AH Ban

benway

I received a one day ban from biko on the basis of two posts disparaging Eoghan Harris - two sentences were admittedly dubious, but I wouldn't have thought it went much beyond what's standard on AH, and the sentences in question could easily have been cut.

Given the free reign for abuse of easy targets that manifests itself on AH, the proverbial "scumbag" or "skanger" threads, a tongue in cheek attack on a big boy like Eoghan Harris should have been fairly uncontroversial, I would have thought.

And, in this instance, I don't buy any of this "play the man, not the ball" stuff, he's a personality journalist, this is how he makes his money - in his case, and the case of Brendan O'Connor and a few more, the man is the ball.

I am requesting that the ban be overturned, and that the posts in question be reinstated, in whole or in part - there's nothing defamatory in there, and nothing that goes beyond the bounds of what's standard in reference to "scumbags" in general, there are umpteen examples in AH in any given hour, on any given day.

This is what it comes down to - getting banhammered doesn't bother me, but it does bother me that apparently posters are held to a certain standard when talking about "respectable" journalists, but when it comes to lower class "scumbags", it's open season.

benway

Here are the two posts in question:

The most fawning, the most sycophantic of them all. God, I really hate that guy.

But he's so much worse. Reading that article makes me want to hunt him down and rip his head off, wherever he may be.

I can't believe he's still so fcking smug about the whole thing, after everything that's happened. Fck off Harris, I hope you get raped by a pack of wild dogs.

Obviously, the last sentence of the second one is a bit much, and I would have been happy to accept my ban until it occurred to me that the likes of this, selected highlights from a neighbouring thread, are standard on AH:

Are you fooking kidding me you rotten peroxide knack they took a mans life!

Pure and utter toe-rag scumbags. Jail is just not good enough for them. To the Gallows I say.

I hope a load of lads get a buzz out of raping the arse off him daily in prison!

Should really be put on birth control for life or have the snip enforced upon them otherwise the ship will have more rats than crew.

It kind of begs the question if breeding within the human race should be regulated in some way.

Castrated and locked up for good.

I hope he gets gangraped in prison and hangs himself in his cell, but he'll probably make good friends and have a laugh in prison.

There is a whole strata of society that should be chemically castrated.

Repulsive little B*&*ards!

What differentiates these Scangers from animals? A cage. And they're soon to be locked in one.

Year/generations of scum breeding scum result in criminals like this.

I think what sums it up is the reaction of the little scrawny cheap looking scum bag

She should be drowned in the river like a rat, he should follow. They are rats, they are scum, be good to just get rid of them

These guys and their ilk are just literal human garbage.

An utter waste of time and resources. If they dropped dead this instant it would only have a positive effect on the world.

I think these people are animals and should be put down like a dog would be if they commited such behaviour. If we don't want to lower ourselves to the death penalty, they should at least be chemically castrated or they'll just produce more scum.

Chemically? No.
Rusty shears with no anesthetic? Yes.

Inject the cnuts with full blown AIDS and throw them in solitary confinement never to be seen again.

Death to all Scummers, clean up the gene pool, those who remain deserve to remain.

I think you need to make up your minds - either that kind of "colourful" language and imagery is ok on AH, or it isn't.

randylonghorn

The most fawning, the most sycophantic of them all. God, I really hate that guy.

Tbh, I wouldn't be too worried by this one on its own, it's borderline, but imho it's personal opinion without actually being abusive.

But he's so much worse. Reading that article makes me want to hunt him down and rip his head off, wherever he may be.

I can't believe he's still so fcking smug about the whole thing, after everything that's happened. Fck off Harris, I hope you get raped by a pack of wild dogs.

That's obviously over the top. Red card, or a short ban to make sure the point gets home: that's very much at the local moderator's discretion, and I'm not going to second-guess him on it, it's certainly within the normal range in this case.


In all honesty, I don't totally disagree re: the examples which you have quoted; I don't see any need for people to use that kind of terminology and aggressive language whether online or IRL.

The Diseased Celtic Kitten and its aftermath seems to have re-awakened and / or re-created an increased class consciousness in Irish society; an attitude of penny-ha'penny looking down on penny-farthing as my grandmother would have said; and an aggressive right-wing discourse which personally I find distasteful, especially when expressed as it is in some of the examples you have quoted.

It's not just on Boards; I hear it in the pub etc. as well. Tbh, I think it generally demeans the poster / speaker far more than those they are targetting.

But leaving my distaste aside for a moment, there *is* a difference between ranting about an anonymous group of people and singling out one individual for abuse.

Apart from the difference on a moral level (sorry, moral probably not quite the right word, but I'm tired and half-asleep!) there is a difference on a practical level.

The fairly large groups regularly denigrated as pyjama-wearers, for example, are unlikely to take a class action against Boards. The named individual such as Harris is very likely to take umbrage and bombard the tiny staff in HQ with phone calls / emails / threats (or more!) of solicitors letters, often over less than your post.

You think I jest?!

I wish I did. It happens regularly. I don't condone abuse by any means, but some people are hyper-sensitive.

So there are both moral (I still don't think that's quite the right word?) and practical reasons why abuse of an individual will normally be more strictly moderated.

There is also a difference between singling out an individual or individuals who have committed vicious murder, as in that thread, and singling out an individuals like Harris, who, whatever we may think of him or his views, isn't even remotely in the same ballpark.

I still don't see the need for the hyperbole or the terminology tbh, but they are definitely contextually very different.




tl;dr: Ban is within normal range; it's basically a light tap on the wrist to get your attention. Upheld, therefore.

I have addressed your other points above.

benway

randylonghorn wrote: »

The fairly large groups regularly denigrated as pyjama-wearers, for example, are unlikely to take a class action against Boards. The named individual such as Harris is very likely to take umbrage and bombard the tiny staff in HQ with phone calls / emails / threats (or more!) of solicitors letters, often over less than your post.

Which is a fair point, but I do have to say that there was nothing defamatory in my posts.

If the poor creatur is offended, I'd be happy for boards to put me in touch with him, so that we could continue the conversation in person, and I could explain to him in minute detail why what I said was justified.

randylonghorn wrote: »

There is also a difference between singling out an individual or individuals who have committed vicious murder, as in that thread, and singling out an individuals like Harris, who, whatever we may think of him or his views, isn't even remotely in the same ballpark.

Don't accept that for one second - this is what bugs me.

For one thing, they're criminals, he's a cheerleader and apologist for a party laden down with criminals, if they're not in the same house, they're next door to each other. This is my honest opinion - I think people are far too keen to attack small-time thugs, and far too reluctant to address the reality of corruption and white-collar crime. As if the latter hasn't hobbled this country, to a far greater extent than the former.

For another, the kind of prejudiced, ill-informed ranting that defines those "scumbags" / "skangers" type threads sets a benchmark for the rest of the forum, whether you like it or not. Having engaged with a few of these threads, I was under the impression that the kind of hyperbole you find on them was perfectly fine on AH.

For another, the absolute ignorance of the legal system displayed on those threads, and the backslapping and reinforcement of factually incorrect views is dangerous, and threatens to undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system.

For another, calls for eugenics, "cleansing the gene pool", and the mass murder of a certain "stratum of society"? Where have I heard that before? Far more serious and detrimental than calling a journalist names.

Whatever about the practical reasons for applying different moderating standards to individuals, the moral argument holds no water whatsoever. I would therefore suggest that you subject these threads to a similar standard to that applied in the Eoghan Harris thread.

randylonghorn wrote: »

Ban is within normal range; it's basically a light tap on the wrist to get your attention. Upheld, therefore.

Which is fine, the ban wasn't really the issue. Feel free to merge this with the feedback thread, otherwise I'll pick it back up there.

Khannie

Looks like this one's complete. Marking resolved.....

benway

That's fine by me - it's really more of a feedback issue than a dispute, no point wasting more time here with it. Could you re-open the feedback thread and I'll take my gripe over there?

Khannie

Just drop one of the listed mods a PM. I wont tread on their toes by opening a thread that they may not want opened.