An information-sharing idea

RE: An information-sharing idea

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 21 Dec 2017 08:52:45 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]There are a few things I'd have elaborated on if I was under a good alias, but let slide.[/quote]

Exactly as when talking to a large group offline, non?

RE: An information-sharing idea

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:30:54 GMT

There are a few things I'd have elaborated on if I was under a good alias, but let slide.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Wren — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:20:28 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Wren"]Part of the reason I have an alias in here is the risk of things being screenshot and passed to the 'wrong' people out of context. I am aware that it's against the rules of the forum, but I doubt that would stop anyone with a chip on their shoulder.[/quote]

I can't claim it has never happened. But it is very, very rare (or very very rare that it has come to my attention, anyway). Since 2000, reported to me twice on vetnurse, and since 2008, I think just once on vetsurgeon.

[/quote]

I'm sure you're right, and I'm sure I'm paranoid, but I guess it may well never be brought to your attention if it's just passed to the person in question - let's say an ex-boss, seeing as that's the theme here. I know I have been threatened with it once, very long ago, when making comments questioning the actions of my employer at the time.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:17:39 GMT

As this thread has tangented to the RCVS case (well Arlo you did raise it)!, it strikes me that the defendant wasn't the only one who was dissatisfied with the way the owner ran the practice, the DC read between the lines and took the view that there may have been much truth in what he posted albeit it wasn't good form to spout it in public. Hence a slap on the wrist, possibly with a bit of private sympathy, rather than a censure.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:13:44 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]Arlo, what I think, and I may be very wrong, is that you must decided what your platform wants to be. You can't really have both. If you think about clinical expertise, evidence based medicine, etc then you must stop the endless debates on each topic where evidence is mixed with personal experience and some dodgy legends. But you can't do that if you want a social platform. To be honest there are loads of online libraries where one can find articles but not so many to socialise in a civilised manner. [/quote]

Dinu Catilina - I don't see it as an 'either/or' situation. I see it more as 'horses for courses'. In other words, no intention of changing the main forums, and those who like banter/dodgy legends / personal experience etc will I presume still use traditional forums primarily.

Quick Fire Question is for those who just want answers, without risk of their actions being analysed to the point of criticism or heated debate etc. Quick Fire Question would not exclude personal experience by the way, just give the opportunity to highlight and link to evidence in support of one's point.

It's about giving more people a way to use the system to share experience / knowledge/ information - adding a tool to access the collective minds in a perhaps less daunting way ...

I'm going to design some screenshots ...

RE: An information-sharing idea

Wren — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:54:35 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Yes, they are sent to one person. DOn't quote me, I'm no expert in this area (and others)

[/quote]

Or to several, which I believe is part of the problem in the case above. I think it was a staff 'group chat' whereby a private message has several recipients and participants. It is commonly done (I have a group chat with 4 or 5 friends which has been running for about 6 years now - we can bitch and moan and discuss life in 'private'). Unfortunately as these things go, the more people are involved, the higher the risk of things getting out, being repeated, mentioned elsewhere or screenshotted. Which I think is what happened in this case. It's easy to think that private messages are, erm, private, but nothing ever really is. Part of the reason I have an alias in here is the risk of things being screenshot and passed to the 'wrong' people out of context. I am aware that it's against the rules of the forum, but I doubt that would stop anyone with a chip on their shoulder.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Iain Richards — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:33:37 GMT

Yes, they are sent to one person. DOn't quote me, I'm no expert in this area (and others)

RE: An information-sharing idea

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:41:30 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Re the RCVS case, anything on social media can be copy/pasted. Therefore it's no longer a personal private conversation[/quote]

So can a letter, an e-mail or a phone conversation. Are they not private?

RE: An information-sharing idea

Iain Richards — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:28:06 GMT

Re the RCVS case, anything on social media can be copy/pasted. Therefore it's no longer a personal private conversation. There is an argument that tinternet should have, from the outset been treated as print media regarding libellous comments.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:51:22 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

yes, indeed ...

https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2017/12/13/vet-who-posted-derogatory-remarks-about-his-boss-found-not-guilty-of-serious-professional-misconduct.aspx

[/quote]

One thing I didn't really understand about this case. It sounds like he posted those comments in a Facebook messenger chat. That is not really out on Facebook but rather a private conversation between chat members, unlike a forum that is open to anybody with an account.

Private chat to me is more similar to a letter being sent or a telephone conversation. Would written letters have been treated the same way?

Arlo, what I think, and I may be very wrong, is that you must decided what your platform wants to be. You can't really have both. If you think about clinical expertise, evidence based medicine, etc then you must stop the endless debates on each topic where evidence is mixed with personal experience and some dodgy legends. But you can't do that if you want a social platform. To be honest there are loads of online libraries where one can find articles but not so many to socialise in a civilised manner.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Anthony Todd — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:10:50 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Strict answers only, no banter, no mean-spirited comments, evidence based in bold, anecdote in normal font

[/quote]

I doubt that Experience Based Medicine will be allowed, but if so , could it be in italics??

RE: An information-sharing idea

Anthony Todd — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:08:21 GMT

Northamptonshire-based Gabor Nemes MRCVS has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, after posting derogatory remarks about his employer, Mate Toth MRCVS, on Facebook.

So why, on earth is his name published????

RE: An information-sharing idea

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:16:56 GMT

Nice to know there are no clauses to prevent posting!

RE: An information-sharing idea

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:36:37 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]The same rules apply as with any other employer, whether independent or corporate. If you slag off your boss/colleagues online, expect disciplinary action![/quote]

yes, indeed ...

https://www.vetsurgeon.org/news/b/veterinary-news/archive/2017/12/13/vet-who-posted-derogatory-remarks-about-his-boss-found-not-guilty-of-serious-professional-misconduct.aspx

RE: An information-sharing idea

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:25:50 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Does anyone know what, if any restrictions are placed on vets working, for example, for a corporate group where forum use is concerned?[/quote]

None.

The same rules apply as with any other employer, whether independent or corporate. If you slag off your boss/colleagues online, expect disciplinary action! Corporates take their reputation VERY seriously though, so are probably more likely to pursue it.

RE: An information-sharing idea

Bob Russell — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 11:07:14 GMT

Sounds a good thing to try. See if it works.

At the risk of going off at a tangent!

Does anyone know what, if any restrictions are placed on vets working, for example, for a corporate group where forum use is concerned?

Is this one reason why so many lurk but don't interact?

RE: An information-sharing idea

J G Wray — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 10:57:59 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]oh, and I've just had another blinder. Part of the question asking process will involve checking the question hasn't been asked before / showing previous Q&As[/quote]

Eh?

RE: An information-sharing idea

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:32:39 GMT

oh, and I've just had another blinder. Part of the question asking process will involve checking the question hasn't been asked before / showing previous Q&As

RE: An information-sharing idea

Iain Richards — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:07:29 GMT

Glad to be of service (to quote H2G2)

RE: An information-sharing idea

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:54:12 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]Strict answers only, no banter, no mean-spirited comments, evidence based in bold, anecdote in normal font[/quote]

preeeecisely

(but you've given me a fantastic idea for how we treat evidence base - thank you!)

RE: An information-sharing idea

Iain Richards — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 08:47:57 GMT

Strict answers only, no banter, no mean-spirited comments, evidence based in bold, anecdote in normal font