Inconsistent application of the Sherlock Rules

Morricone

I'm starting this feedback thread over the inconsistenet application of the recently introduced Sean Sherlock regulations regarding the internet.

I was banned from Motorsport, initially permanently before being reduced to a month for posting the following; hxxp://www.firstrowsports.eu/watch/114598/3/watch-Malaysia-qualifying.html

It wasn't a hyperlink and the reason I had done so was based on a post I hads seen in the soccer forum by Mike65, an experienced and respected poster who posted in exactly the same manner, changing the tt in http for xx.

I then found posts in the Spurs Supporters forum with Direct hyperlinks towards streams, they were not banned, they were not infracted, the posts were merely deleted and no action taken against the poster.

In the Liverpool vs Everton Mike65 again posted the following; post contravening Sherlock laws

Again no action taken. The inconsistent application fo the rules across the forum is not fair and I think that boards should either ban and infract for posting contra the Sherlock laws or not infract whatsoever. Inbetween is simply completely unfair unless it is for repeated offences.

This is not a thread for Dispute Resolution, I've had that, this is geniune feedback and I happen to have used cases involving myself to prove the point.

5starpool

Some people like banning, some like adhering to rules more than others. Welcome to the internet.

I agree your ban is stupidly harsh though.

Oranage2

Ah whistleblowing - Sure way to make you a fan favourite!




Laws were broke when you posted that lucky you werent locked up and the key thrown away!

PHB

If you report the post, the mods can act on it.

P. Breathnach

PHB wrote: »

If you report the post, the mods can act on it.

I think OP's point is mods are acting differently from one another on an issue where there is supposed to be a site-wide policy.

There is no site wide policy AFAIK.


The law is too loose so Dev and others are trying to find out what is ok and what is not.


Then there'll be a site wide policy (I'd assume)

Moral of the story: All forums are different and different rules. Read the charter to a forum before posting in it.

Morricone

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no site wide policy AFAIK.


The law is too loose so Dev and others are trying to find out what is ok and what is not.


Then there'll be a site wide policy (I'd assume)

Moral of the story: All forums are different and different rules. Read the charter to a forum before posting in it.

Fair enough but if a site wide policy has yet to be introduced then why not leave it go until one is formulated.

Because I was initially banned for something that was supposedly in the charter.

I then pointed out that at the time of posting the Motorsport charter had nothing in the charter related to Sherlock.

Then I was told streams, despite the fact I did not post a stream, were 'since SOPA they frowned upon hence why a one month ban will remain in place.

Like lads sort it out, either introduce a site wide policy or even introduce a policy that for the time being measures to avoid hyperlinking of streams are outlawed until further notice.

Either way when users are getting permanent/month long bans on forums for things that aren't even infracted or worse still deleted without any infraction its completely unfair. It really is.

Spear

Morricone wrote: »

Fair enough but if a site wide policy has yet to be introduced then why not leave it go until one is formulated.

Because this broken, half-assed law is in place now.

Morricone

Spear wrote: »

Because this broken, half-assed law is in place now.

Fine then why not crack down on every instance so of measures to dodge the Sherlock Laws? Why just one? There obviously could be more but I have yet to encounter it.

Do you see where I'm coming from on this and I'm not asking this sarcastically.

_AVALANCHE_

Morricone wrote: »

I was banned from Motorsport, initially permanently before being reduced to a month

What's the thinking behind this?

"I was wrong/jumped the gun abit but I don't want to appear wrong so i'll reduce it to a month"?

Cardinal Richelieu

PHB wrote: »

If you report the post, the mods can act on it.

I pointed this out in PM to one of the sports mods just last week, that various forums and mods have a wide variation of interpretation of this. I reported a post in soccer last week because basically the OP had an entire newspaper article posted. 24 hours later no action taken which was strange because soccer is a busy forum so has a big team of mods compared to other forums, so I reported it again and the Mod edited the post to reduce the quote size so that tells me that even in one forum the mods have different understandings of what is allowed and what is not allowed. The next example was a thread in the cricket forum, a poster posted a hyperlink for the official ESPN coverage link for the recent Ireland v Afganistan ICC final, the mod then deleted the link because its breaks Sherlock Law. So by that same logic posting a link to the RTE Player or the BBC Radio Player is against the rules now even do they are not restricted access in ROI? A third example is this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056313911

Now it seems to me that by quoting so much in two posts in the thread above it would break Sherlock Law twice and Dav guidelines below. I reported the thread last week as outlined by other posters. No action taken and no pm from mods regarding if I had reported it wrongly. So do we just keep reporting the posts repeatily until action is taken when the category mod starts to notice a trend within a particular forum?

Just to remind everyone what the last official public guidelines from Dav were

02-03-2012, 17:24

Despite our best efforts, Minister Seán Sherlock still signed his fundamentally flawed SI on Copyright into law this week and the knock on effect is that we will be reviewing and probably implementing changes to how we have to deal with issues around the use of copyrighted material on the site. We don't have the details finalsed yet, I'm reviewing with legal experts and various others on how we carry on with the normal day-to-day business of the site without making too much of an impact, but we are making some immediate changes that we feel are definitely required:

1) we will no longer be allowing links to streams of copyrighted or licenced content such as sports events. Youtube videos are not affected as YouTube has revenue sharing arrangements in place with copyright holders and they monitor these things themselves.

2) copy and pasting a full piece of an article from a newspaper or blog etc will not be allowed. You may copy a paragraph of the piece and must provide a link to the source under what we hope will be seen as a common sense and fair use approach.

I really don't have any more solid guidance on this yet, so please bear with us over the course of the next week or so whilst we try and get the legal advice we need. I wish I had more solid information than this folks, I really do.

I just wanted to post this here and I'm closing it because it's Friday evening, I'm going to be gone for the weekend and I simply don't have any more information just yet.

Thanks very much.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056565895

In fairness do we haven't heard any update from Dav since over a month ago so that might explain some of the inconsistent moderation. Clear communication from the top might help.

Steve

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

In fairness do we haven't heard any update from Dav since over a month ago so that might explain some of the inconsistent moderation. Clear communication from the top might help.

The issue hasn't really progressed - the 'top' here is not the boards admins, it's the government. Even they seem to be unclear on what they have actually signed into law.

I assume you've seen this: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21566287

*Don't make me put the slide back up...*

Beasty

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

A third example is this

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056313911

Now it seems to me that by quoting so much in two posts in the thread above it would break Sherlock Law twice and Dav guidelines below. I reported the thread last week as outlined by other posters.

Just on this one, the two posts you are referring to were made last July, and pre-dated the Sherlock "Law". At this stage no-one has suggested going back to amend old posts to take account of the new regulations (and to do so would be virtually impossible)

Cardinal Richelieu

Beasty wrote: »

Just on this one, the two posts you are referring to were made last July, and pre-dated the Sherlock "Law". At this stage no-one has suggested going back to amend old posts to take account of the new regulations (and to do so would be virtually impossible)

What about quoting such posts? Threads should be locked to prevent that IMHO.

Beasty

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

What about quoting such posts? Threads should be locked to prevent that IMHO.

Quoting posts typically only repeats the new narrative and not previous quotes. I think it's normally only when posting on mobile that you can end up with multiple "layers" of quotes

However what you are suggesting would require the locking of pretty much every thread that commenced pre the new rules (or the relevant mods would be required to go through every one to identify those that may have material that could be subject to the new regulations). Essentially it would close off the entire "history" of boards to new posts.

Surely if a new post quotes an old post that does contravene the current guidelines the simple solution would be for the local mods to snip the new post.

minidazzler

Wait, was it a first offence that resulted in a one month ban or what? If so then that is most certainly overly harsh. Infract maybe, but banning when only one link was given..a bit OTT.


As much as I am sure most DRP threads have the OP in the wrong, this could be looked at differently, maybe you should open a thread there OP, at least it would set a precedent of how to go forward for that kind of thing on that forum.

INPUT INNPUT

Here a new proposed legislative change by Pat Rabbitte making it an offence to annoy people online. Offence carries a fine of €75,000 or 5 years in the Joy and forfeiture of any equipment used to annoy.

He's tagged on "Electronic Communications" to old wording and kinda left it wide open for abuse.

This is a bill that should really be titled “Don’t Speak Ill of or Critique Politicians on Social Media or ELSE”

Handy with elections coming up^^.

Written in this manner, the proposed law allows the pursuit of criminal charges for annoyance and inconvenience -- and the internet has plenty of both. The saving grace is that this pursuit is left to law enforcement, rather than routed through a civil process. It's a criminal offense, which is an adversarial process every step of the way -- in stark contrast to other, far more terrible "cyberbullying" laws that shift the burden of proof to the accused --- if they're even allowed to defend themselves.

Yes, the law is badly written, but it's a not a legislative land grab. It's just a lazy update to an existing law -- one that may have worked out fairly well given the narrow confines under which it operated. But this proposal -- a lazy "on the internet" patch job -- has the potential to criminalize lots of previously protected speech.

Porn, Late payment reminders, ebooks, crap that looks spammy to ME could all now be an offence...and lots more.

https://brianmlucey.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/ireland-bill-proposes-making-ebooks-illegal-and-to-jail-people-for-annoying-others/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150419/11285630721/irish-legislator-proposes-law-that-would-make-annoying-people-online-criminal-act.shtml

What effect this have on Boards?:cool:

The Hill Billy

INPUT INNPUT wrote:

What effect this have on Boards?:cool:

I am certainly looking forward to snitching on muppets to the Gardaí instead of using the Report Post function. Am also looking forward to the Dispute Resolution sessions in the Four Courts.

The big win with this legislation is that people who raise Zombie threads on unrelated legislation will go down for 20 to life, man.

G_R

I reckon we should get new options when actioning a post

- Warning
- Infraction
- Ban -> Choose Length
- Imprison -> Choose Length
- Fine -> Enter Anount

GLaDOS

If this means we can put Scanlas away I'm all for it.

Zaph

INPUT INNPUT, if you want to start a thread and proper discussion on this in an appropriate forum, then please do. But please don't dig up ancient threads that are only vaguely related. Thanks.