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
12357…25

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    mango salsa wrote: »
    That is the only conclusion I can draw from some posts that want it discussed. I think some people actually want her to be cyber bullied.

    I don't.
    I can't speak for others and neither can anyone else.
    I can understand the complaints or points being made about double standards though but sure we're all full of that at times.


  • Options
    #123
    Mr Simpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭Mr Simpson


    Sir Oxman wrote: »

    This is the attitude I really have a problem with - I am reasonably discussing the topic in Feedback.
    What is the problem here?

    I'm not suggesting you dont discuss it here, thats what feedbacks for. I'm saying, if you have a burning desire to discuss this video, there are plenty of websites that will accomodate you.

    Anyway I really am bowing out here, I see this becoming circular. AH mods have stated their position, HQ staff have stated theirs, I dont see what else can be achieved from this


  • Options
    #124
    LizT
    Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Saganist wrote: »

    Is that not what bans are for ?

    Of course it is. How many bans would have to be handed out though? How much extra work would be created for the mods?


  • Options
    #125
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    mango salsa wrote: »
    That is the only conclusion I can draw from some posts that want it discussed. I think some people actually want her to be cyber bullied.

    They do. Its a buzz word at the moment and some people like to think they're in the thick of it, so they turn what could be a normal discussion into something it isn't by calling it cyberbullying.


  • Options
    #126
    inmyday
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 731 ✭✭✭inmyday


    Pippa Middleton's Arse wrote: »
    There is no double standard here.

    The first thread appeared yesterday, it was reported 5 or 6 times in quick succession. Nearly all the reports included the word bullying. It was locked and snipped. It was deleted soon after. No doubt we would have gotten more reports otherwise.

    The community spoke and we agreed.

    But there is double standards here. I mentioned the cork girls fighting video. And how much that video could have affected their lives. Why wasnt that video pulled from boards.ie???? They were abused on here.

    But Im sure the cork girls got slagged/abused/disciplined since the video. Maybe even ruined their lives. We might never know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    inmyday wrote: »
    But isnt that what most of boards.ie is???
    Actually, no, it isn't. Quite the opposite. Sure there are elements of the puerile(depending on ones viewpoint), but the vast majority of threads on this website aren't puerile.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #128
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    We're discussing Boards' reaction to the thread/video here, not the video. If we were discussing Boards reaction to a video in a thread about the video it'd get a bit paradoxical.

    So am I!


  • Options
    #129
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    LizT wrote: »
    Of course it is. How many bans would have to be handed out though? How much extra work would be created for the mods?


    Who gives a sh1t, thats their job. They knew what they were signing up for, now let the discussion flow.


  • Options
    #130
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    LizT wrote: »
    Of course it is. How many bans would have to be handed out though? How much extra work would be created for the mods?
    So the current mods aren't up to the task at hand?


  • Options
    #131
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    Is there ever going to be a line drawn here where Boards comes out and says who is fair game and who isn't?
    I'm not advocating the abuse this girl is getting but I'm wondering why the threads about her are being locked and people are being banned, while other people are fair game.
    Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of threads about people that were allowed to carry on without heavy moderation. For instance, all the Samantha Brick threads were allowed to stay and she got fierce abuse in those threads. Why was hers allowed to stay?
    There's always threads on politicians in AH and they get abuse there too which is normally let slip through. Why are those threads allowed?

    Again, I'm not advocating any of the comments but I just think a line should be drawn or it should be either all or nothing. Either everyone is fair game, or no one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    newmug wrote: »
    Who gives a sh1t, thats their job. They knew what they were signing up for, now let the discussion flow.

    It's not their job. They are volunteers.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #133
    LizT
    Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Quazzie wrote: »
    So the current mods aren't up to the task at hand?

    I'm not saying that at all and we're beginning to stray off topic here.


  • Options
    #134
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The girl is a brat, and I'm sure her father is disgusted with her. People will forget about it in a few weeks but she'll live with it for the rest of her life now. Maybe it's not a bad thing though, she needs a reality check. I know plenty of rich people that have never acted the way she did.


  • Options
    #135
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Quazzie wrote: »
    They do. Its a buzz word at the moment and some people like to think they're in the thick of it, so they turn what could be a normal discussion into something it isn't by calling it cyberbullying.

    I've read a lot of the comments about her. It clearly is cyberbullying.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #136
    kfallon
    Registered Users Posts: 25,775 ✭✭✭✭kfallon


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Is there ever going to be a line drawn here where Boards comes out and says who is fair game and who isn't?
    I'm not advocating the abuse this girl is getting but I'm wondering why the threads about her are being locked and people are being banned, while other people are fair game.
    Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of threads about people that were allowed to carry on without heavy moderation. For instance, all the Samantha Brick threads were allowed to stay and she got fierce abuse in those threads. Why was hers allowed to stay?
    There's always threads on politicians in AH and they get abuse there too which is normally let slip through. Why are those threads allowed?

    Again, I'm not advocating any of the comments but I just think a line should be drawn or it should be either all or nothing. Either everyone is fair game, or no one.

    They chose to put themselves out in the public eye, this girl didn't. She was put there by somebody else


  • Options
    #137
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Somehow I get the feeling that this is going to go round and round in circles.

    In summary:

    Some users: 'we would still be able to talk about the video if it featured a scobe'
    Other users: 'Freedom of speech, rabble rabble rabble'
    Mods/Admins/other users: 'all the right reasons as to why we shouldn't talk about it'

    But

    Aside from that no clarification that will satisfy the 'we would still be able to talk about the video if it featured a scobe' brigade, which quite naturally is fueling ideas of a 'cover up' or 'one rule for the rich, another for the poor'.

    I really don't want to have to ask this but:

    1 - If the video featured someone from a lower socio-economic background, would the thread closures/deletions have happened so quickly?
    2 - Is there any thought being given to the next random youtube video of a private member of society that goes viral, because there will be a next one.

    Apologies for the bluntness but it has to be asked.


  • Options
    #138
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I've read a lot of the comments about her. It clearly is cyberbullying.

    Not on board you haven't because it wasn't allowed. I think thats the point.


  • Options
    #139
    LizT
    Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Dean09 wrote: »
    Is there ever going to be a line drawn here where Boards comes out and says who is fair game and who isn't?
    I'm not advocating the abuse this girl is getting but I'm wondering why the threads about her are being locked and people are being banned, while other people are fair game.
    Off the top of my head, I can think of a number of threads about people that were allowed to carry on without heavy moderation. For instance, all the Samantha Brick threads were allowed to stay and she got fierce abuse in those threads. Why was hers allowed to stay?
    There's always threads on politicians in AH and they get abuse there too which is normally let slip through. Why are those threads allowed?

    Again, I'm not advocating any of the comments but I just think a line should be drawn or it should be either all or nothing. Either everyone is fair game, or no one.

    Samantha brick put herself in the public eye by writing a series of controversial articles. Not saying she's fair game or anything but the circumstances are very different.


  • Options
    #140
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    LizT wrote: »
    Of course it is. How many bans would have to be handed out though? How much extra work would be created for the mods?

    Isn't that beside the point though ? This whole position of Boards on this issue reeks of Double Standards. That is why you are seeing this reaction.


  • Options
    #141
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    LizT wrote: »
    I'm not saying that at all and we're beginning to stray off topic here.

    Not off topic at all. It's the mods choosing to ban the subject altogether rather than moderate the thread that is the issue


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    brokenarms
    Registered Users Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭brokenarms


    Like vultures circling a carcass .

    Why must ye take so much entertainment out of a drunk rant.
    So ye can get a little giggle??

    Ok . she made an arse of herself . Don't we all sometimes when legless . I certainly hope some dickhead will not be hiding a camera when it happens to me.

    That girl will be seriously damaged over this. As will her family.

    I made calls yesterday alerting that company trying to get it takin down . But attention seekers where copying it and uploading it quicker that youtube where removing it. Why?

    Its downright shameful and shows the brutal relentless nature if those who presue this type of entertainment.

    With recent events over the effects of cyber bulling it begs me to ask the OP. Why are you upset it was taking down. Do you want to see her suffer??


  • Options
    #143
    LizT
    Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Quazzie wrote: »

    Not off topic at all. It's the mods choosing to ban the subject altogether rather than moderate the thread that is the issue

    An AH mod has already stated that they took that decision in response to reported posts from the community.


  • Options
    #144
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    LizT wrote: »
    An AH mod has already stated that they took that decision in response to reported posts from the community.

    By deleting the thread, not moderating the discussion. They should try moderate instead of censor, and then there will be no uproar.


  • Options
    #145
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    brokenarms wrote: »

    I made calls yesterday alerting that company trying to get it takin down . But attention seekers where copying it and uploading it quicker that youtube where removing it. Why?

    The Streisand Effect

    It's inevitable.


  • Options
    #146
    LizT
    Registered Users Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Quazzie wrote: »

    By deleting the thread, not moderating the discussion. They should try moderate instead of censor, and then there will be no uproar.

    Despite the fact that an admin and an employee of boards say it shouldn't be discussed?


  • Options
    #147
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    LizT wrote: »

    Samantha brick put herself in the public eye by writing a series of controversial articles. Not saying she's fair game or anything but the circumstances are very different.
    Yeah I can see that point alright. But how does that make the bullying comments ok on those threads?
    Some would say this girl put herself in the public eye too. She chose to go on a rant in public and while being filmed. And the people filming it were talking about putting it online while it was being filmed.
    I know damn well that if someone was filming me, I'd be sure to not do anything stupid because in this day and age, there's a very high chance it'll end up online.


  • Options
    #148
    newmug
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    mango salsa wrote: »
    It's not their job. They are volunteers.


    Its their "role" then. If you cant, or wont, do it properly, then let someone who CAN do it, do it.


  • Options
    #149
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    pithater1 wrote: »
    Somehow I get the feeling that this is going to go round and round in circles.

    In summary:

    Some users: 'we would still be able to talk about the video if it featured a scobe'
    Other users: 'Freedom of speech, rabble rabble rabble'
    Mods/Admins/other users: 'all the right reasons as to why we shouldn't talk about it'

    But

    Aside from that no clarification that will satisfy the 'we would still be able to talk about the video if it featured a scobe' brigade, which quite naturally is fueling ideas of a 'cover up' or 'one rule for the rich, another for the poor'.

    I really don't want to have to ask this but:

    1 - If the video featured someone from a lower socio-economic background, would the thread closures/deletions have happened so quickly?
    2 - Is there any thought being given to the next random youtube video of a private member of society that goes viral, because there will be a next one.

    Apologies for the bluntness but it has to be asked.

    From what I can see, the video going viral started out from a double standard, because she is wealthy and her status is secure. The bullying she is getting is due to a double standard, stemming from chip on the shoulder class warfare.

    Boards may have to rethink and double think what it allows in scenarios like this. But this girl is a minor and a private citizen. She is not an adult and not a public figure.


  • Options
    #150
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,898 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    LizT wrote: »
    Despite the fact that an admin and an employee of boards say it shouldn't be discussed?

    They gave reasons, which are valid, but can be avoided by adequate moderation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    I don't think she'll do it again, unless of course it gets 100% censored and she realises how powerful her position as one of the elite in Irish society actually is.

    She's a bully in real life, telling others that they'll get nowhere, or they can't afford 'real' shoes etc etc. A witch hunt is not needed though and at this stage I'd say she knows what it's like to be on the receiving end.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement