order to make the nomination valid and to black list that entity. So its really a 1-2-3 step process if you look at it. Oh and as far as legalities are concerned, all submitted evidence, claims, and accusations is liable towards those whove submitted it. So if it turns out false, it wont be NICO's fault, itll be the individual(s) who filed the false claim or submitted the false evidence.

[NY94J30]

Libel- to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation . An UNTRUTH would make the listing slanderous, all of the black listees would have factual evidence accusing them of conducting a business malpractice. And NICO administration would define the sufficient amount of evidence in order to make the nomination valid and to black list that entity. So its really a 1-2-3 step process if you look at it. Oh and as far as legalities are concerned, all submitted evidence, claims, and accusations is liable towards those whove submitted it. So if it turns out false, it wont be NICO's fault, itll be the individual(s) who filed the false claim or submitted the false evidence.

You are asking the NICO adminstrators to put themselves in a bad position that I would recommend they did not put themselves in.

There is no protection against liability from a libel action for a publisher that does not conduct due diligence. I can't imagine that the admininstrators have the time or resources to engage in the proper investigation of claims. In which case the site could find itself liable for for any libelous statements on a stickied thread.

Think about the practical aspect of it, if you see a piece you find libelous you go after the deep pockets - i.e. the publisher - not the author.

[The Mic]

AGAIN, Libel only aplies if there is an untruth, what can you sue for if all that is said about you is true ?

[AZhitman]

I have some thoughts on this - I'll check in once I have time to discuss.

[The Mic]

There is no protection against liability from a libel action for a publisher that does not conduct due diligence.

NICO would conduct due diligence (although not officially) to avoid petty claims.By submitting a statement to the Mod , the submitter automatically enters a contract with NICO stating that the individual is held accountable for all aspects that are factual and false. NICO does not endorse nor disapprove the statement made by the individual, but merely black listing the name at the individual's expense. NICO is not held accountable for seeking the amount of truth the testimony indeed has. Making the statement second-hand info. The only grounds i see for legal action is slander/libel. And those only apply if what was said about the listee is false. It would not apply if it were true.

[The Mic]

And not just anyone could post. this would be a locked thread that posting is restricted to the Administration and those apporoved by the Administration and will be supervised vigilantly by the Admin .

[prigo]

I'd like to see something like that, as I'm gonna be getting some motor work done in the near future, but I might just have WD do it

[Bubba1]

Having NICO maintain the list makes them an active participant. And Unless the vendor you're attempting to black list has been convicted on the specific charge you are accusing him of, it's you're word against the vendors until proven in court. How is NICO to know for sure that you're telling the truth? Because you're a NICO member? Gotta do better than that. Why should NICO replicate the Better Business Bureau and assume risk of litigation just because some random guy on internet felt ripped off by a vendor. I'm sure Nico has no issue if you want to vent about a vendor, but they would be risking a whole lot by accepting responsibility to maintain that kind of list.

[NY94J30]

I agree with Bubba 100%. I am not suggesting that there is any cause of action beside libel (not slander - as slander is a verbal statement). Nor do I disagree that there is not a winnable claim if the statement is not false. The problem lies in the fact that a case need not neccessarily be winnable to be actionable. So you are opening NICO up to petty suit. NICO cannot presume the statements of members to be true - or deny accountability if not - thats where due dilligence comes in.

And if, as you suggest, NICO itself maintain this list - as Bubba said - they now have no means to deny complicity.

Further, the suggestion that NICO make the submitter of info indemnitors isnt realistic, nor will it help in limiting liability. If this were a possibility don't you think that all publications would have their writers/submitters sign indemnity contracts?

[The Mic]

D.A.R.E. America v. Rolling Stone

"given our conclusion that Glass was not a Rolling Stone employee, the article was not published by Rolling Stone with actual malice, and the Editor's Notes are not libelous. In any event, there appears to be no sub-stantial merit to the plaintiff"

-Ruling to the defendant

[NY94J30]

and?

first, proof of malice is only required in reference to public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan)

second, you would have NICO administrators facilitate your plan - which would most likely be seen as the action of NICO employees

[The Mic]

Legal action only comes in handy when you are going to win, no, a case does not have to be winnable in order for legal action to be taken, but most people would spend their money on cases which they know they have a chance of winning and that they would get some kind of financial gain, not if theyre going to lose bc it would be a waste of time of the courts and money would be spent for nothing.

[The Mic]

and?first, proof of malice is only required in reference to public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan)

-NICO could be defined as a public figure

second, you would have NICO administrators facilitate your plan - which would most likely be seen as the action of NICO employees

-Employees get paid, does anyone here at NICO recieve a paycheck for moderating or posting?

[Dattebayo]

Its all a moot point poeple. Blacklisting is unconstitutional isnt it? There used to be a whole deal with the unions blacklisting employee's that didnt work out for one reason or another.

[NY94J30]

Bro,

I'm not gonna argue the legal aspects with you, clearly you aren't aware of the implications - I've made my point.

Hit me up when you've done some legal research.

BTW, the public figure requirement of New York Times applies to the object of the libel.

And you'll have to show me the authority that asserts that only paid individuals are employees.

I'm not attacking your idea - only the legal practicality of it. I think that your idea is noble, just not practical. My comments were more aimed at the administrators.

[The Mic]

QUOTE]Originally posted by NY94J30 "]the public figure requirement of New York Times applies to the object of the libel. [/QUOTE]

public figure- in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero. Incorrect harmful statements published about a public figure cannot be the basis of a lawsuit for defamation unless there is proof that the writer or publisher intentionally defamed the person with malice (hate)

ahhh i learn something new everyday

And you'll have to show me the authority that asserts that only paid individuals are employees.

From webster Dictionary:employee- a person who is hired for a wage, salary, fee or payment to perform work for an employer.

I'm not attacking your idea

Stop attacking my idea!!!

ive made my point and id like to just hear what ppl have to say.

[Dattebayo]

Well since we're officially gonna be flamed now, that IS what we have to say. We have the best interest of the forum in mind here, believe me.

[The Mic]

Its all a moot point poeple. Blacklisting is unconstitutional isnt it? There used to be a whole deal with the unions blacklisting employee's that didnt work out for one reason or another.

No its not unconstitutional, most companies have a blacklist. Even the NRA has a blacklist of people. Blacklisting i belive is protected by the 1st amendment, or we wouldnt have registered sex offenders.

on a side note, i do care what happens to NICO and i do have the best interest for the forum in mind, that proposing a blacklist would be in community's best interest

-im done for now

[Exar-Kun]

i dont get paid. I just secretly hope for some company to offer me sponsorship :/-chetalso, I dont think a "we've had poor experiences" list is a bad thing, but I think that good experience lists should follow, thusy encouraging vendors to be GOOD ones, to avoid losing the business.

also, ratio for "good reports" to "bad reports" would ahve to be established. I mean, 5 good to 1 bad isnt a great ratio...

*shrug*Im sure AZ will contact me about this soon in the future.-chet(Im willing to work on this, lemme know greg)

[The Mic]

i think our good experiences list would have to be NICO's sponsors

[PalmerWMD]

I would also prefer a "good guys list". depending on how a place performs for members in a given year could get them on or off.

BUT this does open a can of worms...

Fred...

PS: I dont get any form of payment either.

[AZhitman]

None of us are paid for our efforts.

If I were, I could EASILY command $30K annually just for my time working ON NICO and IN NICO's behalf.

At any rate, I can see both sides of this issue. ere's my take on it.

It's not a bad idea. However, I would not support a "blacklist" per se. We have a policy (drafted by me) that states: If you are a current or previous customer of a business, please feel free to comment on your experiences with that company. However, if you have NOT done business with the company, please refrain from posting in these threads as it will only serve to confuse readers. NICO is a clearinghouse for ALL types of information pertinent to the Nissan / Infiniti community, and sharing information regarding businesses is protected and encouraged.

I hope, S13guy, that your comment "i think our good experiences list would have to be NICO's sponsors" was made in jest. They receive no preferential treatment, and I am just as likely to support a non-advertiser as I am an advertiser (Lexol, Zaino, Wurth, WalMart, Discount Tire to name a few).

Carry on!