What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

If defamation is accompanied by valid evidence, then it's probably not slander. It's just stating a situation.
There can be grey areas where certain allegations have not been fully investigated, or maybe a trial is still pending etc...

On the other hand if it's just allusions and innunendos I think it should not be tolerated.

I think both instances mentioned here by Laird had to go, and their removal doesn't affect the relative discussions, other than removing unnecessary poison.

my 2c

One question is perhaps the relevance of the material to the discussion (aside from the fact that it ought to be true). Before posting one should be sure that it is factually correct otherwise it's just gossip, or worse. It is very easy to make serious accusations for no good reason, these then linger and may become 'common knowledge'. Throw enough mud and some will stick. Imho it's disgusting behaviour and ought not to be tolerated. I can only guess at the motive for it but ad hominem attacks are a well known tactic used by people whose arguments have failed.

I guess my thinking is:

1) is it true?
2) is it relevant?
3) is it necessary?
4) what is the motive for posting it?

I'd say there are very few occasions when it is necessary to post derogatory remarks about people, especially when they are unable,  for whatever reasons, to respond.

From a personal perspective such posts make me question a poster's integrity and motivation and I usually ignore them from that point on. This can make it hard work to read interesting threads especially if the poster is prolific.

Aside from the occasional error of judgement we can all make, I'd say anyone who doesn't know how to behave politely in a mixed social environment, and with consideration for others should be permanently banned with an option to return if they can convince the site managers that they are now house trained. All their posts, and where possible quotes of it, ought to be removed. That's of course only my own view. Fwiw.

[Laird]

Good points from all.

Silence, as confirmed by the many likes your post received, it was spot on in every respect. Thanks for sharing.

Bucky, I understand that yes, "the claims were true" (i.e. your "accompanied by valid evidence") is a legitimate defence against defamation. Glad to hear that you support the decisions already made.

Obiwan, I liked all of your post except that I would be loath to delete all of a member's posts just because one (or more) of them contained defamatory claims - I'd restrict the deletions to the defamatory posts themselves. Your questions are a good guide though to determining when personal content is valid, so thanks for sharing those.

If defamation is accompanied by valid evidence, then it's probably not slander. It's just stating a situation.
There can be grey areas where certain allegations have not been fully investigated, or maybe a trial is still pending etc...

On the other hand if it's just allusions and innunendos I think it should not be tolerated.

I think both instances mentioned here by Laird had to go, and their removal doesn't affect the relative discussions, other than removing unnecessary poison.

my 2c

I'm sure you know this but,,, 

There's a difference between saying that a test is flawed due to x,y, or z,, vs saying someone is falsifying information or procedures for financial gain. That's a pretty serious claim, that involves professional reputations, and requires pretty serious supporting evidence. 

I would go so far as to say that sort of accusation, even if supported by evidence, has no place here.

Good points from all.

Silence, as confirmed by the many likes your post received, it was spot on in every respect. Thanks for sharing.

Bucky, I understand that yes, "the claims were true" (i.e. your "accompanied by valid evidence") is a legitimate defence against defamation. Glad to hear that you support the decisions already made.

Obiwan, I liked all of your post except that I would be loath to delete all of a member's posts just because one (or more) of them contained defamatory claims - I'd restrict the deletions to the defamatory posts themselves. Your questions are a good guide though to determining when personal content is valid, so thanks for sharing those.

I agree, I wonder though if Obiwan meant delete just the posts that were inflammatory ?

[Laird]

I agree, I wonder though if Obiwan meant delete just the posts that were inflammatory ?

Ah, yes, perhaps he did and I misinterpreted him.

[Laird]

Roberta, sorry for leaving you out in my summary response! I think you would agree that we should respond to accusations of not just "fraud/sex crimes" but to any defamatory content, although yes, definitely those are two major categories. I think your suggestion that we warn members for this sort of thing is a good one, and that a three strikes and we administer a (temp?) ban policy is reasonable, although I suspect that most people here will get the message after a single strike - I think we have a pretty reasonable membership all told.

Good points from all.

Silence, as confirmed by the many likes your post received, it was spot on in every respect. Thanks for sharing.

Bucky, I understand that yes, "the claims were true" (i.e. your "accompanied by valid evidence") is a legitimate defence against defamation. Glad to hear that you support the decisions already made.

Obiwan, I liked all of your post except that I would be loath to delete all of a member's posts just because one (or more) of them contained defamatory claims - I'd restrict the deletions to the defamatory posts themselves. Your questions are a good guide though to determining when personal content is valid, so thanks for sharing those.

Sorry Laird I didn't mean to suggest erasing any evidence the poster had ever existed just the offending posts, as you say.

I'm sure you know this but,,, 

There's a difference between saying that a test is flawed due to x,y, or z,, vs saying someone is falsifying information or procedures for financial gain. That's a pretty serious claim, that involves professional reputations, and requires pretty serious supporting evidence.

Yes indeed. I fully agree.

I would go so far as to say that sort of accusation, even if supported by evidence, has no place here.

No doubt.

I don't think this is an easy question at all. It would make discussions very difficult if someone is not allowed to say, for example, "I think Uri Geller faked those results", without being able to prove it.