Is it reasonable to sometimes block unresolved allegation forum threads from Google?

[Topboss]

This is a tough one and I can understand why Michael raised it.

I do believe in free speech and all that stuff, however there is also such a thing as someone trying to deliberately discredit an organization and what better way to do it than using the internet.

I also believe in the innocent until proven guilty saying and I would say that bots should be blocked to that post until the allegations have been proven or not.

If proved then by all means open it up to everyone, but if there is no evidence to substantiate the claim just block the bots or put up a big comment in red saying Allegation investigated and No proof can be provided to prove the claim. ( This could be a nightmare for the Moderators though )

It really boils down to considering each case on its own merits and weighing up the risks to the company's reputation if the info got spread around and turned out to be untrue.

I voted Yes, On a Temporary Basis

[Roulette Zeitung]

You and I have had our disagreements

Well, so what! Better carrying out disagreements and maintain standpoints than this eternal sycophancy.

I find it strange that some of the older members of this forum have not given their opinion on the subject of this thread. Maybe they are afraid to rock the boat?

Obviously.
How many members wouldn't say boo to a goose?
Many.

Leopold

[DaftDog]

Well, so what! Better carrying out disagreements and maintain standpoints than this eternal sycophancy.


Leopold

Lol - You're on.

[Roulette Zeitung]

You're on.

But for this you have not to be a back-stabber.
These are really the smallest lights in forum universe.
And easy to understand: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/reasonabl...tml#post729117
My wife was laughing loud after she saw it.
We'll place a candle light into the window this night.

For the serious readers because of this poll: After months of tricks and hiding the public pressure now was too big and the result (in two languages) is a good news: https://www.gpwa.org/forum/ibexnetwo...tml#post729128

Dear user and readers,

at this point i wanted to be fair, that Ibexnetwork contacted me and came to an acceptable agreement .

In mutual interests this thread can go to be finished, so i would ask Michael Corfman or other administrators to close or to mark it as solved in both themes. (i will go for sure to mark it also solved on Kasinoforum.com)

I would like to thank all involved users, where have taken and used exceptionally, especially Leopold.

The hard work and invested lifetime paid off. I am very happy for Insider and waiting for a confirmation that he get paid.

Leopold

[-Shay-]

What is going on with this? Did it/is it going to private vote. Is there something coming through to address this issue?

Another bump for this unanswered question.

[MichaelCorfman]

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to post their perspective in this thread, and also everyone who voted in the associated poll.

I've given a lot of thought to the opinions expressed, and also to steps forward from here.

Let me start by saying the vote was essentially tied from my perspective. One person who voted blocking should not occur when issues are unresolved stated they wished to change their vote. If I assume the change would be to never block, then the public vote would be 15 for never blocking unresolved issues, 6 supporting temporary blocks (with one not supporting it in the example given), and 9 for permanent blocks.

It is also possible to determine the member class of folks voting different ways, and looking at private GPWA members the results were also evenly split. So, as I promised, there will be a discussion in the GPWA planning and policy discussion area, and the result will most definitely be new policies that will be followed in the future. The results of that policy discussion, and specifically the new policies that result will be made publicly available. My view is that, at a minimum, policy should require the disclosure of any such blocks made in the future.

I would like to emphasize that blocking of threads that would normally be visible in the search engines has never been a widespread practice. In all cases, except the three threads that were identified in this poll, the reason for blocking the threads was not related to an unresolved issue. Rather, in all other cases it was related to one of the following: 1) public identification of a payment processor where there was a concern associating the payment processor with online gaming would interfere with their ability to continue making payments, 2) blocking information relating to an online gaming business being actively prosecuted by a government agency to prevent speculation by affiliates from being visible to the prosecuting agency, and 3) preventing information published directly by the GPWA about an affiliate from being publicly indexed at the request of the affiliate.

Michael

[-Shay-]

I would probably be OK with a disclosure associated with moving a thread to "blocked" status. That way, those interested or participating can raise an issue as appropriate. I think it would also go a long way in clearing up any perception caused by hiding the thread.

Edit: All of the above is providing that doing so is in the best interest of those involved and not done to "protect" or "shield" a brand/sponsor from negative PR.

[Roulette Zeitung]

What a wonderful world.

Leopold

[-Shay-]

...in the meantime I did not view the allegations as being fully appropriate as top search results showing up for this program.

This, however, is a reason I would never support as grounds for blocking/hiding a thread.

[Viriatu]

This, however, is a reason I would never support as grounds for blocking/hiding a thread.

i have to say im with you on this one...

[PokerSpnsor2-0]

Sorry but no never should you do that, we all have a right to free speech and censoring stuff just makes you look like 1930's German government.