more double standards

ntlbell

so we can't mention the word "coke" in a thread with ben dunne, but we can lash wacko jacko out of it for being a pedo?

when is the BS going to stop? i don't mind wacko been called a pedo i just want to be able to lash dunner out of it

sort the bull out.

seamus

Because wacko jacko is dead. Dead people can't sue you for libel.

ntlbell

seamus wrote: »

Because wacko jacko is dead. Dead people can't sue you for libel.

he was called a pedo on here long before he was dead.

AckwelFoley

ntlbell wrote: »

he was called a pedo on here long before he was dead.

it may be more to do with michael jackson and his unlikelyness to be reading boards.ie.

tender my bollocks dot ie friends or relatives may. We are a small nation.

My name is URL

What was said? Didn't Dunne openly admit to having a cocaine addiction some years back?
Still it's libelous to mention it..!

seamus

My name is URL wrote: »

What was said? Didn't Dunne openly admit to having a cocaine addiction some years back?
Still it's libelous to mention it..!

Thorny one. If he admitted to having one years ago, but someone today accused him of being a coked-up junkie....libel.

My name is URL

seamus wrote: »

Thorny one. If he admitted to having one years ago, but someone today accused him of being a coked-up junkie....libel.

Ah ok, that makes sense

ntlbell

My name is URL wrote: »

What was said? Didn't Dunne openly admit to having a cocaine addiction some years back?
Still it's libelous to mention it..!

yes he did so he's not a dirty junkie anymore

ntlbell

snyper wrote: »

it may be more to do with michael jackson and his unlikelyness to be reading boards.ie.

tender my bollocks dot ie friends or relatives may. We are a small nation.

i didn't realise we based it on the likelihood of the person reading boards or not

it's either libel or it's not

hullaballoo

There's a risk-management factor as well. If there wasn't, we'd practically have to ban discussion on almost everything and it would kill the site. By using simple common sense, we can have a site where we minimise risk but foster discussion.

Even though we are careful, people threaten us all the time.

Fink Goddie

Sure i couldnt even have an opinion about how his kids may be better off without him, just my opinion.
yet people can say that they hope Margaret Tatcher dies a painful horrible death and people are allowed say awful things about her. Not saying they shouldnt be allowed do that, its their opinion so they should, but then why cant i have my opinion.

Well i know why its because Terry and Bollocko cant be professional anymore because they have a vendetta against me for showing up their doubles standards before. so be careful OP.

Quazzie

I am not one to be jumping on a bandwagon here, but there was some threats handed by moderators and it seems they apply to some and not to others.

Its hard to know really, but without knowing exactly who was banend or infracted, its all a bit 'tin-foil hat' talk.

dr.bollocko

No paedo jokes allowed in AH.
we have a serious thread and a jokes thread. Anyone who acts up in either is getting infracted. I haven't seen any inconsistencies so far but am still wading through the butt-end of it.
Is this specifically R&R we are referring to NTLBell?

Fink Goddie

No ACTUALLY we have a 'only nice things to be said about Michael Jackson, no other views or opinions are allowed, only people saddened by it allowed THREAD' and a jokes thread in AH

dr.bollocko

Fink Goddie wrote: »

No ACTUALLY we have a 'only nice things to be said about Michael Jackson, no other views or opinions are allowed, only people saddened by it allowed THREAD' and a jokes thread in AH

You were banned from that thread for making stupid jokes and trolling despite the warning in the thread. You just continued doing what you always do. I do not know how you still have feedback access to provide a stage for your barely lucid little vendetta. I'm trying to query actual issues here not fictional ones.

humanji

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Well i know why its because Terry and Bollocko cant be professional anymore because they have a vendetta against me for showing up their doubles standards before. so be careful OP.

Don't you need to be paid in order to be unprofessional?

ntlbell

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No paedo jokes allowed in AH.
we have a serious thread and a jokes thread. Anyone who acts up in either is getting infracted. I haven't seen any inconsistencies so far but am still wading through the butt-end of it.
Is this specifically R&R we are referring to NTLBell?

that's were i first spotted it, but as i said i don't really care about jacko it was just be nice if there was some consistency to the whole thing as it seems very random just do a search on nikki hayes in radio every single thread ever started on her was closed.

Fink Goddie

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You were banned from that thread for making stupid jokes and trolling despite the warning in the thread. You just continued doing what you always do. I do not know how you still have feedback access to provide a stage for your barely lucid little vendetta. I'm trying to query actual issues here not fictional ones.

No i was banned for my opinion and you know it.
You also took down a thread of mine yesterday because it didnt have a link to the story, petty.
Moved the Chris Brown Rihanna thread even though it wasnt about music and was for the AH members.

Fink Goddie

humanji wrote: »

Don't you need to be paid in order to be unprofessional?

So people in charity shops cant be professional no??

Otacon

dr.bollocko wrote: »

No paedo jokes allowed...
...wading through the butt-end of it.

You, sir, disgust me.

:pac:

Sparky

ntlbell wrote: »

that's were i first spotted it, but as i said i don't really care about jacko it was just be nice if there was some consistency to the whole thing as it seems very random just do a search on nikki hayes in radio every single thread ever started on her was closed.

eh there is a very big difference between MJ and Nikki Hayes!

For one MJ doesn't read boards (well he wont be now) and secondly there is more chance for local people to send in legal letters to us over libel content.

The Sweeper

Fink Goddie

I am not going to allow you to derail a feedback thread into hundreds of posts and tens of pages of people going around and around and around in a pointless circle fuelled by you.

Stay off this thread, or I will put you off it, and off feedback, and quite possibly off the entire site because of your trolling.

My name is URL

Sparky wrote: »

eh there is a very big difference between MJ and Nikki Hayes!

For one MJ doesn't read boards (well he wont be now) and secondly there is more chance for local people to send in legal letters to us over libel content.

That's an odd view to have of libel laws tbh.

They only apply to those that are likely to use them against the site? lol

Fair enough, Boards needs to protect itself but surely the law is the law whether it's applied or not

ntlbell

Sparky wrote: »

eh there is a very big difference between MJ and Nikki Hayes!

For one MJ doesn't read boards (well he wont be now) and secondly there is more chance for local people to send in legal letters to us over libel content.

but surley people's opinion's of nikki hayes are not libel?

e.g. if i state my opinion is i can't listen to her show as i feel she is clueless and hasn't an iota how to dj a decent show?

that's my opinion right?

The Sweeper

ntlbell

The problem is it never, ever stops there. You put forth an opinion - similar to the one you've posted above. Will we be sued successfully for it? No we won't.

But the poster following you says something like "Yes! I agree with you! And furthermore..." and this is where they usually include some comment that'll get us sued, or threatened.

As for the whole thing of saying Michael Jackson is a paedophile - I for one admin would delete any such comment from the site. In fact, I've been online all night your time doing precisely that on Michael Jackson threads.

Why?

Because we're in the top 100 bulletin boards in the world. Subsequently, I would argue that we cannot ignore any potentially libellous comments, no matter how unlikely we feel it is that someone will come after us for them.

Time Magazine

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Because we're in the top 100 bulletin boards in the world. Subsequently, I would argue that we cannot ignore any potentially libellous comments, no matter how unlikely we feel it is that someone will come after us for them.

You probably know this, but you cannot libel the dead.

My name is URL: libel isn't really a law. It's something you can be sued for, but it's not "a law" as such. So there are different standards to apply when complying with it.

hullaballoo

My name is URL wrote: »

That's an odd view to have of libel laws tbh.

They only apply to those that are likely to use them against the site? lol

Fair enough, Boards needs to protect itself but surely the law is the law whether it's applied or not

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's a risk-management factor as well. If there wasn't, we'd practically have to ban discussion on almost everything and it would kill the site. By using simple common sense, we can have a site where we minimise risk but foster discussion.

Even though we are careful, people threaten us all the time.

^^^ This.

ntlbell wrote: »

but surley people's opinion's of nikki hayes are not libel?

e.g. if i state my opinion is i can't listen to her show as i feel she is clueless and hasn't an iota how to dj a decent show?

that's my opinion right?

Libel and opinion are not mutually exclusive. Libel law in Ireland works in strange ways and one of the strangest aspects is that pretty much any negative comment will probably be defamatory. That means they can take a case against the user. Once they've proven a couple of minor issues that are usually easy to prove, that's more or less all they need. Then the defendant has to prove his case by putting forward a defence and 'opinion' is a defence.

tbh

man - what is it you want the admins to say? I mean, can you not see the potential problem the admins may face if they say "sure - you can post that <irish celebrity> is a gibshoite and a wife beater" etc?

Like, whether you agree with it or not - doesn't it make sense that the admins would be more wary about issues where there was a chance they could get bitten, than issues where most likely nothing will happen? Surely the fact that they allow tasteless threads where there is little chance of legal action show that they are not holier-than-thou? It's obviously just a matter of practicality, and how could you argue with that? Should boards be potentially closed down, just because of your opinion that you should be able to say whatever you want about whomever you want on somebody else's site?

Come on man - you know the score. It's common sense. I'd argue they are as lenient as they possibly can be, and if their hand is forced, there will be more regulation, not less. IF the admins look at your OP and agree that something should be done, do you think they'll allow your thread, or disallow the jackson joke thread? what would you do if it were your dollar on the line? Why are you trying to fcuk it up for the rest of us, who appreciate that to post here we have to toe the line?

Seriously, are you just trying to score points? If labelling someone a junkie is so important to you, couldn't you just get a blog? Why do you insist that boards has to accommodate you?

Terry

Boards.ie is Irish owned and hosted in Ireland.
Therefore the site is laible for any content posted here.

It's only been about a month, but people seem to have already forgotten the MCD debacle.

Fink goddie, you were trolling, so I banned you from the MJ thread. If you have a problem with that, then you can send me a PM.

ntlbell

tbh wrote: »

man - what is it you want the admins to say? I mean, can you not see the potential problem the admins may face if they say "sure - you can post that <irish celebrity> is a gibshoite and a wife beater" etc?

Like, whether you agree with it or not - doesn't it make sense that the admins would be more wary about issues where there was a chance they could get bitten, than issues where most likely nothing will happen? Surely the fact that they allow tasteless threads where there is little chance of legal action show that they are not holier-than-thou?

Come on man - you know the score. It's common sense. I'd argue they are as lenient as they possibly can be, and if their hand is forced, there will be more regulation, not less.

Seriously, are you just trying to score points? If labelling someone a junkie is so important to you, couldn't you just get a blog?

lol

I don't want to label him a junkie I'm just looking for a bit more consitency.

I mean when you start opening it to "well if they don't read boards it's grand" so if i ask mark dunne does his dad pay much attention to message boards online and he says no i can come on and lash into him?

Common sense should be used and i don't see letting people thread after thread lambast MJ as a pedophile common sense even if boards can't be sued by MJ himself as miss jd said this is a huge site with huge impression footprint from not just ireland and having thread after thread with mj jokes and stuff to pedphila seems bizzare when you can't even call a nobody dj a useless c*nt.

do you not see how retarded that is?

Terry

ntlbell, we are trying our best to deal with the paedo posts in AH.
We do not want any paedo jokes at all in AH.

If people used the report post function, then we could deal with the more efficiently.

Quazzie

Terry wrote: »

ntlbell, we are trying our best to deal with the paedo posts in AH.
We do not want any paedo jokes at all in AH.

If people used the report post function, then we could deal with the more efficiently.

Do all pedo jokes/personal abuse carry a ban, or is it just infractable?

seamus

so if i ask mark dunne does his dad pay much attention to message boards online and he says no i can come on and lash into him?

If you can provide a signed affidavit from Ben Dunne himself guaranteeing that he will not sue boards for any libel committed against him, past, present or future, then yep, by all means come along and give him dog's abuse.

Until then, stick to the facts.

ntlbell wrote: »

do you not see how retarded that is?

Yeah, it's pretty retarded.

But that's the legal system. What are we to do?

tbh

Ok, I'm not sure if I know what it is you want to happen as a result of this tho. It sounds like you are saying "if we can't have threads where we slag off local celebrities then we shouldn't be allowed have threads where we slag off any celebrities at all".

(I use the word celebrities because the example thread you used (someone doesn't read boards so you can slag them) would never happen and we both know it.)

So is that right? Is that what you want? Or are you just pointing out that it sucks that you can't just say whatever you want? cause, it is, of course, but I don't see it changing.

ntlbell

tbh wrote: »

Ok, I'm not sure if I know what it is you want to happen as a result of this tho. It sounds like you are saying "if we can't have threads where we slag off local celebrities then we shouldn't be allowed have threads where we slag off any celebrities at all".

(I use the word celebrities because the example thread you used (someone doesn't read boards so you can slag them) would never happen and we both know it.)

So is that right? Is that what you want? Or are you just pointing out that it sucks that you can't just say whatever you want? cause, it is, of course, but I don't see it changing.

Right now I don't know what I can say about whom.

clear it up.

tbh

ntlbell wrote: »

Right now I don't know what I can say about whom.

clear it up.

use your cop on. if in doubt, don't post. works for me.

ntlbell

Let me give you a better idea of the moronic behaviour from user > mod > admin.

I report a post which I thought was pretty distaasteful.

Mod edited that part of the post.

grand.

I start a thread to discuss the issue.

A Cmod says it's cool he's dead forget about it.

An admin come's along and states they have spent hours up trying to clean the mess up

another admin comes's along and goes

it's grand we use some magic risk analysis and work out if it's ok don't worry.

another mod come's in and states they are doing their best to clean the mess up

a cmod states it's cool it's the law but f*ck it, get on with it.

this thread and the example's of some of the mornic sentiments from all sides shows how inconsistent all this BS is.

see it?

hullaballoo

Thread dead.