nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

KPMG Drunk girl shutdown

Ares

Why has there been an outright shutdown on the KPMG drunk girl video on this site.

It is a very topical point of discussion in Ireland at the moment and yet the topic has been shut down completely.

This video has put class divisions to the forefront of Irish societies thinking and I believe that we, the users of the community, should be allowed to discuss it.

I think this is not a good move by boards and I hope that boards isn't being cowed by KPMG or other companies.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.