Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Thunderdome and bullying.

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    IF in fact the people who have been accused (and found guilty without any sort of defence) did indeed act in this manner you mean?

    An investigation was done but it was a one sided investigation, that is no longer deemed to be an investigation but more along the lines of a witch hunt. Do you agree with witch hunts? Do you agree I should be allowed to accuse you of something and you should be permanently banned from here without you being given a chance to answer to the accusations against you?

    They were banned for bullying, I'm talking about sanctions for people who get banned for bullying.

    I'm not interested in questioning the investigation process. PM Dav or the admins if you have an issue with that or feel they have done something illegal as you suggested earlier in claiming they were open to legal action.

    This has nothing to do with the topic here. Do you think a one month ban is reflective of the seriousness of bullying ?


  • Options
    #63
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This was deemed to be bullying by Dav. The ban was for bullying and harassment. To say a one month ban in this case of bullying was most likely reflective of the offence but doesnt reflect the seriousness of the offence of bullying is general contradictory.

    Honestly if dav said **** tastes of chocolate would you dip your finger in for a big old taste? In your mind there is no chance that mistakes were made by admin and its guilty as hell and be damned with them all. As you stated in your original post you had no access to the TD yet you seem to know a hell of a lot about what went on I there. Are you being told by admin something that the accused people have not been told or are you just using guesswork to tar these people with the cyber bullying label?


  • Options
    #64
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Insect Overlord wrote: »
    Each case should be judged individually. There's no "one size fits all" solution. Trying to find one might be a fun exercise in the philosophy of ethics, but it's not really going to make any practical improvement to the site.

    I disagree. I think sanctioning something as serious as bullying should not be left to an individuals interpretation of the actions that constitute it. Its that sort of dealing with it that makes it so hard to define, avoid and stop. Once something is determined to be bullying it should be treated as a case of bullying and not just a case of a list of individual actions.

    I think the ban should reflect the offence and it should be one of the most serious offence to commit on this site. And anything that aids dealing with a serious thing like bullying is a practical improvement to the site.


  • Options
    #65
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    They were banned for bullying, I'm talking about sanctions for people who get banned for bullying.

    I'm not interested in questioning the investigation process. PM Dav or the admins if you have an issue with that or feel they have done something illegal as you suggested earlier in claiming they were open to legal action.

    This has nothing to do with the topic here. Do you think a one month ban is reflective of the seriousness of bullying ?

    If you can prove someone has done this then it should result in a one month - lifetime ban (depending on the circumstances) But just banning someone and labeling them as cyber bullies without first giving them a chance to explain their actions is not an investigation but a witch hunt.


  • Options
    #66
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    bumper234 wrote: »
    No vendetta on behalf of anyone I am just asking why it's ok to label some very well known posters with a sickening label without first giving them a chance to defend themselves. Yes I know boards is a private company and yes I know admin are judge/jury/executioner but by banning and labeling these people cyber bullies without giving a chance to refute the allegations I think boards has left itself open to legal action.

    How do you know they had no chance to refute the allegations?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    K-9 wrote: »
    How do you know they had no chance to refute the allegations?

    Because I know 2 of them irl and they have told me so I have also seen the prison thread that was edited to not allow someone to post proof of his innocence.


  • Options
    #68
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Honestly if dav said **** tastes of chocolate would you dip your finger in for a big old taste? In your mind there is no chance that mistakes were made by admin and its guilty as hell and be damned with them all.

    You're hell bent on missing the point aint ya ? I dont know if they are truly guilty or not, thats between those banned and those who banned them. I'm just talking about the sanction handed down for the offence.
    As you stated in your original post you had no access to the TD yet you seem to know a hell of a lot about what went on I there. Are you being told by admin something that the accused people have not been told or are you just using guesswork to tar these people with the cyber bullying label?

    I know about as much as anyone else who got their info from the various defenses in prison. And I know its pointless but I'll ask one more time. Can you take your issue with Dav and admins to them directly rather than derail this thread ?


  • Options
    #69
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Because I know 2 of them irl and they have told me so I have also seen the prison thread that was edited to not allow someone to post proof of his innocence.

    They didn't have any pm conversations with mods and admins? That seems very, very strange.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #70
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Artful_Badger it seems to me that you're adding fire to a dodgy incident. May I ask what possible business of yours is it to be inquiring as to the length (or your assumed lack thereof) of bans that were given to posters?


  • Options
    #71
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    K-9 wrote: »
    They didn't have any pm conversations with mods and admins? That seems very, very strange.

    One minute they were posting next minute they were banned. No warning no explaination nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    P_1 wrote: »
    Artful_Badger it seems to me that you're adding fire to a dodgy incident. May I ask what possible business of yours is it to be inquiring as to the length (or your assumed lack thereof) of bans that were given to posters?

    This is a feedback forum and I am have some concern as a member of this community that a serious issue like bullying may not be being dealt with in a manner fitting the seriousness of the issue.

    I think I am well within my rights to bring it up whether I am right or wrong in having concerns.


  • Options
    #73
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    You're hell bent on missing the point aint ya ? I dont know if they are truly guilty or not, thats between those banned and those who banned them. I'm just talking about the sanction handed down for the offence.



    I know about as much as anyone else who got their info from the various defenses in prison. And I know its pointless but I'll ask one more time. Can you take your issue with Dav and admins to them directly rather than derail this thread ?

    Yet you seem happy to continuously label them as bullies.


  • Options
    #74
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This is a feedback forum and I am have some concern as a member of this community that a serious issue like bullying may not be being dealt with in a manner fitting the seriousness of the issue.

    I think I am well within my rights to bring it up whether I am right or wrong in having concerns.

    Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    You're hell bent on missing the point aint ya ? I dont know if they are truly guilty or not, thats between those banned and those who banned them. I'm just talking about the sanction handed down for the offence.



    I know about as much as anyone else who got their info from the various defenses in prison. And I know its pointless but I'll ask one more time. Can you take your issue with Dav and admins to them directly rater than derail this thread ?


  • Options
    #75
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Yet you seem happy to continuously label them as bullies.

    As far as I recall all I have done is refer to the fact they were banned for bullying, which whether rightfully or wrongfully that's what they were banned for.


  • Options
    #76
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    This is a feedback forum and I am have some concern as a member of this community that a serious issue like bullying may not be being dealt with in a manner fitting the seriousness of the issue.

    I think I am well within my rights to bring it up whether I am right or wrong in having concerns.

    Well your tone in this thread strikes me as being one of 'they weren't being punished enough, I demand that you punish them more' even though it seems that you have absolutely no connection to the people involved in the incident.


  • Options
    #77
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Maybe you should take some of your own advice.

    This is a feedback forum for site feedback which is what this thread is. You're issues have nothing to do with the topic of this thread and I'd imagine they wouldnt be entertained in a thread of your own. So I assume you'd have to take it up with the powers that be directly.

    I'm just asking you not to derail the thread in trying to defend your friends or argue against their bans. I have made it pretty clear my issue is the sanctions handed down for bullying rather than the bans of these particular people.


  • Options
    #78
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    P_1 wrote: »
    Well your tone in this thread strikes me as being one of 'they weren't being punished enough, I demand that you punish them more' even though it seems that you have absolutely no connection to the people involved in the incident.

    I was trying to give the issue some context in the OP and earlier posts so I can see how it might come across that way. But I'm not arguing to have these particular bans increased. I'm questioning if the length reflects the seriousness of the issue in general.


  • Options
    #79
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    I was trying to give the issue some context in the OP and earlier posts so I can see how it might come across that way. But I'm not arguing to have these particular bans increased. I'm questioning if the length reflects the seriousness of the issue in general.

    Well the thing is that we don't know what happened to be honest. Tough to tell if the sentence fitted the crime or indeed if there even was a crime without knowing what happened at the end of the day


  • Options
    #80
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Artful_Badger wrote: »
    As far as I recall all I have done is refer to the fact they were banned for bullying, which whether rightfully or wrongfully that's what they were banned for.

    So that's enough reason for you to continuously use the bullying label even though its actually only alleged bullying? I wonder if constantly labeling someone a bully is in fact bullying? Interesting conundrum to say the least.


  • Options
    #81
    Artful_Badger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    P_1 wrote: »
    Well the thing is that we don't know what happened to be honest. Tough to tell if the sentence fitted the crime or indeed if there even was a crime without knowing what happened at the end of the day

    Well we know that posters were deemed to have been bullying others. As I said in a previous post once a person is deemed to be bullying another it should be treated as an incident of bullying rather than still viewed as a number of actions. Those actions on their own may not be all that bad but the fact it all constitutes bullying makes it a very serious issue.

    So I dont feel like we need to know exactly what happened if we know the culmination of the investigation and that it ended with a particular offence being seen to be committed.

    To draw a comparison to sentencing for murder (this may not be a good idea :D ). Guy gets 2 years for murder. I say "2 years doesnt reflect the seriousness of the crime". Someone else says "Yeah but we dont know how he the murder happened". Murder is murder once its found to be murder and all you need to know to question the sentence is the offence the person is being sentenced for. And in my view bullying is bullying and the sentence should reflect the seriousness with which the website is taking the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Mr E
    Registered Users Posts: 55,516 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Guys, this thread is going around in circles. We (as admins) have asked Dav to respond in an official capacity, and that will most likely happen during office hours.

    I'm locking this up (for now).


  • Options
    #83
    Dav
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    So, here's what happened.

    A member reported to me that he was being harassed by members of the Thunderdome on another social media platform. This person was a part of the Thunderdome and it's "sign up and be abused" game. I'm not going to get into specifics, but I saw the evidence, I agreed it was out of order and harassment so I decided that to determine what sort of action needed taking, I had to read through what else was going on in that thread.

    In amongst the bile and vitriol, I saw a group of people had been using the PM system to send a picture of yet another member and laugh at him by posting about it in the public thread. This was against their own charter as well as the Boards.ie Ts & Cs and to compound matters, the mod of the forum was involved in it (and subsequently realised what they were doing was out of order and deleted the posts and told the others that such behaviour was unacceptable). I think we can all agree that this is closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.

    However, that right there, I call bullying. A concerted effort to find someone's real world identity, search for images of this person and then share them with anyone who asked for it to join in on the harassment. As I said, I call that bullying, others may disagree, but ultimately the matter falls to me to decide. So bearing in mind that I was looking at a very serious issue, I brought the other Admins in on what I was doing and head-checked my own thoughts against their collective brain. They agreed.

    This other member never reported it to me, I took this action myself. This other member had signed up for the thread too and maybe they didn't realise that this sort of behaviour was out of order - I don't know, I haven't spoken to this person - I didn't see the need to as I saw a clear breach of the rules. Something doesn't have to be reported for us to take action on it - generally speaking though, we don't really see things unless they are reported.

    So all parties involved were given a month off to remind them that these sorts of things are completely out of order - even for someone who has consented to be a part of the "game." The Dome was then closed because it was clear that despite all the assurances we had from this community when we wanted to close it initially, they weren't prepared to stick to the rules - we'd rather have given them a chance to keep their community going than just close it without recourse.

    Some of the people I banned seem to think that I have acted inappropriately. A lot of the people who've seen the bans thing that a month is way too lenient. Several people have said "sure it was bound to happen" but we thought that it's better to give people a chance to keep their community going with some modifications to behaviour. All I can say is that the Admin team thought long and hard about what to do in this case and weighed up circumstances and involvement from all and decided this was the correct course of action for this case.

    If/when a similar issue raises it's head again, it will be treated and discussed on its own merits and the "one month off" isn't some sort of "standard" punishment for this sort of issue.

    I hope that clears it all up.

    I'm leaving this thread closed as this is as much as I can say on this matter and I think I've covered everything that was raised in the OP's question.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement