Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
KPMG Drunk girl shutdown
Options
Comments
-
Did you really?SYDEWYNDER wrote: »
Just read your post Dav. I am disgusted at the reasons boards is blocking all this. Fear of a rich daddy and because he works for Boards auditors should not halt something on a forum.0 -
OK, lets call a halt to some of the more extreme theories being thrown around here.
I will list for you the order of events that occurred in the office that lead to us snipping threads and links to the video yesterday.
People were talking about this "drunk KPMG girl video" in the office, I asked what they were talking about and someone (I think it was Nicola) sent me a link.
I watched it in dismay remembering back to when I was a hotel worker during the Celtic Tiger earning minimum wage and remembering the huge number of entitled brats like this that I dealt with on a regular basis (Trinity College Engineering ball, I'm looking at you in particular - you kids were a proper pain in the arse). I thought to myself "this is going to be more hassle than it's worth and will be this year's 'Guy dodging a taxi fare' event as Daddy will have serious need to act because it impacts on his reputation as well as his brat daughter's future."
After some discussion (where I initially argued that we shouldn't pull the thread), Gordon pointed out that I got dragged into that taxi dodging thing for about 2 weeks as I was dealing with their solicitors, and that was without us even being named on the injunction (but we were served with a copy of it). Nicola reminded me of the "damage to reputation" argument of the Defamation Act which could well come into play. I'm not prepared to waste 2 weeks of the company's time on what amounts to a stupid underage drunk girl's rant when there is nothing more that needs saying on the issue.
So we pulled it for these reasons:- She's underage.
- She did not consent to have this video posted.
- She will already be a target of all sorts of bile and vitriol from all over the net.
- The Defamation act (the comments we'd already seen on the threads were way out of order).
- The video was being pulled from YouTube, suggesting they were already dealing with it.
- Neither I, nor my boss (Gordon) want to have to spend weeks tied up in a legal mess dealing with the fallout of the entire thing.
- KPMG are the Distilled Auditors.
- Daddy's Rich.
- Censorship of issues affecting those of a better socio-economic situation than others.
We don't always get this right and I'm not trying to suggest that we do.
There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time. There is simply no way that we can monitor even 10% of what gets posted on the site every day - that's why we have the Report Post function for the Community to exercise it's will and say "We don't think this belongs here" (and in this instance, they did) backed up by the Moderators, Cat Mods and Admins who give up their time to keep this site running and make the decisions that best help the site overall.
We have a pile of legal issues that hit us all the time. People who've been on telly threaten us, the people from some car seller's once threatened to come to our office with a shotgun, people who we site ban for being trolls threaten us, some eejit who bought something from Adverts (which is a separate company from Boards.ie) even brought us to the small claims court and didn't bother showing up for the case. This is what the office spends its time dealing with. These are the fights we have to take on so that our members have the right to discussion of the day's news and events, but too many of you are so quick to jump on us when we're doing what we have to do to keep this site in operation. Unless you're prepared to put your name and address on file with us so that we can hand them over to someone who wants to sue over your comments, then we have to take things down when they're reported. We don't want to run a site that requires that sort of information to be a member - all you ever have to give us is an email address and we're happy with that.
We can't afford to go to the High Court - not even if we win. It would cost us too much money - money we don't have (where this myth that we're rich comes from is beyond me, the company ran at a loss last year). So the choices we have are be sometimes cautious and keep the site open or take a stand and face closing the site down.
So if you're disappointed that you can't discuss this particular issue, I'm sorry, but the bigger picture at play is that there's a whole site here with hundreds of various communities who are just as important to this site as any other and who have no interest in that issue. Leaving the sort of discussion we saw developing on it up on the site puts all of them them in jeopardy and we're not prepared to let that happen.
Thank you all for your time and I hope your understanding.
Well explained and thanks for taking the time to explain it.
I think a lesson learned from this might be: if boards.ie are going to do this again, they should post an explanation like this as soon as they possibly can. Preferably in the sticky. Having a sticky ust saying something is banned is going to rile a lot of people.
And we don't see what goes on in the administration side of things, we just see what seems to be extreme unfairness in one video being taken down and another not.
Everyone appreciates a true, honest, explanation of what's going on, so thank you for that.0 -
minidazzler wrote: »
Boards doesn't like getting sued, especially since there is no merit to discussion of this.
You keep saying that. Feel free to take yourself out of this ''not worthy of discussion'' discussion whenever you like.0 -
So if you're disappointed that you can't discuss this particular issue, I'm sorry, but the bigger picture at play is that there's a whole site here with hundreds of various communities who are just as important to this site as any other and who have no interest in that issue. Leaving the sort of discussion we saw developing on it up on the site puts all of them them in jeopardy and we're not prepared to let that happen.
Thank you all for your time and I hope your understanding.
This I accept, understand and appreciate.
I fear a lot of others who have commented on this matter could learn quite a bit from what has been said here. It acknowledges the frustration, explains the reasoning and apologises for the consequence.
It doesn't throw out a herring of "Like it or lump and go elsewhere if you don't like it...."
Thank you Dav.0 -
It takes time, though. This all happened within the space of about 17 hours, most of which time people would be asleep. This response was pretty quick and in-depth.midlandsmissus wrote: »Well explained and thanks for taking the time to explain it.
I think a lesson learned from this might be: if boards.ie are going to do this again, they should post an explanation like this as soon as they possibly can. Preferably in the sticky. Having a sticky ust saying something is banned is going to rile a lot of people.
And we don't see what goes on in the administration side of things, we just see what seems to be extreme unfairness in one video being taken down and another not.
Everyone appreciates a true, honest, explanation of what's going on, so thank you for that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Dav, while I appreciate your response. The biggest let down for me is that your decision making as you've described it isn't transparent. It seems like you basically said this could be a legal issue this could take alot if our time. Fair enough but with the taxi issue, it was kept alive until it became a serious legal issue. Why treat this differently if as you've already pointed out haven't been contacted by anyone regards the legality?
I can honestly say in the short time I've been on boards (5yrs) this is the most I've felt a sense of disillusionment with the site.0 -
Can you prove that? He already said its nothing to do with his financial status or who he works for.
I agree with the Boards persons comments and reasons.
Just saying that they are equally as applicable to those girls in Cork.....who may or may not have the resources to pose a legal threat to boards.ie
That thread should have also been deleted using the same logic. And applications being made to move it from mirrors/caches etc.0 -
-
OK, lets call a halt to some of the more extreme theories being thrown around here.
I will list for you the order of events that occurred in the office that lead to us snipping threads and links to the video yesterday.
People were talking about this "drunk KPMG girl video" in the office, I asked what they were talking about and someone (I think it was Nicola) sent me a link.
I watched it in dismay remembering back to when I was a hotel worker during the Celtic Tiger earning minimum wage and remembering the huge number of entitled brats like this that I dealt with on a regular basis (Trinity College Engineering ball, I'm looking at you in particular - you kids were a proper pain in the arse). I thought to myself "this is going to be more hassle than it's worth and will be this year's 'Guy dodging a taxi fare' event as Daddy will have serious need to act because it impacts on his reputation as well as his brat daughter's future."
After some discussion (where I initially argued that we shouldn't pull the thread), Gordon pointed out that I got dragged into that taxi dodging thing for about 2 weeks as I was dealing with their solicitors, and that was without us even being named on the injunction (but we were served with a copy of it). Nicola reminded me of the "damage to reputation" argument of the Defamation Act which could well come into play. I'm not prepared to waste 2 weeks of the company's time on what amounts to a stupid underage drunk girl's rant when there is nothing more that needs saying on the issue.
So we pulled it for these reasons:- She's underage.
- She did not consent to have this video posted.
- She will already be a target of all sorts of bile and vitriol from all over the net.
- The Defamation act (the comments we'd already seen on the threads were way out of order).
- The video was being pulled from YouTube, suggesting they were already dealing with it.
- Neither I, nor my boss (Gordon) want to have to spend weeks tied up in a legal mess dealing with the fallout of the entire thing.
- KPMG are the Distilled Auditors.
- Daddy's Rich.
- Censorship of issues affecting those of a better socio-economic situation than others.
We don't always get this right and I'm not trying to suggest that we do.
There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time. There is simply no way that we can monitor even 10% of what gets posted on the site every day - that's why we have the Report Post function for the Community to exercise it's will and say "We don't think this belongs here" (and in this instance, they did) backed up by the Moderators, Cat Mods and Admins who give up their time to keep this site running and make the decisions that best help the site overall.
We have a pile of legal issues that hit us all the time. People who've been on telly threaten us, the people from some car seller's once threatened to come to our office with a shotgun, people who we site ban for being trolls threaten us, some eejit who bought something from Adverts (which is a separate company from Boards.ie) even brought us to the small claims court and didn't bother showing up for the case. This is what the office spends its time dealing with. These are the fights we have to take on so that our members have the right to discussion of the day's news and events, but too many of you are so quick to jump on us when we're doing what we have to do to keep this site in operation. Unless you're prepared to put your name and address on file with us so that we can hand them over to someone who wants to sue over your comments, then we have to take things down when they're reported. We don't want to run a site that requires that sort of information to be a member - all you ever have to give us is an email address and we're happy with that.
We can't afford to go to the High Court - not even if we win. It would cost us too much money - money we don't have (where this myth that we're rich comes from is beyond me, the company ran at a loss last year). So the choices we have are be sometimes cautious and keep the site open or take a stand and face closing the site down.
So if you're disappointed that you can't discuss this particular issue, I'm sorry, but the bigger picture at play is that there's a whole site here with hundreds of various communities who are just as important to this site as any other and who have no interest in that issue. Leaving the sort of discussion we saw developing on it up on the site puts all of them them in jeopardy and we're not prepared to let that happen.
Thank you all for your time and I hope your understanding.
Good auld nicola.on the ball that lady.give her a payrise or else a promotion0 -
Hopefully you'll find that we don't actually allow overt and unnecessary abuse towards anyone on the site, we've discussed it at length in various threads in this forum. If you do see it, report it and it will get dealt with.
So G'em would you use this logic in every instants? What about the amount of abuse that Bertie, Biffo and Brian? Why is that allowed?
note that there is a difference between valid complaining and outright abuse though.
Right now we're talking about something entirely different though.0 -
Advertisement
-
The mods are volunteers a thread about this subject in ah would need a mod reading every post as soon as it went up. If the signal:noise goes out of control as is the case with threads like this it is better to close.
So its better to stifle all discussion rather than have the mods moderate the thread?
Unfortunately some of the boards users are proving lately that they are incapable of holding a civil conversation and throwing abuse at random people in the public eye is becoming the norm0 -
(second time I've posted this).
there be videos of viewers showing their responses to "KPMG Girl" (sic)
What is Boards.ie policy on video responses responding to the video?0 -
The mods are volunteers a thread about this subject in ah would need a mod reading every post as soon as it went up. If the signal:noise goes out of control as is the case with threads like this it is better to close.
Unfortunately some of the boards users are proving lately that they are incapable of holding a civil conversation and throwing abuse at random people in the public eye is becoming the norm
I think they just made a mistake in deleting the thread rather than locking it and deleting the offending posts. That meant loads of people probably innocently tried to restart the thread and it ended up being a stickied notice at the top.
If they just locked it and let it slowly sink to the bottom then it'd disappear0 -
So we pulled it for these reasons:- She's underage.
- She did not consent to have this video posted.
- She will already be a target of all sorts of bile and vitriol from all over the net.
- The Defamation act (the comments we'd already seen on the threads were way out of order).
- The video was being pulled from YouTube, suggesting they were already dealing with it.
- Neither I, nor my boss (Gordon) want to have to spend weeks tied up in a legal mess dealing with the fallout of the entire thing.
- KPMG are the Distilled Auditors.
- Daddy's Rich.
- Censorship of issues affecting those of a better socio-economic situation than others.
The problem is that the bolded reasons given here have all occurred with other threads, and threads haven't been taken down or deleted.
The only differing factor in this case compared to those other cases (children and disabled people) is that those people don't have the resources available to threaten Boards legally. And that very much is a socio-economic thing.
And before you say those threads weren't reported, the mods in this thread have admitted that posts in those mentioned threads were indeed reported. The difference seems to be that they weren't reported enough, as if something only becomes unacceptable once enough of a stink is raised about it. Much how those children and disabled people in other threads don't have the ability to raise a legal stink.These are the fights we have to take on so that our members have the right to discussion of the day's news and events, but too many of you are so quick to jump on us when we're doing what we have to do to keep this site in operation.
That's the other problem. As has been pointed out repeatedly we don't have a "right" to post here. I never thought I did. This is a private business whose sole obligation is to its owners. Doing what is necessary to keep the business open is absolutely correct. People are however asking that you go beyond doing what is required to ensure the future of the site and do waht is required that people like the girl in these threads, and the children and disabled people in those other thread are treated fairly.0 -
-
OK, lets call a halt to some of the more extreme theories being thrown around here.
I will list for you the order of events that occurred in the office that lead to us snipping threads and links to the video yesterday.
People were talking about this "drunk KPMG girl video" in the office, I asked what they were talking about and someone (I think it was Nicola) sent me a link.
I watched it in dismay remembering back to when I was a hotel worker during the Celtic Tiger earning minimum wage and remembering the huge number of entitled brats like this that I dealt with on a regular basis (Trinity College Engineering ball, I'm looking at you in particular - you kids were a proper pain in the arse). I thought to myself "this is going to be more hassle than it's worth and will be this year's 'Guy dodging a taxi fare' event as Daddy will have serious need to act because it impacts on his reputation as well as his brat daughter's future."
After some discussion (where I initially argued that we shouldn't pull the thread), Gordon pointed out that I got dragged into that taxi dodging thing for about 2 weeks as I was dealing with their solicitors, and that was without us even being named on the injunction (but we were served with a copy of it). Nicola reminded me of the "damage to reputation" argument of the Defamation Act which could well come into play. I'm not prepared to waste 2 weeks of the company's time on what amounts to a stupid underage drunk girl's rant when there is nothing more that needs saying on the issue.
So we pulled it for these reasons:- She's underage.
- She did not consent to have this video posted.
- She will already be a target of all sorts of bile and vitriol from all over the net.
- The Defamation act (the comments we'd already seen on the threads were way out of order).
- The video was being pulled from YouTube, suggesting they were already dealing with it.
- Neither I, nor my boss (Gordon) want to have to spend weeks tied up in a legal mess dealing with the fallout of the entire thing.
- KPMG are the Distilled Auditors.
- Daddy's Rich.
- Censorship of issues affecting those of a better socio-economic situation than others.
We don't always get this right and I'm not trying to suggest that we do.
There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time. There is simply no way that we can monitor even 10% of what gets posted on the site every day - that's why we have the Report Post function for the Community to exercise it's will and say "We don't think this belongs here" (and in this instance, they did) backed up by the Moderators, Cat Mods and Admins who give up their time to keep this site running and make the decisions that best help the site overall.
We have a pile of legal issues that hit us all the time. People who've been on telly threaten us, the people from some car seller's once threatened to come to our office with a shotgun, people who we site ban for being trolls threaten us, some eejit who bought something from Adverts (which is a separate company from Boards.ie) even brought us to the small claims court and didn't bother showing up for the case. This is what the office spends its time dealing with. These are the fights we have to take on so that our members have the right to discussion of the day's news and events, but too many of you are so quick to jump on us when we're doing what we have to do to keep this site in operation. Unless you're prepared to put your name and address on file with us so that we can hand them over to someone who wants to sue over your comments, then we have to take things down when they're reported. We don't want to run a site that requires that sort of information to be a member - all you ever have to give us is an email address and we're happy with that.
We can't afford to go to the High Court - not even if we win. It would cost us too much money - money we don't have (where this myth that we're rich comes from is beyond me, the company ran at a loss last year). So the choices we have are be sometimes cautious and keep the site open or take a stand and face closing the site down.
So if you're disappointed that you can't discuss this particular issue, I'm sorry, but the bigger picture at play is that there's a whole site here with hundreds of various communities who are just as important to this site as any other and who have no interest in that issue. Leaving the sort of discussion we saw developing on it up on the site puts all of them them in jeopardy and we're not prepared to let that happen.
Thank you all for your time and I hope your understanding.
Why wasn't the Cork Schoolgirl thread pulled for the same reasons? They were underage, they didn't consent, they had the same abuse thrown at them. The only difference I can see is money.
As I said in an earlier post, the policy of moderation seems to be that you can say anything about anyone as long as they don't appear to have the backing of a legal team.0 -
My name is URL wrote: »I'd imagine they'd be treated in the same way. What purpose would a video of that nature serve?
Maybe a discussion of certain types of attitudes across "social classes"?
Or maybe a pi$$ take. Like those stupid Damo/Ivor sketches. Ross O'Carroll Kelly anyone?0 -
-
There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time. There is simply no way that we can monitor even 10% of what gets posted on the site every day - that's why we have the Report Post function for the Community to exercise it's will and say "We don't think this belongs here" (and in this instance, they did) backed up by the Moderators, Cat Mods and Admins who give up their time to keep this site running and make the decisions that best help the site overall.
Might be a smart idea to tell your admins and mods what is and isn't allowed instead of waiting for people in your office to hear about it first before dealing with it.0 -
That's easy to understand: that was then; this is now.oppenheimer1 wrote: »Why wasn't the Cork Schoolgirl thread pulled for the same reasons?
Boards policy and practice evolves over time - hopefully getting better.0 -
Advertisement
-
P. Breathnach wrote: »That's easy to understand: that was then; this is now.
Boards policy and practice evolves over time - hopefully getting better.
It was locked today.
After the other one was deleted.
Locked. Not deleted.0 -
-
Chucky the tree wrote: »Might be a smart idea to tell your admins and mods what is and isn't allowed instead of waiting for people in your office to hear about it first before dealing with it.
Chucky, you've quoted that post as coming from me but it was Dav who posted it.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Why wasn't the Cork Schoolgirl thread pulled for the same reasons? They were underage, they didn't consent, they had the same abuse thrown at them. The only difference I can see is money.
As I said in an earlier post, the policy of moderation seems to be that you can say anything about anyone as long as they don't appear to have the backing of a legal team.Dav wrote:There've been several mentions of other videos that have been left up that are essentially the same thing - people being caught on camera and being shown to be total idiots or in compromising positions etc. The simple truth is that if we'd known about them, we'd more than likely have taken the same action. This particular video happened to be a topic of discussion in the office and so we pre-empted what we were reasonably certain was going to be a big chunk of our time.
The Cork Schoolgirls one wasn't as big of a topic, and so it wasn't noticed by most.0 -
That will work as long as all situations follow a standard set of rules. But the internet is too fluid and unexpected events will always happen. There are no blanket rules that can cover all eventualities. All we can do is learn from mistakes and adapt.Chucky the tree wrote: »Might be a smart idea to tell your admins and mods what is and isn't allowed instead of waiting for people in your office to hear about it first before dealing with it.
Case in point, the cork girls thread. I think it shouldn't been allowed, but it was. Retroactively deleting it gains nothing. But learning to spot threads like that, and how to more appropriately action it (ie, the KPMG threads), is the better way to go about it.0 -
-
Can I also say what kind of name is 'PippaMiddletonsarse' for a Cmod?
I saw the sticky and the name , and I was like how did a poster post a sticky? And then I saw it was the name of a Cmod! A woman's arse is not a good name for a Mod I'm sure nearly anyone would see as obvious.0 -
midlandsmissus wrote: »Can I also say what kind of name is 'PippaMiddletonsarse' for a Cmod?
I saw the sticky and the name , and I was like how did a poster post a sticky? And then I saw it was the name of a Cmod! A woman's arse is not a good name for a Mod I'm sure nearly anyone would see as obvious.
Its for Charity0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement