People's qulifications

[Oneeyedvic]

Could there be a system in place to give an 'about me' or similar to give your qualifications / experience.

 

Not sure that it would work, but I do get annoyed in the MOney & Finance section when people who plainly do not understand the financial services enviroment post answers as 'fact'. There are plenty of laws in this area that are changing on a monthly basis, so even someone who used to work in a bank can now give unintentional and misleading advice.

 

I know that all the answers do have a disclaimer, but it is still worrying that someone may rely on this advice.

 

Thinking further, maybe an about me section is not practical, but how about a moderator who is au fait with current laws. From posts I have seen, I would suggest Maud knows more than most.

[ewand]

I know exactly what you are trying to say, Oneeyedvic but to me it seems that the idea would open up a whole new area of "fraudulent" advice (and I use this term loosely).  Currently, people take advice (hopefully) with a pinch of salt due to the fact that the person on the other end of the computer is unknown.  Also, if the "answerer" is grossly incorrect, hopefully some of the regular posters will be able to point out the fact that the information supplied is not necessarily true.  However, if people can input an about me section, with no verification available on their stated background, then people might use the information as set in stone, and therefore cause problems for the question poster........whilst I, and i'm sure you and many others on the site, would be happy to help and be truthful, it could cause more problems than it solves.

All in all though, a great suggestion if it could be implemented safely......Cheers!

[AB Editor]

ewand's answer is an interesting one - and I tend to agree, the safeguards needed would be impossible to implement. Please bear in mind our terms of use, which advise caution, amongst other things.... http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Info/TermsOfUse.asp

[Maud]

By chance I have just come across this. I did not ask to be singled out, but since I have been I am obliged to consider the implications against me of the ewand and AB Editors replies taken together and as a result say that henceforth there will be no further contributions by me to Answerbank either under the name Maud or any other.

[ewand]

I'm not sure if I understand your response and the implications of your post, Maud? 

[Oneeyedvic]

I am sorry Maud if you have taken offense at my post - it was not posted accordingly. I merely suggested that you would be a good moderator in terms that you would seem to have a good legal knowledge. My simple idea may well have been that you would just withdraw answers if they were inaccurante. There is not and has never been any call for regulation in the traditional sense of the words, and the editors post does refer to the fact that caution is advised for any posts.

 

Please do not go Maud on a suggestion that I have made!

[Maud]

ewand. Fraud = false representation made (1) knowingly, or (2) without belief in the truth, or (3) recklessly, careless of whether it is true or false.

Reading Vic's last sentence together with your first sentence it can very clearly be read to infer that in the Money and Finance sentence I post fraudulently, to which sadly for me the AB Ed later tends to agree.

That is the end of me.

[Hgrove]

Maud, it is your decision, but as an unbiased, unconcerned onlooker I most certainly did not infer any suggestion that you were posting fraudulently, either by Oneeyedvic or by Ewand or by the two together.  Au contraire, what I inferred was that your messages are highly appreciated.

[Bangkok]

Maud, I'd go along with Hgrove, in that I did not make the inference you seem to have made.  I suspect that Ewand and the AB Ed were merely concerned that someone (not you) could claim to be something they are not, and that systems can always be abused.  Vic appears to have been complementing you, and the two issues or misrepresentation and complementing  you are wholly unrelated.  It would be a shame to lose your advice over what appears to be a misunderstanding. 

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay Maud, obviously you may elect to not post, however for sake of record I will make the following points:

 

1) My above question was aimed at giving people accurate answers to questions and not guesses. You obviously have a working knowledge of property law.

 

2) I suggested a moderator - ie an arbitrator or judge who could pull off peoples posts if they were inaccurate. By their very nature, a moderator must have a good knowledge.

 

3) I simply put 1 and 2 together - ie someone with a good knowledge being a moderator.

 

4) I apologise most deeply if I have in any way offended you. I did aim this as a compliment to you.

 

5) I apologise to all answerbankers if Maud does not post any more answers, as I feel it would be my responsibility for losing a valued member.

 

 

 

[AB Editor]

My intention was not to associate Maud, or any individual user, with the concept of fraud. It would be a shame to lose a valued contributor in such a way.

What's interesting is that this thread highlights how easily one person can misinterpret the meaning of someone else's post. I see this to varying degrees all the time across the site. Tone, stress and (especially) humour don't always make it to the computer screen, despite the best of intentions. In this case the very meaning of posts appears to have been misinterpreted.

[ewand]

I must firstly say that there was absolutely no reference to Maud in my initial answer.  I initially put "i know exactly what you are trying to say" because of the personal indecisiveness within the question posted by Oneeyedvic.  I was merely commenting on the idea of an "about me" section, as I stated in the answer.  It is not of my concern to comment on the idea of an AB regular being a moderator, which is why I didn't.

Also, whilst I am aware of the definition of fraud, I hasten to add that I did state "i use this term loosely", as some unhelpful responses which I suppose I was catagorising under that banner are not necessarily "fradulent".

 

I am sorry that you have been upset by comments made previously, Maud, but it appears you have been a little paranoid over what has primarily been a glowing complement from Oneeyedvic, a contribution to a question from me, and effectively a restating of the rules, with regard to the issue menioned in the question by AB Ed. 

Thank you Hgrove and Bangkok for your support, and I can assure you that your interpretation is correct.  I hope, Maud, you realise this too, and continue to post at the high standard you always do..........(apart from this thread.....he he he!) who says humour doesn't work, AB Ed?!

 

[Didwot]

It will be a great shame if Maud ceases to post on AB. Please reconsider, Maud. Oneeyedvic raised an interesting suggestion, and one with which I have to disagree. If we think someone else has posted a wrong answer we are at liberty to post our own views, and allow the questioner to come to their own decision. A moderator's task will be thankless, and may leave them more exposed than the present regime, which, after all is confidential, and on a no liability basis. If someone wants the advice of a professional then they can get it elsewhere. If professionals chose to give some free advice on AB, good for them. Lets keep it that way, and encourage people to post their genuine advise without fear or favour.

[Hammer]

Come on Maud, this was a suggestion that someone with a high level of knowledge such as yourself (but not necessarily yourself) could possible moderate on legal issues, followed by a discussion of whether this was practical or desirable.

 

There was also the suggestion of being able to record a CV of sorts, which is where the concerns of dishonesty originated.

 

You have previously been helpful to me on matters of boundaries & trespass, and tour advice was spot on and has led to me using this site regularly, and it would be a real shame if you posted no more.

 

As an impartial observer to all of the above, I think you may have over-reacted and read into the posts something that was not intended. Please reconsider your position for everyone's benefit.

[Oneeyedvic]

Maud,

 

Please read all the above posts - I hope you will find it honest

 

AB Ed

 

Although a very unusual request and am not sure if it is against t&cs, please could you forward this to Maud's email address to ensure that she sees this and hasn't stopped coming onto this site.

 

 

Many thanks and again apologies if any offense was caused - it was certainly not the intention.

[AB Editor]

Oneeyedvic - Maud is perfectly entitled to stop posting if s/he wants to! And perfectly able to review a thread which is of such personal interest.

It would be a great shame for all concerned, but that's the nature of the site. Point made, we should respect Maud's wishes.

[Didwot]

I just wanted to repeat my comment that it will be a great shame if Maud does cease posting. We miss you Maud.