Abuse of smod power by hullaballoo

DrunkLeprachaun

I'd like to call admin attention to a thread I posted on the playstation board last night. It linked to a maddox post about the various wrongdoings of the sony corporation, and also contained an admittedly vulgar expression of my own opinions of the company. However, nothing I posted was anything other than my own personal opinion, and as such could not be construed as slanderous. But rather than going to the effort of editing the parts of the post that might, in his mind, have been liabel, the entire post was nuked. I then threatened with a ban when I argued the point. The thread is here.

I'm not saying I want hullaballoo to be demoted or anything. I'm saying I want the ability to express my own opinions, whether I elect to voice them eloquently or obscenely(within the set rules of the forums), without them being unduly cencored. This is a discussion community on the internet. Should we not have free speech? Is avoiding the risk of legal action really worth sacrificing the right to say what we want?
If it is, I doubt I'll be staying around here.

hullaballoo

I'd like to refer people to my responses in-thread on this. I've already pointed out that I have absolutely no intention of denying people their opinion and only removed what I saw to be excessively vulgar and irresponsible in light of the current legal ambiguity surrounding the internet.

Asok

Your opinions become boards.ie publications the moment you post them thus making boards.ie liable for them. So if I said that company x were a bunch of child molesting retards who collectively looked like the bigggest retard rodeo in the world. Then boards.ie could be sued by company X. Its ****e legislation and I would be delighted if the publisher wasnt held liable for a users posts but sadly with Irelands fantasticly modern laws its the way it is and we must err on the side of caution.

DrunkLeprachaun

Ya, that's true. Which is partly why I didn't say that. Nothing I said was liabel(to a rational person). Deleting the post was reactionary and utterly unproductive. Erring on the side of caution doesn't mean oppressing free speech.

seamus

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Is avoiding the risk of legal action really worth sacrificing the right to say what we want?

boards.ie would be more than delighted if users themselves had legal liability for what they say in their posts. Even in public, you retain the right to say what you want, but you are still liable for legal action if the wrong person hears you. That is, if you stand up in the Phoenix park, take out a loudspeaker and declare that the board of company x are a bunch of donkey-shagging peadophiles, then company x (or any of its board members) can take you to court and rape you for cash.

However, individuals don't have much cash in general, and the opinion of one person told to his mates has limited effect, so companies tend not to sue private individuals for slander.

boards.ie however, is big. A company has something to gain by suing boards.ie, and the opinion of one person told to thousands of users and being given a high ranking on Google can have quite a serious effect on a company's reputation.

It's a symptom of successfulness, but ultimately nobody is being denied the right to voice their opinion, so long as they're not just spreading gossip or spouting vitriol.

If you feel you need to be able to say whatever the hell you want, then you will indeed have to go elsewhere. There are few places though where you could ask a question and actually get an answer within 30 seconds.

DrunkLeprachaun

Again, I did not accuse anyone of actually doing anything. The sentance in the post that seemed to have caused the grief was:

"Sony are ****ing evil, soulless, lying suckers of satan's cock, all."

Let's just go through that. "****ing evil" & "soulless" These are not accusing sony of anything. They are expressing an opinion about the companies ethics. In what way is this different from saying "I tend to dislike the way in which sony goes about its affairs" and "they seem to have little interest in their consumers"? "Lying" is an easy one, they do that a LOT. Finally; "suckers of satan's cock". Bill Hicks, okay? Besides, anyone who thinks it's meant literally is a goddamn moron.

Does anyone who's not anal retentive honestly think that statement is libellous? This isn't about that one post being deleted. This is about my right to post lighthearted yet vitriollic rants about anything I chose(and I am quite intelligent enough to find fault with things without having to resort to fabrication). If the boards.ie staff are willing to just embargo any sort of negative opining, simply because certain parties in the past were complete ****heads, this is not a community I would wish to be a part of, and I should expect any self respecting malcontent to feel the same way. This would not be my prefference, however. Boards can be a handy resource. If you all simply flock to the defence of hullaballoo simply because of his smod status, then I'm afraid I must leave you to wallow in the swill of mediocrity of your own making.

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Does anyone who's not anal retentive honestly think that statement is libellous?

Excluding lawyers?

DrunkLeprachaun

Gordon wrote:

Excluding lawyers?

That didn't answer the question. Sure, a lawyer engaged in a legal embroglio may well attempt to make it out to be so, but are there any lawyers present who care? If so, raise your hand and give a big wave!
Perhaps I should rephrase the question. Does anyone here honestly believe that statement could realistically bring about legal action, given the context it was said in?

seamus

This nothing to do with defence of hullaballoo, and nothing to do with avoiding negative comments, despite the fact that people seem to think it is.

Anal retentiveness is nothing to do with it. Calling someone anally retentive in court won't help your defence. Boards.ie is in the middle of a fairly serious legal case at the moment over just the kind of comments that you're talking about, so to say that we're being overprotective or anal is just wrong. 100%.

Particularly when you involve big, wealthy and incumbent companies like Sony, the chance of litigation increases massively. So yes, I do believe that the possibility of legal action would exist over your comments, however slight.

In my opinion (and my fellow Smods can disagree with me here), instead of the above post, writing, "IMO, doing X is an evil, soulless thing to do", or "I think that you would have to be an evil, lying, soulless scumbag to run company X the way they do." are better alternatives. Though even the latter may be dodgy. Specifically, it's the qualifier "Sony are" which I have a problem with. Even if it's not possible to be a soulless sucker of satan's cock, you can't say someone or something is as if it were a fact.

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

That didn't answer the question. Sure, a lawyer engaged in a legal embroglio may well attempt to make it out to be so, but are there any lawyers present who care? If so, raise your hand and give a big wave!

Oh quit it for f*cks sake, you know fine well that lawyers read boards too, not just the normal people (hehe). Seriously, you need to check out a certain sticky topic in EVERY forum. Every sticky topic is all about one thing. That exists in every forum, so it's important.

Perhaps I should rephrase the question.

Please do!

Does anyone here who lacks anal retentiveneses honestly believe that statement could realistically bring about legal action, given the context it was said in?

Tell you what...

Shove that last quote right up your arse.

Then come back when you have washed the anal content from it.

DrunkLeprachaun

This isn't a court of law. It's a discussion board. On the ****ing internet. Nerds complaining about **** on internet discussion boards using oft colourful language are a billion a penny, no company that large gives enough of a **** to try and stop them. That "possibility, however slight" is pretty similar to the possibility that I will spontaneously change into a bowl of petunias.

I understand boards.ie is having legal troubles, I sympathise greatly. I think it's really ****ed up that that kind of thing can happen. But by imposing this kind of censorship on forum regulars who are harmlessly and jovially making obvious exagurations in a rantish manner, you're admitting that those people who try to infringe on our ability to say what we like actually have a right to attempt legal action. Those people are wrong. You know they are. The law, being ambiguous, doesn't say they're right. So why do we have to pretend they are? What is with the distinct lack of balls here? I realise I'm not footing the bills, and I don't have a say in how the site is run, but before I get fed up with what feels like arguing with a sponge, I want to see the admins, the guys who actually DO decide this stuff, say that they're just going to roll over and take this.

As for your suggested alternatives, how are they different? I was quite bloody obviously expressing my own opinion. Especially seeing as the previous sentace was "I agree 100% with what the article said(or something very similar)". As for your last point, that you can't state that someone is something that they can't possibly be actually is. Think about that. Just... Think.

Gordon wrote:

Then come back when you have washed the anal content from it.

Done. But you still didn't answer the question. Also, I said lawyers who actually cared, not just lawyers in general. And I did read that certain sticky topic, and made no direct reference whatsoever to any relevant parties(indirect references only in the eventual argument).

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Done. But you still didn't answer the question. Also, I said lawyers who actually cared, not just lawyers in general.

Cool. I kinda did answer it though tbh. It's not necessarily about what the admins/mods/users think about it, what we think about it. It's about the big corporations and the small lawyers that want money from the big corporations by being busy for the big corporations. And every walk of life posts here as you know.

As boards gets bigger, the potential problems get larger and this is a big problem. But surely the fact that we don't like it means that we still have hope that in the future we can reach this ideal of freedom coupled with accountability? Or do you not think that anyone should be accountable for their actions?

DrunkLeprachaun

I don't think people should be held accountable for actions that don't actually harm anyone. You can of course argue that I'm doing potential harm to their market, but you know as well as me that's bollocks. Sony have ****ed up royally(in my own ultra honest and non-boards.ie accountable opinion) of late(see the article I originally linked to for a healthy dose of context), and everyone who owns a sony product(read: "everyone") has a right to complain about it. I know, some ratty litte ****er of a lawyer could see this and try and make a fuss, but that's pretty unlikely. Sony's legal teams are probably way too busy for that **** at the moment anyway.
But that's all beside the point. How many of you people who think that I shouldn't be allowed say companies suck satan's cock because a lawyer might possibly see it, also think that america's airport etc. security measures are completely irrational and unnecessary?

You know, none of this fuss would have happened if hullaballo had only edited the parts that could(uber-insignifigantly-remotely) be deemed liabel, rather than nuking every single word of the post...

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

But that's all beside the point. How many of you people who think that I shouldn't be allowed say companies suck satan's cock because a lawyer might possibly see it

If this is what the point is then I'll put my hand up. I don't think you should be saying that certain companies prefer acts of fellatio upon certain person's members. For one it's rather vile and there are kids reading this. Secondly, the points mentioned above and in the thread - concerning legal issues. And I think that basically means 'because a lawyer might possibly see it' because I mean: because lawyers are always seeing it, lawyers read boards all the time. But I think we're going round in circles now.

Love the quote though.

"Oh Bill, that JFK thing happened ages ago, can't you just forget about it?"
"Well ok, just don't bring up Jesus to me!"

seamus

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

That "possibility, however slight" is pretty similar to the possibility that I will spontaneously change into a bowl of petunias.

And you have evidence of this, right? The very existence of the current legal trouble suggests that it's infinitely more likely than you turning into a bowl of petunias, or indeed, a whale.

Those people are wrong. You know they are. The law, being ambiguous, doesn't say they're right. So why do we have to pretend they are? What is with the distinct lack of balls here? I realise I'm not footing the bills, and I don't have a say in how the site is run, but before I get fed up with what feels like arguing with a sponge, I want to see the admins, the guys who actually DO decide this stuff, say that they're just going to roll over and take this.

It's a lesser of two evils thing. I would like the admins to comment here too.

At the moment the law is quite grey, though it's accepted that in our case it's more likely to side with the "victim" and not the publisher. boards.ie is big, but it doesn't have that much money that it can defend itself in court and/or pay out settlements to aggrieved parties. Thus, if push comes to shove, and someone manages to win a case where boards.ie is liable for thousands of euros in damages, then the most likely eventuality is that;

1. boards.ie will be wound up and closed, with the assets sold off to pay the debt, or
2. The company who wins the damages takes control of boards.ie

Neither scenario is desirable, and even scenario 1. is more desirable than 2.

So what do you suggest is done? There are only two courses of action that can be taken;
1. Throw caution to the wind, allow people to say (almost) anything they want, and hope that no-one sues and takes boards.ie down, or
2. Continue to allow the community to grow but be vigilant and wary about allowing widespread untrue (or unprovable) comments. Much like every other publisher in the country has to do to enable their surivial.

Give me scenario two any day. Hopefully someone somewhere (or a legal case) will clarify the legal position and we can give definites, or loosen the reigns a little.

DrunkLeprachaun

Apparently, your stance on the lesser of two evils differs enormously from mine. Boards.ie was founded on angry nerds giving out about ****. Complaining is the irish national passtime. If we lose our ability to do that, without fearing cryptofascist moderators nuking posts and threatening with a banstick, what the hell makes this place more worth going to than some gay ass yahoo board?
In the original topic, failsafe summed it up more succinctly than I seemed to have been able.

failsafe wrote:

More importantly, this is the gaming forum, not legal discussions. If it were legal discussions, i'd applaud you, cos in fairness, you defended yourself pretty well and put up a good strong arguement. But this is just a gaming discussion, where people should be able to get a little bit passionate and over involved without the fear of having a dusty old law book taken off the shelf and thrown at them.

Technically, to the letter of the law, the OP was in the wrong, but in reality nothing like what you're trying to prevent would happen. And if someone does complain, what's wrong with a edit then? Surely it would save this censorship from escelating out of control?

The facts, now. Only one sentance(the suck satan's cock one) was indicated to be slanderous. Considering this was directly preceeded by my stating "I agree 100% with maddox", indicating whatever followed was my own personal opinion, I don't honestly believe(or believe that virtually anyone else here believes) that any judge would rule that isolated statement as slander on the part of boards.ie. Secondly, seeing as the article I linked to was most certainly humorous in nature(maddox), and that despite a vitriolic, overexagurated rant about the myriad misdeeds of sony, ending the post with the sentance "I still love my ps2, though," I thought it pretty goddamn obvious I was not being entirely serious. That is, if this wasn't already immediately obvious by my using a bill hicks(popularly known as a stand up comedian) quote which was so ridiculous that it could not concievably be true(remember, fox "news" in the states got off some slander charges, by claiming the statements they made were so preposterous, they could only be regarded as satire). And in hullaballoo's own words:

Yeah, there's an ambiguous sort of an exception for when you're blatantly joking.

The words used in the authoritative text (Law of Torts, McMahon & Binchy, [34.86]) are 'To call a person a thief or a horse-theif might normally be defamatory but to say to an acquaintance in backslapping banter "How are you, you old horse-thief?" would not be defamatory.'

And all this is supposing that sony's lawyers are hiding in the bushes, simply waiting for an opportunity to jump out and yell "ZOMG SLANDER I SUE!!!" Think rationally about this. Would they really attempt legal action without giving any kind of warning first?

Recently, I had a rather bad experience with DCU's intra(work placement) system, where I got royally ****ed over. There was a thread about it on the DCU board, where I weighed in my somewhat irate opinions. The moderator of the board(gizmo) simply edited out the statements he deemed inapropriate, leaving the post otherwise intact, then sent me a polite and friendly PM indicating why he took that particular course of action. This is how one moderates well. hullaballoo nuked the entire post, even the title which was simply "maddox:" and the name of the article linked to, and threatened me with banning when I aired a grievence with his particular nazi-like style of modding. After careful consideration, I would like to alter my original statement that I don't want hullaballoo to be demoted. Anyone who can't tell the difference between lighthearted irreverence and outright slander, and anyone who deals so lazily and incompetently with administering his duties, does not deserve to be a moderater in my books, never mind an smod. I'm not demanding he be demoted or anything, simply expressing my opinion. Or is that really not allowed here anymore?

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

If we lose our ability to do that, without fearing cryptofascist moderators nuking posts and threatening with a banstick, what the hell makes this place more worth going to than some gay ass yahoo board?

Dude, you really have an anal fixation issue.

I suggest you unclench, breathe out and then breathe in.

Beruthiel

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Apparently, your stance on the lesser of two evils differs enormously from mine. Boards.ie was founded on angry nerds giving out about ****.

Maybe it was, but that was back in 98 when there were only a handful posting.
There are over 75,000 registered users now and Boards has attracted a lot of attention because of this. It's a totally different kettle of fish. Nobody is interested in suing a site with a few members.
I assume you understand the difference.

If we lose our ability to do that, without fearing cryptofascist moderators nuking posts and threatening with a banstick, what the hell makes this place more worth going to than some gay ass yahoo board?

What exactly is a gay ass?

It's all very nice for you to complain about this, you won't be getting sued no matter what you say, so it's real easy for you to be pissed off.
Try putting yourself in the Admins shoes, do you have a couple of hundred grand in your bank account to cover legal fees? They don't.

that any judge would rule that isolated statement as slander on the part of boards.ie.

Again, easy for you to say from your comfortable position of not being an owner of Boards.

DrunkLeprachaun

Aye, but neither are you. And neither is hullaballoo. This is why I want a definitive answer from the admin folk. Is safe mundanity really better than having the ability to express yourself honestly, ableit at a small risk? I know a large site is a far better target for the scumsucking filth than some tiny & obscure place, but that doesn't mean we should preemtively succumb to their every whim. That's not being the devil's advocate, that's being the devil's tool. By supressing people's right to say what the please(obviously within reason; actually accusing people or organisations of doing untrue things should of course be removed), it's letting the greedhead pig****ers win.
I know, easy for me to say. But my statement earlier, that if the site's staff would rather play it safe, I would rather leave, was genuine. It wasn't a threat or an ultimatum, I just don't want to go to the effort of posting my thoughts, only to run the risk of having fascist thought police remove all trace of them. There are plenty of other place on the intarweb where I can go.

All things said, I'm still dumbfounded that anyone regards my original post as slanderous. I find it laughably preposterous.
Also, "gay ass" = informal colloquial slang meaning "tame and boring". In no way intended to be derogatory to actually gay people, as homophobia is patently retarded.

Gordon

Charming language, some real stoaters there. Greedhead pig****ers? That's a new one.

There are plenty of other place on the intarweb where I can go.

Be free and run wild. All the best to you. You've talked about leaving at least three times now, why don't you just go for it. All talk and no action maybe? Empty vessel?

DrunkLeprachaun

You should read more hunter s. thomson, then. Great stuff.

I'd really rather you payed more attention to what I actually said, though. The smods are not culpable to legal action, it's the admins that are. I want one of them to say either that hullaballoo overreacted, or that playfully obscene rants are completely out of the question. Once I get that, I'll let the whole thing rest, either way.
I also find it annoying when having message board debates the way people quote certain parts of posts, and just ignore the rest. It removes context, and in doing so, erradicates much meaning.

hullaballoo

I never threatened to ban you for calling me a nazi. I'm quite satisfied that most people on this site think I'm a nazi, and that there's nothing I can do about it. My words were, 'Another comment like that, and I will site-ban you. It's utter recklessness, and there's no reason for you to be allowed post on this site if you're going to continue to flout warnings like that.'

Later, I said, 'DrunkLeprachaun, I'm not about to ban you for calling me a nazi. I couldn't give a toss what you think of me. The ban would be for flouting a warning about what you say about Sony.'

I'd never ban someone for what they say about me. If I did, I'd have banned most of the UCD forum, the Legal Discussion forum and the SD/MA forum.

hullaballoo

By the way, I literally lolled at you talking about selective quoting and people not reading your posts properly. You could learn from your own advice.

seamus

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Complaining is the irish national passtime. If we lose our ability to do that,

No-one has lost any ability to complain. You just have to alter your approach. Speed limits don't prevent anybody from driving do they?

Gordon

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

You should read more hunter s. thomson, then. Great stuff.

I'd really rather you payed more attention to what I actually said, though. The smods are not culpable to legal action, it's the admins that are. I want one of them to say either that hullaballoo overreacted, or that playfully obscene rants are completely out of the question. Once I get that, I'll let the whole thing rest, either way.
I also find it annoying when having message board debates the way people quote certain parts of posts, and just ignore the rest. It removes context, and in doing so, erradicates much meaning.

Am I not allowed free speech now? Only you are allowed free speech? Bit hypocritical methinks.

DrunkLeprachaun

Where precisely did I say you threatened to ban me for calling you a nazi? I simply said you are a nazi, and you did threaten to ban me. Two seperate things. I mentioned the ban threat because I found it completely and utterly unreasonable given the circumstances, ie. indicitive of lazy & poor modding. Please read my posts more carefully, and try to avoid misquoting me.
One funny thing from your one-before-last post, though:

I'm quite satisfied that most people on this site think I'm a nazi, and that there's nothing I can do about it.

Of course there is. There are plenty of mods here who people DON'T think are nazis. This is because they take the time to consider the relative merits of their duties, rather simply defaulting kneejerk reactionalism. I don't think you're a bad guy, I understand where you're coming from. But what I think you fail to understand is that this is a community of individuals. Each of these individuals has their own opinions, and have a right to them. As long as they're not making flagrant false accusations about people(do you really think I was accusing sony of literally sucking satan's cock, despite it being actually impossible?), you should let them be and not try to enforce your own viewpoint on them. As you replied in the OT, "There was nothing to show me that your post was written, or intended to be construed as satire. If it was, it wasn't funny." Your opinion, not the definitive truth.

I know you know more about legal crap than me, and you know that too. You asked what education I had that allowed me to assert that I know libel law better than you. I never said I did. I could be petty and ask what qualification(being still in college) or real world experience do you have that makes you the absolute authority, but that would be as pointless as you pointing my lack of legal education. I was not arguing the letter of the law. This is not a court, so it has little place here. I was using common sense. People do illegal things every day, all the time. It doesn't mean they're going to, or should go to court over them. The reason why lawyers are so universally maligned is because they find meaningless loopholes in laws that allow guilty people to go free, or innocent people to suffer wrongfully. Seeing as no lawyer has made a complaint about this, seeing as there is no real reason to believe it would ever have ended up in a court of law, attempting to apply legal semantics rather than taking a rational approach, is pretty damn annoying.

seamus: Speed limits aren't 15 miles per hour on the motorway. Sure, there need to be limits, but I honestly don't think I crossed any, and noone has adequately pointed out(without getting into the afforementioned legal nitpicking) in what way I did.

Gordon: Never told you not to say anything. You're perfectly welcome to reply as often as you like, and say whatever you like. I'd just preffer it if you reply to what I actually say, rather than some twisted interpretation. But again, if you that is what you elect to do, there's little I can do about it. I'm hardly going to sue you for libel...

Vexorg

Admin response.

We are very sensitive to anything that could get us into a legal dispute until we have a legal decision that says boards.ie or any other bulletin board / hosted site/ blog etc etc is not liable for the posts a user makes or what ever other decision a court may make. You post was removed and I know many others have been removed for similar reasons.

The admins are not happy that any ones posts are removed other than the usual spam, porn, racism and other nasty stuff . In the meantime there will be some collateral damage and much as we dislike it, we have made a decision to accept it, until we know where we stand legally.

I am surprised that you and other users feel that we are just rolling over and taking this and do not realise how immensely frustrating taking this sort of action is.

This is not a decision we like, but it stands.

DrunkLeprachaun

Fair enough. It is my completely honest opinion that what I posted had a close enough probability to zero of legal action occuring as to make it completely and utterly negligable. I thought hullaballoo's action was simply taken rashly, rather than with the consideration I expect from a moderator, otherwise I would have had far less reason to complain. However, if the admins are willing to let the smods be their absolute proxy in these kinds of matters, that is entirely their right.
As such, for reasons already stated, I'm out, and with no hard feelings towards anyone concerned. If the legal bull**** is resolved satisfactorily, I might come back. I don't expect that to happen any time soon, though.

Vexorg

DrunkLeprachaun wrote:

Fair enough. It is my completely honest opinion that what I posted had a close enough probability to zero of legal action occuring as to make it completely and utterly negligable.

You probably wont be around to see this, but on the offchange, when I first saw the post that we are being being sued over I would have said there was a close enough probability to zero of legal action also. I am curious if you saw that post and would agree?

Talliesin

It would have been my completely honest opinion that what was posted was okay too, however hullaballoo knows a lot about these matters and has been given a pretty free hand in decisions of this nature for a very good reason - precisely because the completely honest opinions of you or I are not necessarily going to be correct here.

DeVore

If you want to change the way things work online in this country, there is an election on the way. Until then its very easy for you to be cavalier with our cash and site. It wont be you that will pay the price in court and until we can be sure what the extent of our exposure to risk is, we'll continue to be cautious.

I find it funny that you deride us for fascism and oppression of public speech when the truth is the complete opposite. We are the ones facing into a court battle to defend your rights to be held accountable for what you say yourself while we provide a platform for as much free speech here as we are comfortable standing over.

But we're the bad guys..... :rolleyes:

DeV.