Did you really...

Jazzy

delete the thread on after hours about Deirdre Reynolds? if so - why?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Probably for legal reasons like when they deleted all those libelous posts I made about dr.bollocko and his collection of dubious videos underneath his bed.

Rabies

An Admin response will be here later re that thread.

Tom Dunne

Jazzy wrote: »

delete the thread on after hours about Deirdre Reynolds? if so - why?

People seem to be having a hard time understanding that you are responsible for what you post on the internet, and specifically Boards.ie.

There were some pretty venomous, ill-informed generalisations in that thread that could get not only Boards.ie into trouble, but the posters themselves.

So, while I didn't delete that thread myself, I believe it was deleted to protect both the site and the posters who made some pretty nasty comments.

biko

Think of boards as someone's party.
The host has to agree, or at least not disagree, with your actions.

If you're at someone's party and start throwing bottles out the window onto the street the guards may come and the host may be held responsible for your actions.
Boards.ie is privately owned and the owner/host can do whatever they like at their own party, tell people to shut it or even toss them out.

Tallon

biko wrote: »

tell people to shut it or even toss them out.

I think Tom phrased it a bit better than that.

biko

Yeah, I'm not known for my delicacy

Dohnny Jepp

Tallon wrote: »

I think Tom phrased it a bit better than that.

And this is the only actual feedback in the whole thread :pac:

Jazzy

Tom Dunne wrote: »

but the posters themselves.

em, lol?

I reckon the most you would see is some negative press in another one of Deirdres super fantastic columns in which she compares a poster or heck, even the site, to a really really bad pair of shoes (shes really non plussed by the shoes).

I dunno, I see it as wussing out a bit. on after hours we are allowed to drag all sorts through the mud and fling sh1t at all sorts of sets of people, but quite noticably - not at a journalist who seems to be the type with a mindset to write about this site. should we also remove all the anti- eamonn dunphy posts on the soccer forum too? same thing isnt it?

DeVore

I deleted it. I'll explain why when I'm not fracturing space-time from moving around so fast.

It was a trainwreck of vicious incivil and highly illegal comments. Not to mention that it breached the newspapers copyright

I took it offline (not deleted in the normal meaning) and we are going through it now but quite frankly, what isnt actionable will barely fill a post.

DeV.

DeVore

People have a right not to be humiliated and derided in public regarding their abilities in their profession. Thats enshrined in our law.


Now, I'd love to let people be responsible for their own words but once its brought to our attention we either stand by the breaches or we remove them. Frankly, I'm not getting sued so that a bunch of AHers can abuse someone. I dont feel thats why we are here.

Fair comment is one thing but very little of what was in that thread was "fair comment".

We're reviewing it now, but first I'm going for dinner and at least one night out during this holiday.

DeV.

copacetic

DeVore wrote: »

People have a right not to be humiliated and derided in public regarding their abilities in their profession. Thats enshrined in our law.

Newspapers make a living by often doing this exact thing though? I take the point that AH is often way over the top and I'm often surprised at some of the threads that are left open, but it would be nice to put the thread back if it can be salvaged in any way.

Journalism standards with an on point example is actually one of the better reasons for an AH thread I've seen.

Jazzy

but what about the others that get dragged through the dirt in the same way?
personally, i think you're just going by who is more likely to sue rather then draw direct line.. which is understandable as newspapers would love to sell an us vs. them angle as regards boards, i reckon they could make a good bit of money out of it. more proof, if any were needed, that print news is doing exactly what murdoch said it would - becomming extinct and also exactly why someone like Deirdre Reynolds is employed and allowed to write for a paper, they need some sort of controversy or niche market to sell to so they try to cover too many bases. in deirdres case (and I quote Roger Ebert's review of sex and the city 2), the "flyweight bubblehead" niche

BraziliaNZ

why is there a thread on AH right now slating David McWilliams? Seriously, they slag the hell out of all sorts of Irish celebs on this site, why is this girl given special treatment? Did she contact boards herself?

AckwelFoley

copacetic wrote: »

Newspapers make a living by often doing this exact thing though? I take the point that AH is often way over the top and I'm often surprised at some of the threads that are left open, but it would be nice to put the thread back if it can be salvaged in any way.

Journalism standards with an on point example is actually one of the better reasons for an AH thread I've seen.

Boards.ie is not a Rag newspaper though. Big red top newspapers budget on getting sued, they make alot of money selling "newspapers / toilet roll" - on the otherhand, boards.ie is an online community, and id safely assume lesser of a budget than rupert murdoch.

I never heard of this woman, nor do i care to know really, but if in true AH style you can be assured the thread will be full of humor and misinformation sarcasam and the odd nasty comment- fine when you are talking about Brian Cowan, he has a neck like a jockeys bollox, - not so fine when you talk about a private individual..

If this woman made a comment about this site you disagree with, a good old fashioned letter to the editor.. or 1000 of them is a better course action.

copacetic

snyper wrote: »

Boards.ie is not a Rag newspaper though. Big red top newspapers budget on getting sued, they make alot of money selling "newspapers / toilet roll" - on the otherhand, boards.ie is an online community, and id safely assume lesser of a budget than rupert murdoch.

Agreed, but as noted above we let absolutely disgusting things be said about politicians and other celebrities every day on boards. So why the special treatment?

Sparks

snyper wrote: »

fine when you are talking about Brian Cowan, he has a neck like a jockeys bollox

You might want to ask Conor Casby about that...

Sparks

copacetic wrote: »

why the special treatment?

If a post is reported, then boards.ie has to act on it. That's a reasonable summation of the extant law as I understand it.

BraziliaNZ

So take down the David McWilliams thread

AckwelFoley

copacetic wrote: »

Agreed, but as noted above we let absolutely disgusting things be said about politicians and other celebrities every day on boards. So why the special treatment?

Because of the aforementioned jockeys bollox. Celebs do well from their notoriety, there was never nice thing said about Jade goody in any form of media, yet it did her no harm, she made alot of money from it.

I full agree with you about politicians too, i think most of the garbage and generalisations that is posted about politicians and politics in general would give me a headache if i was to read and attempt to comprehend the stupidity of the comments.. alas i dont, and neither do politicians...

Small time journalists however and private individuals however are perceived to be different, and more likely to be offended by comments made about them..

If i call Brian Cowen a fat bollox, he doesnt care... if i call you a fat bollox, its likely you would be annoyed in the very least, id get a ban and you'd never like me...ever, point being, celebs and politicians are used to it.. others arent and unlikely to tolerate it as much

copacetic

Sparks wrote: »

If a post is reported, then boards.ie has to act on it. That's a reasonable summation of the extant law as I understand it.

It's not. Boards can pretend not to have seen things until they are reported, but once they are boards doesn't 'have to' do anything.

snyper wrote: »

Because of the aforementioned jockeys bollox. Celebs do well from their notoriety, there was never nice thing said about Jade goody in any form of media, yet it did her no harm, she made alot of money from it.

I full agree with you about politicians too, i think most of the garbage and generalisations that is posted about politicians and politics in general would give me a headache if i was to read and attempt to comprehend the stupidity of the comments.. alas i dont, and neither do politicians...

Small time journalists however and private individuals however are perceived to be different, and more likely to be offended by comments made about them..

If i call Brian Cowen a fat bollox, he doesnt care... if i call you a fat bollox, its likely you would be annoyed in the very least, id get a ban and you'd never like me...ever, point being, celebs and politicians are used to it.. others arent and unlikely to tolerate it as much

I agree with a lot of this, but personally I'd like boards to be more consistent in it's actions either way and not rely on outside prodding to treat one thread differently from another. That thread was open for a long time and read as standard AH stuff so mods left it alone until obviously some threat came in. Then we pay it the attention it probably deserved to begin with. Why not make our own rules and then follow them in the first place?

I also think you'd be surprised how much even big celebrities are offended by what is posted about them, the late Gerry Ryan had an intense dislike of boards. Mostly because of the disgusting things boards allowed to be posted about him and especially about his family.

AckwelFoley

Sparks wrote: »

You might want to ask Conor Casby about that...

Well, true, that was one incident that got some airplay, but its an exception rather than the rule

BraziliaNZ

But we're allowed slag Glenda Gilson and Rosanna Davidson?

melonball

get over it...if u dont like her dont read her column. end of!

WindSock

melonball wrote: »

get over it...if u dont like her dont read her column. end of!

Likewise with a thread.

Sparks

copacetic wrote: »

It's not. Boards can pretend not to have seen things until they are reported, but once they are boards doesn't 'have to' do anything.

I think you'll find that they do have to do something. Doing nothing when such a post is reported carries legal consequences.

DeVore

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

why is there a thread on AH right now slating David McWilliams? Seriously, they slag the hell out of all sorts of Irish celebs on this site, why is this girl given special treatment? Did she contact boards herself?

I've looked at the thread on David McWilliams and there arent

1. Sexually aggressive comments.
2. Personal abuse of his physicality.
3. Straight out insults.
4. Baseless and unsubstantiate attacks on his future capacity to do his job.

What I see in that McWilliams threads is pulling him up on things he is saying now versus things he is saying then. Fair Comment.

As for other threads in the AH, I dont agree with anything that resembles that Deirdre Reynolds thread. Point them out to me (or report them) and I'll deal with them in the very same way.



This is an extraordinaraily fine line we walk, and sometimes we have to draw it for ourselves. I appreciate that maybe you wouldnt draw it in different place but ONLY LAST WEEK we had a thread here about how AH was TOO relaxed about abuse (religion).


Perhaps you could go and argue with them... you know, cut out the middle man and let me know when you have solve the problem.

Until then, I'll make what judgements I have to with what wisdom I can.

DeV.

DeVore

Hey brazilianZ, Whats your deal with her?


I cut that thread myself, as it turns out we were contacted but we didnt get it till the morning and I didnt hear about it until this evening.



You have any special connection with this woman? Any prior contact with her?

DeV.

DeVore

copacetic wrote: »

Agreed, but as noted above we let absolutely disgusting things be said about politicians and other celebrities every day on boards. So why the special treatment?

We shouldnt and for some time I have been concerned about the downward spiral of AH in that respect. Its not 4Chan, its not a free for all and its NOT immune or absolved from our civility rules so it needs a bit of a clean up in that regard.

Say what you like in a respectful civil manner.

Points, not boots.

DeV.

DeVore

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

So take down the David McWilliams thread

Why, what is there in it that is illegal? There's criticisms of his apparent change of position but theres no one in there calling him "a cod faced bitch".

Double standards because she's female is what I am seeing in that regard.

DeV.

Jazzy

DeVore wrote: »

I cut that thread myself, as it turns out she HAD contacted the office but we didnt get it till the morning and I didnt hear about it until this evening.

haha! brilliant. i posted in the thread but it was more criticism of her article and her writing then insulting. in fact she got my special 'derp of the day' award for promoting vapid, shallow, over the top consumerist views which have litttle grounding in reality and literally sell ignorance piecemeal.

in a way im glad she got offended by it.. but in an other way i know it will do no good as she will just write even more crap articles thats only intent is to sell towards the bubblehead niche