Slane Girl discussion?

Ok, 2 threads closed now. This mess is everywhere and is asking some serious questions in society that need to be addressed, from the act itself to the general online reaction equally. Obviously you guys don't want it anywhere near Boards, but it is kind of frustrating when you unexpectedly stay up all of a Sunday night to engage in this discussion and then next thing the thread is gone as if it never existed, without a word. Could that not have been done by page 5 when there was already an abundance of vitriol posted, hence giving everyone a night's sleep?

Yes the girl needs the least exposure possible, but I'm afraid that ship is already miles out at sea. If anything, maybe if the family or those who care about the girl stumbled upon the thread, they might take some comfort in some of the 'non-abuse' posts, of which they were many, versus the multitude of hate against this girl brewing around the internet.

I dunno, it just seems a bit laid back to delete full threads without at least attempting to moderate them first. It's your house, your rules, but I still wanted to say this.

Spear

I suspect eveything that Dav said at the time of the KPMG girl mess, applies equally to this one, so I'll just point to Dav's statement at the time:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82524640#post82524640

As I said in the closing post of the first thread, I see no reason for After Hours to add to the sh*t storm that this girl will face. We will not be part of any sort of online bullying campaign.

guttenberg

I've not seen the threads but came across it elsewhere. There is two people engaged in the vulgar act, why is one more susceptible to ridicule than the other? online bullying is a big thing at the minute over in Britain because of a few deaths, no need for Boards to risk getting implicated in anything like this.

Zaph

stankratz wrote: »

Ok, 2 threads closed now. This mess is everywhere and is asking some serious questions in society that need to be addressed, from the act itself to the general online reaction equally. Obviously you guys don't want it anywhere near Boards, but it is kind of frustrating when you unexpectedly stay up all of a Sunday night to engage in this discussion and then next thing the thread is gone as if it never existed, without a word. Could that not have been done by page 5 when there was already an abundance of vitriol posted, hence giving everyone a night's sleep?

Just because you were up all night doesn't mean that there were mods up all night to remove the thread. It was deleted as soon as there was someone around to do so.

stankratz wrote: »

I dunno, it just seems a bit laid back to delete full threads without at least attempting to moderate them first. It's your house, your rules, but I still wanted to say this.

I've had a look at the threads and the amount of work that would be required to moderate them would be ridiculous. Mods are volunteers, we don't expect them to spend half the night editing posts when it's clear that the thread should have been removed anyway.

Regardless of the number of non-abusive and supportive posts on the thread, unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that they have an automatic right to abuse people from the comfort of their own homes. We don't, and never will allow this, despite how much people may protest about their right to do so.

ZeRoY

There is such thing called moderation, I think threads could have been cleaned up; Even though I did not post in the 25+ page thread about this "event" I read almost every comments and aside from a few trolls there were good points and the discussions were courteous by a large majority. There is no doubt that link to pics/pages on FB had no place there but the debate on the viral phenomenon was interesting and useful imo. Anyway, what is done is done.

Deleted User

Thanks for the attempts at a clarification guys, however...

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said in the closing post of the first thread, I see no reason for After Hours to add to the sh*t storm that this girl will face. We will not be part of any sort of online bullying campaign.

Zaph wrote: »

Regardless of the number of non-abusive and supportive posts on the thread, unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that they have an automatic right to abuse people from the comfort of their own homes. We don't, and never will allow this, despite how much people may protest about their right to do so.

...the KPMG feedback thread I just read (which Spear directed me to above) and numerous other posts I read on this site daily contradict the bolded sentences.* And honestly, the thread was going from some time around midnight, a mod wouldn't have had to have been up all night to close it if it had been done on Page 1-3 when it should have been. You mean to say there wasn't one AH mod online after midnight? Surely if there's so much at stake litigation-wise in running a site like this in a country like this, is there not at least one person watching the ship all the times? No...wait...before you put the palm of your hand through your face, I know it is not possible for one mod let alone 10 to moderate the galaxy that is Boards.ie, but someone to keep an eye on the main page during the quiet hours on the off-chance that shít like this springs up?

Anyway, the thread depressed the fúck out of me, but I had never experienced the 'now you see it, now you don't' approach with a thread before (I must have been living under a rock when the KPMG thing originally did the rounds) so had to ask what was the story.

BTW, I know mods are volunteers with more than likely full-time jobs of their own, and not all-present and omnipotent, but surely in applying to be a mod you are aware and accepting of the fact that there will be sometimes a bit more work involved than 'Hey, tone it down' etc. I certainly don't have the time, patience or desire to clean-up a thread, but then again I didn't volunteer to mod After Hours.

That's me done, bar responding to any replies. Hopefully the world will forget about slanegirl today but I doubt it.

---

*Obviously I'm not laying the blame for this with the mods, it is clear that the guidelines handed down to them are shady at best when it comes to this area.

dr.bollocko

The internet's a sick fucked-up little place at times.

CastingCouch

dr.bollocko wrote: »

The internet's a sick fucked-up little place at times.

Society equally

Penn

stankratz wrote: »

You mean to say there wasn't one AH mod online after midnight?

After midnight? On a Sunday night? For an unpaid volunteer position? When most people have work on a Monday morning?

Yes, we do mean to say there wasn't one AH mod online after midnight, and it's wholly unreasonable to expect that there would be.

sbsquarepants

Shít.
What did i miss
What did slane girl do? I know threads have been closed and whatnot, but don't leave me hanging, would a brief nameless synopsis be allowed perhaps? - whatever it was, it definitely wouldn't be worth going to slane for, fecking hell hole of a venue!

MugMugs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Shít.
What did i miss
What did slane girl do? I know threads have been closed and whatnot, but don't leave me hanging,

Could you not just google it given that discussion is forbidden?

It's not rocket science.

www.google.ie

btard

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said in the closing post of the first thread, I see no reason for After Hours to add to the sh*t storm that this girl will face. We will not be part of any sort of online bullying campaign.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want. You can close threads you don't like all you want. However, stating you closed it because it was part of an online bullying campaign is being disingenuous to say the least. It is also a slur on those who contributed to the discussion.

sbsquarepants

Sorry for upsetting you mugmugs. I feel bad now!
Any how, you may as well try to unbunch your panties there, a slightly less abrasive poster than yourself has filled me in via pm.

MugMugs

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sorry for upsetting you mugmugs. I feel bad now!
Any how, you may as well try to unbunch your panties there, a slightly less abrasive poster than yourself has filled me in via pm.

I am not upset. Merely stating the blatantly obvious. Glad you got your fix

Penn

Penn wrote: »

After midnight? On a Sunday night? For an unpaid volunteer position? When most people have work on a Monday morning?

Yes, we do mean to say there wasn't one AH mod online after midnight, and it's wholly unreasonable to expect that there would be.

Right so they were all washed and tucked in their beds for 11. Incidentally I imagine a fair few of the posters including myself had work this morning and still have it now. It is not "wholly unreasonable" in the slightest to expect mods to be online when several of the posters in the thread during the night were mods themselves. During the quiet hours, I see posts made by mods all the time. And I wasn't asking the questions you responded to in a 'it's a disgrace joe' way, it was genuine surprise considering there seems to be a litigation panic every now and again with Boards. In that case, maybe it wouldn't be a write-off of an idea for Boards to pay somebody to do the night-watch as it could end up saving a lot more money in the long run.

MugMugs

stankratz wrote: »

Right so they were all washed and tucked in their beds for 11. Incidentally I imagine a fair few of the posters including myself had work this morning and still have it now. It is not "wholly unreasonable" in the slightest to expect mods to be online when ...........................................................

You're not really getting the whole volunteer thing, are you?

GLaDOS

Can't disagree with the thread being deleted. Can understand why contributors would be annoyed but given the potential legal repercussions (and not to mention the morality of it), it's a minefield best avoided.

dr.bollocko

btard wrote: »

You can stick your head in the sand all you want. You can close threads you don't like all you want. However, stating you closed it because it was part of an online bullying campaign is being disingenuous to say the least. It is also a slur on those who contributed to the discussion.

I think you're confusing boards.ie with /b/.

peadar76

with what?

Dave!

btard wrote: »

You can stick your head in the sand all you want. You can close threads you don't like all you want. However, stating you closed it because it was part of an online bullying campaign is being disingenuous to say the least. It is also a slur on those who contributed to the discussion.

I think you're missing the point - Boards doesn't want to give this topic any more airtime than it has already had. It doesn't matter what is the nature of the discussion, they don't want to draw any more attention to the girl.

sbsquarepants

MugMugs wrote: »

I am not upset. Merely stating the blatantly obvious. Glad you got your fix

Cheers:D
Still not worth the walk in and out of slane though!

Micky Dolenz

stankratz wrote: »

Right so they were all washed and tucked in their beds for 11. Incidentally I imagine a fair few of the posters including myself had work this morning and still have it now. It is not "wholly unreasonable" in the slightest to expect mods to be online when several of the posters in the thread during the night were mods themselves. During the quiet hours, I see posts made by mods all the time. And I wasn't asking the questions you responded to in a 'it's a disgrace joe' way, it was genuine surprise considering there seems to be a litigation panic every now and again with Boards. In that case, maybe it wouldn't be a write-off of an idea for Boards to pay somebody to do the night-watch as it could end up saving a lot more money in the long run.

We are often active at night time. We just weren't last night. If something really bad were to happen and local mods are not around, Cmods and Admin react.

Gummy Panda

What's to be gained from having a thread about her?

Not much I suspect

MugMugs

MugMugs wrote: »

You're not really getting the whole volunteer thing, are you?

You didn't really read my full post did you before you jumped at the chance to brown nose? Highly convenient that you cut my sentence off right where it suited you.

The very same thing crap movies do upon release to get a reaction. i.e. "This movie is very far from awesome, it is the anti-awesome" -The Independent. Movie Studio then puts "...Awesome - The Independent" on the DVD cover.

What good is a discussion going to do? Boards don't want to talk about it anymore and rightly so. I find it very strange that people feel the need to discuss something like that in more detail it is what it is. Girl was extremely intoxicated and done something she'll regret the rest of her life I'd imagine. Just leave it at that?

Dades

stankratz wrote: »

In that case, maybe it wouldn't be a write-off of an idea for Boards to pay somebody to do the night-watch as it could end up saving a lot more money in the long run.

I am incredulous that someone is complaining their free service doesn't have volunteers guaranteed online 24/7. Perhaps you could subscribe rather than using the free service, and then maybe there might be cash to splash on people staying up to monitor forums?

Also, if you post in a thread that is an obvious trainwreck in the middle of the night then surely you have to accept the risk that it's going to be pulled. It doesn't matter what moderators are in there posting as long as they're not AH mods or CMods/Admins. They can't do anything except report.

Chips Lovell

So you want Boards to pay people to monitor threads late at night, in order to prevent you from wasting time posting on threads that could end up being subsequently locked/deleted?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What good is a discussion going to do? Boards don't want to talk about it anymore and rightly so. I find it very strange that people feel the need to discuss something like that in more detail it is what it is. Girl was extremely intoxicated and done something she'll regret the rest of her life I'd imagine. Just leave it at that?

i just want to say for the record that the thread was already 20 pages deep by the time I got in there. What drew me to it was the fact that there was an active witch hunt and bile being spewed about a possible 16 year old who just made a massive mistake. The fact that the general internet reaction seemed to be to capitalise on this poor girls mistake and see her into an early grave was something that affected me deeply and at that point I had no choice but to join the debate/scourging at the pillar.

It's hard to 'just leave it at that' sometimes, especially when 'that' is still very much a developing incident and your blood is boiling at seeing the joy a majority are taking in what looks to be a young person's life falling to pieces.

Oh, and I haven't even seen the image(s) and will never.

Dav

Can I just point out that we have no assurances that the parties involved are over 18 and if it turns out that they're not, every person who has shared the image(s?) will now be eligible for prosecution for the distribution of child pornography.

I'll just let that sink in for a minute.

The person who took the pic will also be eligible for prosecution for creating and distributing child pornography.

I'm really glad that discussion about this has been snipped - we don't need to add to what is already going to be a mess.

Reamer Fanny

Here's the cached version of the thread for anyone who missed the discussion;
<snip>

Zaph

Reamer Fanny, the thread was deleted for a reason. Do that again and your next post will be in Prison.

ZeRoY

Dav wrote: »

Can I just point out that we have no assurances that the parties involved are over 18 and if it turns out that they're not, every person who has shared the image(s?) will now be eligible for prosecution for the distribution of child pornography.

I'll just let that sink in for a minute.

The person who took the pic will also be eligible for prosecution for creating and distributing child pornography.

I'm really glad that discussion about this has been snipped - we don't need to add to what is already going to be a mess.

Totally agree, I would add that this above post is along the line of the content that was in the removed thread so the discussion is back on and this new thread should be gone too I guess. Its a loop really.

mike65

Deleted User wrote: »

What good is a discussion going to do? Boards don't want to talk about it anymore and rightly so. I find it very strange that people feel the need to discuss something like that in more detail it is what it is. Girl was extremely intoxicated and done something she'll regret the rest of her life I'd imagine. Just leave it at that?

QFT. The very worst of us is on display in the pic and in any "discussion" of same.

MugMugs

stankratz wrote: »

You didn't really read my full post did you before you jumped at the chance to brown nose? Highly convenient that you cut my sentence off right where it suited you.

I cut it off because it was irrelevant.

Other Mods? Of other forums? So in other words, just general members of the community when outside their own forum so how are they relevant to AH mods not being about?

Dav wrote: »

Can I just point out that we have no assurances that the parties involved are over 18 and if it turns out that they're not, every person who has shared the image(s?) will now be eligible for prosecution for the distribution of child pornography.

I'll just let that sink in for a minute.

The person who took the pic will also be eligible for prosecution for creating and distributing child pornography.

I believe "child" is defined as somebody under the age of 17 in Irish statute. Not to be a pedant however the rumours circulating are that she was indeed 17 and as such, the above is null.

Vladimir Kurtains

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

So you want Boards to pay people to monitor threads late at night, in order to prevent you from wasting time posting on threads that could end up being subsequently locked/deleted?

Yes that is totally the reason, and not at all because there's potential for a life to be decimated by the time you log in the following morning:rolleyes:

I don't question it being snipped, just the manner in which it was done and how long it took. I had never seen that before, it definitely confused me for a minute or 2. I've seen threads locked but not deleted, every day is a school day I guess. I've already posted, in my OP I think, that it should have been locked instantly, especially so soon after the locking of the 1st one. Now that I've found out that that was not possible last night, I consider my query answered and accept that there is nothing I can do to help slanegirl but to withdraw from here and help the thread die. For anyone who thinks 'why did you start this thread in the first place then?', well I've already outlined that plus as this is my first venture into feedback, I really did think it would go like...

stankratz: query.
1 Feedback Mod: Answer.
/Thread

Thanks to the mods who did answer and address my concerns without the need to be condesending, gonna do myself a favour and stick to less emotional debates in future cause I just can't read that shíte and not get involved.

Gordon

stankratz wrote: »

I had never seen that before, it definitely confused me for a minute or 2. I've seen threads locked but not deleted, every day is a school day I guess.

You haven't seen threads deleted before because they've been deleted before you noticed them.

Chips Lovell

stankratz wrote: »

Yes that is totally the reason, and not at all because there's potential for a life to be decimated by the time you log in the following morning.

In fairness, I'm only going on what you said yourself.

stankratz wrote: »

Obviously you guys don't want it anywhere near Boards, but it is kind of frustrating when you unexpectedly stay up all of a Sunday night to engage in this discussion and then next thing the thread is gone as if it never existed, without a word.

MugMugs

MugMugs wrote: »

I cut it off because it was irrelevant.

Other Mods? Of other forums? So in other words, just general members of the community when outside their own forum so how are they relevant to AH mods not being about?



I believe "child" is defined as somebody under the age of 17 in Irish statute. Not to be a pedant however the rumours circulating are that she was indeed 17 and as such, the above is null.

Ah ffs, it was totally relevant! I was making the point that it is not uncommon at all to see mods online at night, so therefore to 'expect' such a thread to be closed during the night at any minute isn't far out or unreasonable. Just happens by chance and not policy that there were no After Hour mods or CMods online last night, as explained by Mickey Dolenz. In fairness Mugs, I think there's enough mods here for them to defend themselves anyway.

I saw rumours she was 16, even 15, so what's to say your rumours are correct? Even if she was 17, it still doesn't make it alright irrespective of whether it was legal or not. Ugh i'm worse myself for wasting this time.

MugMugs

stankratz wrote: »

Ah ffs, it was totally relevant! I was making the point that it is not uncommon at all to see mods online at night, so therefore to 'expect' such a thread to be closed during the night at any minute isn't far out or unreasonable. Just happens by chance and not policy that there were no After Hour mods or CMods online last night, as explained by Mickey Dolenz. In fairness Mugs, I think there's enough mods here for them to defend themselves anyway.

You said that it's not wholly unreasonable to expect mods to be online at night when other mods are online.

It is. They were probably in bed / living their lives. Other Mods are irrelvant to this as they are not specific mods to that forum. And why would anybody have to "defend" themselves? This is a discussion, not an inquisition.

stankratz wrote: »

I saw rumours she was 16, even 15, so what's to say your rumours are correct? Even if she was 17, it still doesn't make it alright irrespective of whether it was legal or not. Ugh i'm worse myself for wasting this time.

Fair enough. I was just raising the point that "child" is defined as somebody under the age of 17 and not 18 as pointed out by Dav. I have no wish to discuss her age or this topic.

Sala

I applaud boards and wish everywhere else would remove these discussions and links. This is not a public interest story- Discussing the behavior of teenagers can be done without publicly ridiculing one individual.

shopaholic01

I read that thread last night, but am currently not in a postion to report it. I did check to see if any admins/mods appeared to be online to PM them. It contained a link to a comments on Twitter, and therefore, a link to the actual photos and speculation regarding the girl's name.

Leaving aside the impact this will have on all involved - particularly the girl, who is obviously young - posting pornography is against the charter. The thread itself descended into arguments about gender issues and abusive comments towards the girl and the two guys involved.

Reading it I imagined what it would be like to be in that position. I have never done anything on that scale, and luckily my teenage years were before the Facebook/Twitter/smart phone era. I would be absolutely distraught if I were her. Imagine going back to school/college/work, even going to the local shop?

Other threads are deleted when necessary, this was definitely the right call in this case. The legal aspect doesn't concern me, it's the ethical one. How would posters feel if that was their daughter/cousin/niece etc? Most will probably say 'I'd know what they were getting up to/they wouldn't do that'. I'd imagine this girl's family thought the same.

sbsquarepants

Dave! wrote: »

I think you're missing the point - Boards doesn't want to give this topic any more airtime than it has already had. It doesn't matter what is the nature of the discussion, they don't want to draw any more attention to the girl.

Also it's interesting that the guy barely gets a mention -it's as if he's not involved at all. That's some serious double standards right there!

stankratz

stankratz wrote: »

Ah ffs, it was totally relevant! I was making the point that it is not uncommon at all to see mods online at night, so therefore to 'expect' such a thread to be closed during the night at any minute isn't far out or unreasonable. Just happens by chance and not policy that there were no After Hour mods or CMods online last night, as explained by Mickey Dolenz. In fairness Mugs, I think there's enough mods here for them to defend themselves anyway.

I saw rumours she was 16, even 15, so what's to say your rumours are correct? Even if she was 17, it still doesn't make it alright irrespective of whether it was legal or not. Ugh i'm worse myself for wasting this time.

No, it wasn't relevant. Trying to protect someone who is underage & to protect the site from possible legal action(in this case it was more likely then any even I poked fun at that stance in other situations) is far greater than keeping discussion open to appease posters. 100% was the right decision to close the discussion down as Mike said discussion of such a subject shows the very worst of this site even if comments are in jest.

TheChizler

Followed it right till the end while I was supposed to be studying for an exam this morning, whatever about the content of the thread, it had basically descended to name calling. IMO that would have been reason enough to end it.

anncoates

If I'm going to passionately uphold my right to freedom of expression on boards, it'll probably won't be over a thread about two kids that did something silly and have now been made to pay way over the odds for it by some very nasty people.

5starpool

I don't see the benefits of having a thread on this type of thing at all. For all those who are complaining that it is not allowed to be discussed, what would your feelings on thousands of people online discussing it if it were your sister/daughter or something? It is getting enough airtime on other social media platforms without boards adding to the hysteria over it.

Chances are it'll be mostly forgotten in not that long a time anyhow, although the girl herself will have to live with the consequences. I don't even remember what that KPMG girl thing was about (nor do I care) even though I do recall that there was a hullabaloo at the time and I was aware of it then at least.

RuggieBear

anncoates wrote: »

If I'm going to passionately uphold my right to freedom of expression on boards, it'll probably won't be over a thread about two kids that did something silly and have now been made to pay way over the odds for it by some very nasty people.

There is no right to freedom of expression on boards...

efb

Don't see th need for discussion on this. Off limits.

anncoates

RuggieBear wrote: »

There is no right to freedom of expression on boards...

Your prefect badge is in the post.

OK then, freedom of thread topic choice within the accepted parameters of boards.

My name is URL

How come discussion on stuff like that is off limits while discussion on things like those girls in Peru (for example) is seemingly fine, with people all but calling for them to be hanged? Loads of other examples too.. racists ranting on buses, drunken skangers making tits of themselves on the streets.. those threads are rarely shut down in such a reactionary way...

I don't really care whether discussion is permitted or not, but as always when this kind of thing arises; an inherent double standard becomes apparent.