Slane Girl discussion?

19-08-2013 3:15pm

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

Is it not obvious?

The subject matter is the picture of an underage girl in the middle of an act that actually falls under child pornography. I cannot understand how anyone can object & want discussion on this. The internet is ****ing nuts.

btard · 19-08-2013 3:17pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

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

Nah. I could never confuse this site with /b/. If moot was willing to stifle freedom of expression and kowtow to the moralfags he could be a multi millionaire. He has more integrity than that.

endacl · 19-08-2013 3:20pm

My two cents?

I wish people would stop discussing it before her name leaks out and is attached to the image.

I'd say kpmg girl could join a conversation in the pub about kpmg girl at this point, and nobody would have a clue it was her.

I'd like to think she could put this behind her. If shutting down discussion here helps this, I'm all for it. If people want to talk about it, there is a real life option. Go talk to somebody.

My name is URL · 19-08-2013 3:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it not obvious?

The subject matter is the picture of an underage girl in the middle of an act that actually falls under child pornography. I cannot understand how anyone can object & want discussion on this. The internet is ****ing nuts.

How do you know she's underage? And that's missing the point completely anyway. A mod, the one who is actively closing threads and dishing out warnings & bans has said they were closed because they don't want Boards to be at the centre of an online bullying campaign.. which is fair enough. But it's not an ideal which appears to be enforced or encouraged all of the time.

anncoates · 19-08-2013 3:21pm

My name is URL wrote: »

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?t.

To be fair, the latter are suspected drug smugglers and the former presumably didn't consent to their image being distributed around the net.

My name is URL · 19-08-2013 3:26pm

anncoates wrote: »

To be fair, the latter are suspected drug smugglers and the former presumably didn't consent to their image being distributed around the net.

She consented to her own actions though, and did so in full view of the public.. did the suspected drug mules agree to have their pictures ripped from Facebook and posted all over the place for people to comment on and hurl abuse towards?

Also, 'suspected' is quite an operative word in that whole thing.

Sarky · 19-08-2013 3:28pm

My name is URL wrote: »

How do you know she's underage?

You willing to take the chance and deal with the consequences if she is?

dr.bollocko · 19-08-2013 3:29pm

My name is URL wrote: »

How do you know she's underage? And that's missing the point completely anyway. A mod, the one who is actively closing threads and dishing out warnings & bans has said they were closed because they don't want Boards to be at the centre of an online bullying campaign.. which is fair enough. But it's not an ideal which appears to be enforced or encouraged all of the time.

I don't think it's missing the point to be honest dude.

So she might not be underage? That's a pretty weak counterpoint.

There's a spectrum of opinions on that girl in Peru for example. That's a current affair. It's all over the news. It's not amounting to essentially an onling bully campaign.

I don't see why AH not wanting to be part of one discussion about a likely underage girl's exploits at a concert has anything to do with a double standard you're trying to highlight here.

People still have opinions. We don't speak as one on boards. That doesn't mean there's a double standard there.

Take it on an isolated basis. I think we should aim for higher than being part of a discussion about some teen's sex life that's trending on twitter.

Dades · 19-08-2013 3:29pm

My name is URL wrote: »

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?

Alleged drug trafficking and a sex-act between teens are hardly comparable. The women in Peru are now at the behest of the Peruvian judicial system, and nothing said here is going to affect that. But if Boards can be one less social media outlet that contributes to the online character assassination of a teenage girl who made a big mistake, then great.

My name is URL · 19-08-2013 3:29pm

Sarky wrote: »

You willing to take the chance and deal with the consequences if she is?

I never said I wanted discussion to be allowed. I'm asking why the same kind of standard isn't applied in other instances. Pretty straight forward I would have thought.. but continue to cherry pick if you want.

Goat the dote · 19-08-2013 3:30pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it not obvious?

The subject matter is the picture of an underage girl in the middle of an act that actually falls under child pornography. I cannot understand how anyone can object & want discussion on this. The internet is ****ing nuts.

Do we know for definite that she's underage?
Only heard about kpmg girl for the first time today, and watched the video. You'd see similar in any late night fast food place on a Saturday night. Drunken muppetry.
I genuinely hope this girl is ok and has a lot of support. She will need it

dr.bollocko · 19-08-2013 3:33pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I never said I wanted discussion to be allowed. I'm asking why the same kind of standard isn't applied in other instances. Pretty straight forward I would have thought.. but continue to cherry pick if you want.

To be honest it seems to me like you're over-simplifying your examples to indicate they fall into the same category.

In my view it's quite clear that they don't.

DeadlyH83 · 19-08-2013 3:34pm

Feel desperately sorry for the girls family

Dades · 19-08-2013 3:35pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

To be honest it seems to me like you're over-simplifying your examples to indicate they fall into the same category.

In my view it's quite clear that they don't.

Agreed. It's not cherry picking, it's a constant judgement call based on allowing free discussion versus potential harm.

CastingCouch · 19-08-2013 3:38pm

The girl has deleted her instagram and twitter (I've read).

Feel so bad for her. The guys hopefully get dealt with as she is 16. No need for a discussion on it.

19-08-2013 3:38pm

Goat the dote wrote: »

Do we know for definite that she's underage?
Only heard about kpmg girl for the first time today, and watched the video. You'd see similar in any late night fast food place on a Saturday night. Drunken muppetry.
I genuinely hope this girl is ok and has a lot of support. She will need it

When I seen it trending everywhere I seen the pic and I was actually disgusted by it to be honest, she looks very young.... I have read elsewhere she is underage but I haven't looked into nor will I. I think Dav is of the same opinion from his post on this thread. There is a high chance she is underage so I don't think it is worth risking it just for the sake of a pointless discussion?

Stuff like what she has done has been happening for years I know from going to gigs myself growing up you seen all kinds of stuff but nowadays with everyone having a camera phone stuff like this happens & it is on the internet instantly. Once there was a video of me on Bebo extremely drunk and getting sick at a friend's 18th about 10 years ago, I was extremely embarrassed even though stuff like that was the norm so much so I even closed my Bebo

so I can only imagine how bad this girl feels. She done something stupid while she was drunk & now she'll probably have to live with it the rest of her life. So I don't think Boards needs to add to the carnage that already exists for the sake of a few posters wanting to apparently discuss what is wrong with society.

sbsquarepants · 19-08-2013 3:42pm

endacl wrote: »

My two cents?

I wish people would stop discussing it before her name leaks out and is attached to the image.

I'd say kpmg girl could join a conversation in the pub about kpmg girl at this point, and nobody would have a clue it was her.

I'd like to think she could put this behind her. If shutting down discussion here helps this, I'm all for it. If people want to talk about it, there is a real life option. Go talk to somebody.

I think there's a touch of the king kanut about that. There is no holding back the tide - everyone who knows her personally has already seen those pictures, her name is out. In fact maybe she won't even be all that bothered, lets face it she didn't seem like the shy wallflower type!

When i asked this morning what the whole thing was about, to be honest i was expecting something a lot worse than this. It's hardly an everyday occurrence - but it's also not THAT shocking. You see it at practically every concert or festival she was just unfortunate to get caught twice! That being said, i'm still glad it's not my daughter!

My name is URL · 19-08-2013 3:42pm

dr.bollocko wrote: »

To be honest it seems to me like you're over-simplifying your examples to indicate they fall into the same category.

In my view it's quite clear that they don't.

They are in the same category insofar as people are posting pictures, making assumptions, attacking the character of and generally being nasty towards the people involved. Despite them being presumed innocent at this point in time.

And that's only one example anyway. You guys know full well that people are regularly subjected to all sorts of abuse and vitriolic nonsense for little more reason than being recorded acting the goat in public. If the decision to disallow discussion is based solely on her age, and Boards' attempt to avoid legal repercussions then that's fine. But people are making it out to be some sort of moralistic endeavour.. wishing the poor girl well; while in other threads hurling abuse at people for making poor decisions, and essentially celebrating the fact that they're now paying the price for it.

Turtwig · 19-08-2013 3:44pm

My name is URL wrote: »

She consented to her own actions though

We don't know the social, physical or mental states of all the parties involved. Pictures can possibly be very misleading. They don't tell a full story or establish context. (Remember this one? The woman in question is actually after being whacked to the ground bleeding with a baton. That's not how many people initially read the picture!) People have in the past given consent to rape as means of denying of what actually happened. Not by any means implying this is exactly the case here but just pointing out how blurred reality can be and a photograph never really captures that complexity. It can't!

100% agree with the thread being closed and deleted. Some of the posts in it were borderline libellous!

sbsquarepants · 19-08-2013 3:51pm

That's a very good point jernal.
It's also an amazing photo, i remember being shocked when i heard about her having just being clobbered too.

Goat the dote · 19-08-2013 3:53pm

Jernal what is the backstory to that photo?

btard · 19-08-2013 4:00pm

CastingCouch wrote: »

The girl has deleted her instagram and twitter (I've read).

Feel so bad for her. The guys hopefully get dealt with as she is 16. No need for a discussion on it.

So there's no need for a discussion on it, but there is a need for you to demonise the boys involved.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 19-08-2013 4:02pm

endacl wrote: »

My two cents?

I wish people would stop discussing it before her name leaks out and is attached to the image.

I'd say kpmg girl could join a conversation in the pub about kpmg girl at this point, and nobody would have a clue it was her.

I'd like to think she could put this behind her. If shutting down discussion here helps this, I'm all for it. If people want to talk about it, there is a real life option. Go talk to somebody.

Regrettably the young girls name is now all over the net as are further pictures (no I havnt seen them, the descriptions were enough).
I feel dreadfully sorry the girl and her family ( I have a teenage daughter myself). while modern technology has many pluses it also has a serious downside.
I also see no need for a thread on this incident, there is an obvious risk factor given the girls apparent young age, I'm glad it was closed.
Sometimes common sense and decency have to take precedence over peoples view that anything and everything should be fair game for discussion on web forums.

Femme_Fatale · 19-08-2013 4:08pm

stankratz wrote: »

Right so they were all washed and tucked in their beds for 11.

What's the point in exaggerating - did anyone say 11?

The thread was started at about 12.30. Seeing as there was absolutely no mod intervention for the next two hours, obviously there were no AH mods online.
Because going by some of the stuff that was being posted, obviously there would have been intervention if there were. I fully expected the thread to be locked or deleted by this morning - it was bound to happen.

Turtwig · 19-08-2013 4:09pm

Goat the dote wrote: »

Jernal what is the backstory to that photo?

The woman was supposedly hit by rioters and then when the police charged the couple couldn't move out of the way. The police pushed their through them but in the process knocked the woman to ground and her head hit the pavement.

Linky.
(That I only skimmed but it seems to hold the gist of the story.

)

Mammanabammana · 19-08-2013 4:12pm

CastingCouch wrote: »

Feel so bad for her. The guys hopefully get dealt with as she is 16. No need for a discussion on it.

Finding this attitude quite interesting since your username is an exploitative practice that still goes on and effectively amounts to rape. For those who may not know, the casting couch was (and still is) a method whereby men in power would demand sexual favours from women in return for giving them career advancing opportunities. It originated in Hollywood, hence the term 'casting', but it has a far broader usage now. Still amounts to the same thing though - forcing sex on somebody who more often than not is unwilling to partake.

mikom · 19-08-2013 4:15pm

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Finding this attitude quite interesting since your username is an exploitative practice that still goes on and effectively amounts to rape. For those who may not know, the casting couch was (and still is) a method whereby men in power would demand sexual favours from women in return for giving them career advancing opportunities. It originated in Hollywood, hence the term 'casting', but it has a far broader usage now. Still amounts to the same thing though - forcing sex on somebody who more often than not is unwilling to partake.

The casting couch the posters username and avatar relates to is part of a paid gig.
Not rape, or anything like it............. "For those who may not know".

dr.bollocko · 19-08-2013 4:18pm

My name is URL wrote: »

They are in the same category insofar as people are posting pictures, making assumptions, attacking the character of and generally being nasty towards the people involved. Despite them being presumed innocent at this point in time.

They are in the same category insofar as people have different opinions on what happened. That's the same story with all the other threads.

Sure, there are some negative comments about people in some threads. The best recourse there in most cases is to argue with them and show these people to be incorrect.

I don't see the need, in the general case, for moderatorial input when there's a broad spectrum of opinion on a story being reprinted and discussed in the world media.

Just because people have negative opinions on some woman in Lima on drugs charges doesn't mean that that applies in any way to this situation.

I think the implication is a little less than generous.

CastingCouch · 19-08-2013 4:18pm

btard wrote: »

So there's no need for a discussion on it, but there is a need for you to demonise the boys involved.

Who said anything about demonising them?
They broke the law and hopefully they suffer the consquences.

shopaholic01 · 19-08-2013 4:19pm

I think one difference between discussing the pictures of the girl involved in the Peru drug smuggling incident is that they willingly posted the photos themselves. That's not to say that I agree with the abuse they're attracting.

I doubt the girl in this incident consented to, or was even aware, that they would be made public. Regardless of her age, or the reasons for her actions, it's appalling that someone posted them. It will have a long lasting effect on her life.

CastingCouch · 19-08-2013 4:21pm

I even think this thread should be locked. No mention of it at all would be best.

maximoose · 19-08-2013 4:21pm

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Regrettably the young girls name is now all over the net as are further pictures

I was just reading an article on an irish site about the whole thing, and people going out of their way to name her in the comments section. Pathetic.

shopaholic01 · 19-08-2013 4:27pm

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Finding this attitude quite interesting since your username is an exploitative practice that still goes on and effectively amounts to rape. For those who may not know, the casting couch was (and still is) a method whereby men in power would demand sexual favours from women in return for giving them career advancing opportunities. It originated in Hollywood, hence the term 'casting', but it has a far broader usage now. Still amounts to the same thing though - forcing sex on somebody who more often than not is unwilling to partake.

Not relevant to the topic. My username would suggest that I spend all my free time shopping, but it's not an accurate reflection of reality. Does your username have any specific meaning in the context of your life or outlook?

Rev Hellfire · 19-08-2013 4:27pm

CastingCouch wrote: »

Who said anything about demonising them?
They broke the law and hopefully they suffer the consquences.

I haven't seen said photographs but is it clear that the boys are not minors themselves? I mean just before with get the lynching party together.

maximoose · 19-08-2013 4:32pm

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I haven't seen said photographs but is it clear that the boys are not minors themselves? I mean just before with get the lynching party together.

It's not, no. And the girl appears to be 17 anyway.

Turtwig · 19-08-2013 4:34pm

maximoose wrote: »

I was just reading an article on an irish site about the whole thing, and people going out of their way to name her in the comments section. Pathetic.

It is and it gets way way worse when the names aren't even consistent. Then you've got even worse problems of everyone in this world having several look-alikes. The "wrong" person, if you could claim such a thing, could end up getting a barrage of abuse and not be able to "prove" otherwise.

ZeRoY · 19-08-2013 4:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it not obvious?

The subject matter is the picture of an underage girl in the middle of an act that actually falls under child pornography. I cannot understand how anyone can object & want discussion on this. The internet is ****ing nuts.

Its not because the protagonists are underaged or that it touches child pornography that genuine questions/discussions cant be ask/held! This is a forum of discussion after all - as said earlier the big 25+ pages thread OP was on about the morality of the all taking pic > shaming online, I think it was a very good topic of discussion, especially at the moment. The problem came from the fact that no Mods/Admin were on and the thread ended with far too many trolls...

MadsL · 19-08-2013 4:37pm

Is there anything to be said for doubling the amount of mods on AH? With utmost respect to current mods I have been getting the feeling that the modding has been less visible over the past few months. Perhaps because of deletions rather than locks and bans by PM not on thread.

btard · 19-08-2013 4:39pm

CastingCouch wrote: »

Who said anything about demonising them?
They broke the law and hopefully they suffer the consquences.

Words fail me.

19-08-2013 4:42pm

ZeRoY wrote: »

Its not because the protagonists are underaged or that it touches child pornography that genuine questions/discussions cant be ask/held! This is a forum of discussion after all - as said earlier the big 25+ pages thread OP was on about the morality of the all taking pic > shaming online, I think it was a very good topic of discussion, especially at the moment. The problem came from the fact that no Mods/Admin were on and the thread ended with far too many trolls...

Just to clarify, the only reason thread got so far was because there were no mods online to lock it. However, the decision not to allow discussion of this incident continue had been made much earlier on with the locking of the first thread.

btard · 19-08-2013 4:43pm

CastingCouch wrote: »

I even think this thread should be locked. No mention of it at all would be best.

I agree. We should lock the rest of the internets too. Somebody should contact Senator Fidelma Healy-Eame.

Mammanabammana · 19-08-2013 4:46pm

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Not relevant to the topic. My username would suggest that I spend all my free time shopping, but it's not an accurate reflection of reality. Does your username have any specific meaning in the context of your life or outlook?

Nor is your username (or mine) referring casually to a pretty horrendous practice. If somebody had a username like 'Gang_rape_FTW' which was (presumably) also not a reflection of the reality of the poster, would you be also jumping in to defend them? It's the same principle.

However since somebody else has pointed out that the user's avatar makes it clear that the username refers to something else and I can't see avatars, I stand corrected on my original point.

Penn · 19-08-2013 4:51pm

MadsL wrote: »

Is there anything to be said for doubling the amount of mods on AH? With utmost respect to current mods I have been getting the feeling that the modding has been less visible over the past few months. Perhaps because of deletions rather than locks and bans by PM not on thread.

With respect, 20 AH mods probably wouldn't have stopped that thread going like it did due to the hours most of the activity took place on; in the early hours of a Monday morning. It's unfair to use this situation as any kind of an example of the moderation of AH over the past few months.

A new mod was added a few weeks ago and it's possible more might be added in the coming weeks, but summer is always a more hectic time for everyone, whether it be holidays, work, weddings, parties, concerts etc. Suggesting that the mod team needs to be doubled is frankly an unfair assessment of the work and efforts of the current team.

K-9 · 19-08-2013 4:54pm

btard wrote: »

I agree. We should lock the rest of the internets too. Somebody should contact Senator Fidelma Healy-Eame.

Or they could just go on twitter, facebook etc. and discuss it, Boards as a site has the freedom to ban discussion of stuff like this, I don't think we are expecting other sites to follow us in droves. Looking at the topic on twitter we aren't missing out on much anyway!

MadsL · 19-08-2013 5:03pm

Penn wrote: »

With respect, 20 AH mods probably wouldn't have stopped that thread going like it did due to the hours most of the activity took place on; in the early hours of a Monday morning. It's unfair to use this situation as any kind of an example of the moderation of AH over the past few months.

A new mod was added a few weeks ago and it's possible more might be added in the coming weeks, but summer is always a more hectic time for everyone, whether it be holidays, work, weddings, parties, concerts etc. Suggesting that the mod team needs to be doubled is frankly an unfair assessment of the work and efforts of the current team.

Penn, I'm not diminishing anyone's work and you have heard me say over and over how much I respect the mods work and dedication. I'm staggered at the number of posts the mods have to wade through. Yesterday there were over 2,000 posts made in AH in a 24 hour period. That's almost 300 each on a daily basis; admittedly not all are troublesome but that is still a tremendous workload.

Suggesting getting them more help isn't criticism, it's an assessment of how much work is involved and how much the forum has grown. I did an (unscientific) test of the same date last year and there were 300 posts fewer.

Out of interest, why would doubling the number of mods be a bad thing, surely more should be better? Is there a downside?

Once again, utmost respect on my part for the work the mods do, after all they have to deal with assholes like me.

ZeRoY · 19-08-2013 5:16pm

Jernal wrote: »

100% agree with the thread being closed and deleted. Some of the posts in it were borderline libellous!

At least the discussion is now back on this thread - its exactly the same stuff being discussed minus the trolls! If mods were on last night it would have been contained for sure.

Dav · 19-08-2013 5:18pm

Just going to leave this here and am now saying that there will be no more discussion on this matter.

Slane Girl discussion?

Comments