We're clearly the better Wildcats

[TheC]

Disgusting story on how Wildcat fans of a blue-er shade are attempting to destroy the small business of one of the refs of their recent Elite 8 loss to North Carolina by leaving a bunch of fake, bad reviews of his roofing business online. People like this really ruin sports. Besides, if anyone had a reason to be angry about how refereeing affected an NCAA game, it was us. I am so glad to be a part of this community.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

Disgusting story on how Wildcat fans of a blue-er shade are attempting to destroy the small business of one of the refs of their recent Elite 8 loss to North Carolina by leaving a bunch of fake, bad reviews of his roofing business online.

Your link didn't work for me.

HERE it is.

 

[Deeringfish]

That is just terrible. This is the kind of thing that we have to get some kind of accountability on the internet. Why isn't this slander or something? The lack of accountability on the internet is going to ruin free speech by making speech meaningless due to lack of confidence.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

That is just terrible. This is the kind of thing that we have to get some kind of accountability on the internet. Why isn't this slander or something?

It may well be terrible. But I am not sure it's slander (or defamation/libel) against him. The fans' claim is that his job as a referee lacked integrity, and that if he doesn't act with integrity on the court, he probably won't act with integrity as a businessman. You may disagree with that, but they sort of have a point.

Now, his counterargument may be that he just made some honest mistakes (if he indeed did, I didn't watch that game). But the fans might react arguing that if his mistakes were honest, they would have hurt/benefit each team roughly equally. Then "the judge" may have to watch the game himself and reach his own conclusions (and/or seek the opinion of "experts"). So, who knows...

 

[DaCat]

Poor sportsmanship and reprehensible behavior!

 

[chicagocatfan24]

I'm friends with John Higgins niece, she says he's going through hell right now.

 

[hoosboot]

But the fans might react arguing that if his mistakes were honest, they would have hurt/benefit each team roughly equally.

If they made that argument, they would be making a foolish one. Kentucky fans should turn their ire towards their team for laying an egg. Maybe they could do a Yelp review of their basketball program.

 

[TheC]

It may well be terrible. But I am not sure it's slander (or defamation/libel) against him. The fans' claim is that his job as a referee lacked integrity, and that if he doesn't act with integrity on the court, he probably won't act with integrity as a businessman. You may disagree with that, but they sort of have a point.

Now, his counterargument may be that he just made some honest mistakes (if he indeed did, I didn't watch that game). But the fans might react arguing that if his mistakes were honest, they would have hurt/benefit each team roughly equally. Then "the judge" may have to watch the game himself and reach his own conclusions (and/or seek the opinion of "experts"). So, who knows...

The problem is that it is too late for a counterargument. The damage is likely done. Someone will see the bad overall rating for his business and just move on. Who wants to take the time to figure out if there is an explanation?

 

[Sec.112]

One of the more stupid online bully tactics I've run into is why I remain anonymous on the few sites I frequent.

Here's the umpteenth example why.

I don't do Facebook, but I can't believe it would be too difficult to spend a few bucks, a little time, find the posters and slap them with a slander suit. On the other hand, it's always pretty easy to find someone's hard drive.

I'd also be surprised if Facebook didn't adjust the page.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

The problem is that it is too late for a counterargument. The damage is likely done. Someone will see the bad overall rating for his business and just move on. Who wants to take the time to figure out if there is an explanation?

Both sides may be overreacting. Omaha is a relatively small town. If he has been in business for years and established a reputation as an honest roofing contractor, the community likely knows him well, and he will be fine.

Don't assume a lot of people are so gullible as to take unverified reviews at face value. They are obviously subject to manipulation (positive or negative). That's why some sites like hotels.com, amazon, etc either specify when the review is written by a verified purchaser of the product in question, or even limit reviews to verified purchasers only.

 

[gocatsgo2003]

Both sides may be overreacting. Omaha is a relatively small town. If he has been in business for years and established a reputation as an honest roofing contractor, the community likely knows him well, and he will be fine.

Don't assume a lot of people are so gullible as to take unverified reviews at face value. They are obviously subject to manipulation (positive or negative). That's why some sites like hotels.com, amazon, etc either specify when the review is written by a verified purchaser of the product in question, or even limit reviews to verified purchasers only.

Is there a contrarian point of view that you won't argue?