Discussing people who aren't here to defend themselves

Brendan Flowers

A few days ago there was a thread started in After Hours about a Boards member who had announced via his blog that he was taking a break from Boards. The usual AH type debate ensured for the next few pages until one of the Mods locked it stating that since the person being discussed wasn't here to defend themselves then it wasn't fair to keep the thread open.

So here the issue I have. There are threads started in AH regularly about (and usually bashing) well known people. The latest being a thread about Bill Cullen and reports that his car dealership has gone into liquidation. Likewise there was another thread about people on radio/TV with the most annoying voice. The list is endless really.

So why is it these people are considered fair game on Boards when a Mod actually said it's unfair to discuss someone when they aren't here to reply?

charlietheminxx

As much as all us boardsies are amazingly fabulous, we aren't celebrities that put ourselves in the public eye to be discussed.

A member is a part of this community, it's slightly different.

humanji

Moved from After Hours

g'em

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

So why is it these people are considered fair game on Boards when a Mod actually said it's unfair to discuss someone when they aren't here to reply?

Abuse of anyone, be it someone in the public eye or an ordinary Joe Soap isn't allowed. With other boardsies it's fairly cut and dry, talking about people who aren't here to defend themselves is flat out not fair.

With celebrities/ famous people/ people in the media/ government officials etc. it's greyer - they are in the public eye and so public scrutiny is expected, there's no problem. Blatant, nasty offensive crap is just being a dick unnecessarily and will usually be stopped.

So, people who put themselves in the media are 'fair game' to be talked about because they put themselves there.

Brendan Flowers

charlietheminxx wrote: »

As much as all us boardsies are amazingly fabulous, we aren't celebrities that put ourselves in the public eye to be discussed.

A member is a part of this community, it's slightly different.

The person who as a blog and hundreds of followers put himself in the public eye when announcing his decision to leave Boards.

Dravokivich

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

charlietheminxx wrote: »

As much as all us boardsies are amazingly fabulous, we aren't celebrities that put ourselves in the public eye to be discussed.

A member is a part of this community, it's slightly different.

The person who as a blog and hundreds of followers put himself in the public eye when announcing his decision to leave Boards.

There's a very distinct difference when it comes to how you talk about someone.

1) commenting on their actions and your opinions on those actions
2) commenting on the person

More often than not, the second usually results on an unfounded insult and as such is not permitted. This is for the entire site as far as I'm aware and not just ah.

Tallon

g'em wrote: »

So, people who put themselves in the media are 'fair game' to be talked about because they put themselves there.

Can we talk about the site owners and community managers since they're in the media nearly every other week

Are they 'Fair game'?

I make youtube videos that a good few people watch, does that make me 'fair game'?

Genuine questions btw

Also, this.. tbf

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

The person who as a blog and hundreds of followers put himself in the public eye when announcing his decision to leave Boards.

K-9

charlietheminxx wrote: »

As much as all us boardsies are amazingly fabulous, we aren't celebrities that put ourselves in the public eye to be discussed.

A member is a part of this community, it's slightly different.

This.

The context was a member of the site had just announced they wouldn't post on the site because of certain issues, issues that the mods were looking into at the time so it was sensitive.

That's all there is to it I'm afraid.

humanji

As I see it, there's a difference between talking about a person and cyber bullying, which is what was happening here.

g'em

Tallon wrote: »

Can we talk about the site owners and community managers since they're in the media nearly every other week

Are they 'Fair game'?

I make youtube videos that a good few people watch, does that make me 'fair game'?

Genuine questions btw

Also, this.. tbf

Do you want to be talked about as fair game? If you were to say no, we would respect that. You're a boards member, that comes first. Likewise for anyone else, no matter what position they hold on the site.

Penn

Think of it like you're with a bunch of people talking in a pub:

Talking about some footballer, saying his performance has been poor, he's useless etc. That's all fine. There's no connection to the footballer, chances are it'd never get back to him, it's somewhat to be expected (within reason)

Then you get up and go for a p*ss. Would you like them to start giving out about you behind your back? Not even messing, but really being serious.


There's a big difference between celebrities/media figures, and people who are actually part of this community, whether you like them or not. Major longstanding rules on Boards: a) No personal abuse, b) Don't be a dick.

Tallon

g'em wrote: »

Do you want to be talked about as fair game? If you were to say no, we would respect that. You're a boards member, that comes first. Likewise for anyone else, no matter what position they hold on the site.

I appreciate that, I really do

But did you give Bill Cullen a call and say;
"Hey Bill, whats happnin'? G'em here... Can we consider you fair game on Boards by the way?"

Do we know if he's on the site under an alias? Even if he's not, does that automatically qualify him as 'fair game'?

K-9

Thinking about your OP more, this was an ongoing issue, the poster had decided to leave the site temporarily that day and not post anymore. I closed the thread as I respected his wishes, as I would you or any other member. Bill Cullen is in the news so its a topical matter, we can't send an email to everybody in the news that has a thread in AH and ask them to reply! Not being flippant but that's the way I see it. I think you are taking my comment a little too literally.

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

A few days ago there was a thread started in After Hours about a Boards member who had announced via his blog that he was taking a break from Boards. The usual AH type debate ensured for the next few pages until one of the Mods locked it stating that since the person being discussed wasn't here to defend themselves then it wasn't fair to keep the thread open.

So here the issue I have. There are threads started in AH regularly about (and usually bashing) well known people. The latest being a thread about Bill Cullen and reports that his car dealership has gone into liquidation. Likewise there was another thread about people on radio/TV with the most annoying voice. The list is endless really.

So why is it these people are considered fair game on Boards when a Mod actually said it's unfair to discuss someone when they aren't here to reply?

Dravokivich

Tallon wrote: »

I appreciate that, I really do

But did you give Bill Cullen a call and say;
"Hey Bill, whats happnin'? G'em here... Can we consider you fair game on Boards by the way?"

Do we know if he's on the site under an alias? Even if he's not, does that automatically qualify him as 'fair game'?

It depends on your understanding of "fair game." No one under any circumstances is "Fair Game" for abuse. Reading over the Bill Cullen thread, they are discussing what he has done/said and basing comments on those actions. It's when it comes to abuse of the person and not discussion of their actions that there's a problem.

The example provided by Penn above would be a clear cut view of discussing someone on their actions.

g'em

Tallon wrote: »

I appreciate that, I really do

But did you give Bill Cullen a call and say;
"Hey Bill, whats happnin'? G'em here... Can we consider you fair game on Boards by the way?"

Do we know if he's on the site under an alias? Even if he's not, does that automatically qualify him as 'fair game'?

Once again I'm a little baffled as to why people are defending their rights to be offensive to other people. What's the point you're trying to make here Tal? Are you saying we shouldn't be dicks about anyone or we should be dicks about everyone equivocally?

Genuine questions btw.

Penn

Tallon wrote: »

Can we talk about the site owners and community managers since they're in the media nearly every other week

Are they 'Fair game'?

I think context would be a major factor, Tallon. It would depend on how they were being talked about. For example, if they were being talked about because they were in the media and that's what the discussion is about, then obviously that would be fine.

If someone just randomly started a thread about them to give out about them for no good reason, and nothing more than petty bitching and sniping, then that wouldn't be fine because it's personal abuse/harassing another user.

Tallon

g'em wrote: »

Once again I'm a little baffled as to why people are defending their rights to be offensive to other people. What's the point you're trying to make here Tal? Are you saying we shouldn't be dicks about anyone or we should be dicks about everyone equivocally?

Genuine questions btw.

I'm not defending anything G'em, I'm asking how you decide who can and can't be talked about

g'em

Tallon wrote: »

I'm not defending anything G'em, I'm asking how you decide who can and can't be talked about

It's decided contextually from forum to forum, from person to person. And the vast majority of posters know that without it needing to be explained.

LoLth

this particular situation is a strange one.

A boards.ie user is not open for general discussion unless he or shee wishes to be discussed. So posts like "that LoLth is a bit of a dick what do you think" isnt fair to the user LoLth (thats me!)

A mod/cmod/admins actions on baords are open for discussion because our actions affect the community so posts like "that rule LoLth posted up is unfair, why would he post something like that?" are fine for discussion and should be discussed in feedback as it is a comment on a mod/admin action.

Now here's where it gets tricky.

lets say I leave the site tomorrow (stop cheering! its a hypothetical)

posts like "LoLth's gone, he was a dick" are still off limits in particilar because I'm no longer here to defend myself

Posts like "Why did LoLth leave?" are ok because its a post about my action (leaving) that may or may not have an affect on the community (admit it, you'd miss me), whether you get an answer or not depends on the circumstances of my leaving.

Now, if my circumstances were that I was having a bit of a kerfuffle with the mods/admin and I decided to "go away" while the issue was still under discussion it would be sensitive information and wouldnt be discussed, the question could be asked but you wouldnt get an answer until the issue was resolved and even then it might still be considered sensitive and unfair to me for detailed information to be shared without my consent.

But, what if I posted on a blog, where it was common knowledge that LoLth = owner of the blog, the detailed information surrounded my departure? Are you discussing LoLth or are you discussing the content of a blog post you read on the interwebs? Is the information not fair game for discussion seeing as I made it public knowledge myself? (if it affects someone else, say I had an issue with Beruthiel or Zaph and I posted details of that issue - a completely dick move on my part by the way - then is it fair to discuss that on site as the affected parties are still here even if I'm gone?).

None of this is from an Admin/policy perspective, its my own opinion. I think that once information is public it can be discussed BUT its still not right to discuss the person as opposed to the person's actions.

So a post like "I read on LoLth's blog that he's leaving boards because he has an issue with another admin" would be ok. a follow up post of "what a dick to post that in a blog" would be ok but "sure LoLth is a git, always was always will be" is not ok as it is a comment on me as a person and not an opinion on my action. and obviously "good riddance, probably some sort of sexual deviant. I heard he did X at a boards beers" is just out and out slander and hearsay and not ok under any circumstance (now you see why I was using my own username in the example).

for clarity, I havent read the blog entry being refered to in the AH thread and I'm not even sure I know who the user is (I think I do but I'm not sure), I'm trying to keep my opinion as general as I can.

K-9

You've to balance the right to privacy and the other persons right to defend themselves. In that example the poster has given up their privacy because they have posted about it elsewhere in a public discussion and if they make allegations against members, well they've a right to defend themselves, within reason obviously.

Penn

I think the main point of consideration when deciding to start a thread about another poster is: What good can come from this?

Someone leaves Boards until an issue is dealt with, and posts about it on their blog. What good can come from starting a thread here about it? The thread will likely descend into posters taking cheap shots and digs at a poster who up until that point, had been a member of this community, and had only left Boards temporarily, pending mod action. And allowing discussion on it splits mod time in trying to investigate and resolve such issues.

No good can come from such a thread, and it would be more likely that more posters would end up being warned/infracted/banned for personal abuse against someone who would still be considered to be a Boards.ie member, and would likely be reading the thread (even if they weren't posting).

Sorry, but it's common sense that such a thread shouldn't have been started and more harm than good would come from it.

My name is URL

g'em wrote: »

Abuse of anyone, be it someone in the public eye or an ordinary Joe Soap isn't allowed. With other boardsies it's fairly cut and dry, talking about people who aren't here to defend themselves is flat out not fair.

Nobody's stopping him from defending himself to be fair. His account hasn't been closed and I'm fairly certain that he's still reading the forum. I think it was a bit of an overreaction for the guy to send out a mass unsolicited PM to users here linking to his blog, and in turn linking to a forum he set up where he discusses to some degree the issues he has here.

If he is being bullied on this site (I haven't witnessed it personally) then I'd hope that the matter could be dealt with here rather than someone having to go to such lengths in order to have their concerns addressed.

Tallon

g'em wrote: »

It's decided contextually from forum to forum, from person to person. And the vast majority of posters know that without it needing to be explained.

Obviously not, when there's locked threads, feedback threads etc

K-9

Without going into specifics, any allegation of bullying is and will be looked into, in depth if mods think there is anything to it. Feelings can run high with things like this so I think the best call for everybody is to lock threads regarding current issues, that's being fair to all sides. We have to be as impartial as we can.

Tallon

Who is the OP talking about btw and what Blog?

Edit: No worries. Have been informed. Thanks

Brendan Flowers

Another thing I hope a someone could clear up for me. Many people have said a mass PM was sent out to Boards members which linked to the sender's website. Is this not against the charter and considered spamming? If not is anyone allowed to send out mass PMs linking to various sites?

LoLth

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

Another thing I hope a someone could clear up for me. Many people have said a mass PM was sent out to Boards members which linked to the sender's website. Is this not against the charter and considered spamming? If not is anyone allowed to send out mass PMs linking to various sites?

what is said by many people is not necessarily what actually happened. To answer your questions:

yes mass PMing unrequested information is classed as spam and an abuse of the PM system and usually results in a siteban. Prison access depends on the nature of the message.

IF a spam PM is received by a member and they report it, action will be taken by the admins. we're not psychic and despite claims to the contrary, Admins do not have the ability to look into user private message boxes. Even if we did, we wouldnt as that would be an abuse of trust and imho a breach of users privacy and thats not nice. Admins are nice therefore we wouldnt do it

If the message isnt reported then there's nothing we can do as we do not act on rumour and hearsay.

Brendan Flowers

LoLth wrote: »

what is said by many people is not necessarily what actually happened. To answer your questions:

yes mass PMing unrequested information is classed as spam and an abuse of the PM system and usually results in a siteban. Prison access depends on the nature of the message.

IF a spam PM is received by a member and they report it, action will be taken by the admins. we're not psychic and despite claims to the contrary, Admins do not have the ability to look into user private message boxes. Even if we did, we wouldnt as that would be an abuse of trust and imho a breach of users privacy and thats not nice. Admins are nice therefore we wouldnt do it

If the message isnt reported then there's nothing we can do as we do not act on rumour and hearsay.

So people are allowed to break the charter as long as they don't get reported?

I know Admins are not psychic but it has been mentioned numerous times about the mass PM so why wouldn't an Admin even look into this? Could you not contact the person in question to explain the situation and find out if rules were broken?

I really don't mean to come across as a d!ck but it just seems like certain posters can do as they like without receiving the punishment that another member would get for the same offence.

Tallon

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

So people are allowed to break the charter as long as they don't get reported?

I know Admins are not psychic but it has been mentioned numerous times about the mass PM so why wouldn't an Admin even look into this? Could you not contact the person in question to explain the situation and find out if rules were broken?

I really don't mean to come across as a d!ck but it just seems like certain posters can do as they like without receiving the punishment that another member would get for the same offence.

Read Loth's first sentance!

what is said by many people is not necessarily what actually happened. To answer your questions:

The Admins probably won't act on speculation, but rather facts

Same as in real life, I'm allowed break the law and speed all I want... Until I get caught

K-9

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

So people are allowed to break the charter as long as they don't get reported?

I know Admins are not psychic but it has been mentioned numerous times about the mass PM so why wouldn't an Admin even look into this? Could you not contact the person in question to explain the situation and find out if rules were broken?

I really don't mean to come across as a d!ck but it just seems like certain posters can do as they like without receiving the punishment that another member would get for the same offence.

It's up to the recipients to report them. Do you know how many pm's were involved? because you seem to know more than the mods or admins.

Penn

Brendan Flowers wrote: »

So people are allowed to break the charter as long as they don't get reported?

I know Admins are not psychic but it has been mentioned numerous times about the mass PM so why wouldn't an Admin even look into this? Could you not contact the person in question to explain the situation and find out if rules were broken?

I really don't mean to come across as a d!ck but it just seems like certain posters can do as they like without receiving the punishment that another member would get for the same offence.

It was looked into.

In the specific instance you're referring to, LoLth said "what is said by many people is not necessarily what actually happened". Therefore, they looked into it and found it wasn't what some people had claimed it to be.

The rest of LoLth's post is then talking in more general terms, and not about the specific case.