Conference misery::feline_v1

    I'd like to preface my remarks by saying there are vets and operators
    of shelters that know of the existence of this conference and that they
    have been mentioned in this conference and would like to know what has been 
    said about them. This has been brought to my attention on more than one
    occasion.  

    What was posted in 1.20 arrived electronically through the personnel
    chain and was referred to as a policy memo. I published it as I received
    it because I felt that folks that note have a right to know what the
    rules are. The fact that it is policy means, IMHO, it is not a subject
    for debate in *THIS* forum. Now, obviously, every policy is subject to
    interpretation by the people that are responsible for enforcing it, in
    this case, the moderators. However, the only time that the moderators hide
    notes that "name names" are if we consider them libelous or urge
    folks to some kind of action. If they are prefaced with "in my opinion"
    they are allowed to stand. To be quite honest, when something is
    on the borderline, it usually stands in this conference. And personally
    I think that we are pretty *consistent* in how we *apply* our interpretation
    of the policy (which frankly is the ONLY thing about this matter which
    is even marginally subject to debate in *this* forum). That said, however,
    policy is policy, and when push comes to shove and the corporation is
    sued for libel and damages, the court will fall back on the corporation's
    written policy, and what someone says Ron Glover told someone on the
    phone is considered "Hearsay", which, if I am not mistaken, is not
    admissible as evidence. Which is why I chose to post the "policy memo"
    and not COOKIE::WITHERS synopsis of the discussion in this forum. (By
    the way, I read MODERATORS myself; I take what I need and leave the
    rest. In other words, I look at what others have as opinions, digest
    them and then do what I think is right and what I can live with). 

    Also, when you are talking about legal matters, there is something
    called "intent". By posting the policy and and saying "this will be
    enforced to the letter", I am showing the intent to follow the policy.
    And just like the Supreme Court, which will not interpret the law based on
    a hypothetical case, I'm not going to interpret a policy memo without a
    applying it against the facts in a real note, or post said memo while saying
    that it is subject to much milder interpretations.
     
    Deb

    I agree that this discussion does not really belong in Feline,
    but in the DIGITAL conference.  
    
    Elaine

    
    Does this mean that if someone has a new cat and askes for vet
    recommendations, we can only recommend?  We should send them mail
    if we want to indicate a vet to avoid? 
    
    Rachael
    

As for recommendations, it depends on the wording.  For example:

I love KatPoop litter!!  I use it every day and it makes a great salad dressing.

I hate KatPoop litter!!  My cats won't use it and it tastes awful.

Don't buy KatPoop litter!!  The company is run by scum bags and the litter
is made of nuclear waste.


or...

I love Dr. Feliner.  He's great with my cats and he's reasonable.

I hate Dr. Feliner.  He's incompentent, irresponsible, and hates cats.


The problem is that neither the KatPoop Litter Company nor Dr. Feliner has
any opportunity to make counter statements or to defend themselves.  It's
also the intent of the note.  If you intend to harm or discredit, then
there's a problem (and frankly, I have a problem with that even if the
other party has the opportunity to respond).

The old saying "If you don't have anything good to say, then don't say
anything at all" might be a little too much, but Digital's policy on using
corporate resources to intentionally harm another party is clear.  You
can't do it.  If you wish to relate your negative experiences to a fellow
employee, take it off-line.  We should not be trying to stifle the open
communications we have in this forum, but rather we're trying to ensure
that this communication does not in any way harm another party, nor make
Digital libel for that harm.

Counterpoints???

Mary

P.S.  Anyone wanna by 2 tons of KatPoop Litter??? ;>)

    Gee, I only use a ton a year!
    
    I think that if you say,
    
    My opinion is, KatPoop litter doesn't work well for me because....
    
    
    DO NOT SAY:
    
    The maker of KatPoop litter is a jerk and you SHOULD NOT BUY HIS
    Litter.
    
    
    DO NOT SAY:
    
    Don't ever go to Dr. Dog because he will destroy your cat.
    
    
    But, it's probably okay to say:
    
    Dr. Dog really didn't meet my standards in my opinion, but if you want
    to try them it's up to you, your opinion may be different.
    
    In other words, don't slander product makers, companies, or people.
    
    Hope that helps,
    
    E.T.

    
    You should be aware the the memo circulating is not policy nor did is
    come fromthe desk of Ron Golve, this time around. It is an old memo
    that someone started on it's rounds again in violation apparently of
    P&P 6.54. It is a recommdation on how we conduct our conferences, but
    it is not an official policy.
    
    Tamzen, moderator of MODERATORS
    

    Guess that should bring this discussion to a close.

    >You should be aware the the memo circulating is not policy nor did is
    >come fromthe desk of Ron Golve, this time around
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    However, it did come from Ron the first time around. What ever the
    case, I think that it is a good reccommendation on how we conduct our
    conferences, and I think posting it gives the participants of the
    conference some insight as to what the moderators look at when deciding
    if a note should stay or be returned to the author.
    
    That said, FELINE is still not the place to discuss this memo.
    
    Deb