That Case We Can't Mention.

humanji

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.

You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?

Deank

humanji wrote: »

You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?

So no comment on whether he was actually a boards mod then?

Cold War Kid

humanji wrote: »

You do realise that Boards hasn't allowed discussion of on going court cases from a while before Elaine O'Hara was murdered, right?

I'm not viewing the Boards moderator thing as a reason for discussion not being permitted (bit too conspiracy theory-ish - Boards hardly wants to protect someone like GD just because he may have volunteered here) but I can see why people are wondering why discussion of it is allowed elsewhere now that the verdict is in, but not on Boards.

humanji

Deank wrote: »

So no comment on whether he was actually a boards mod then?

No idea, to be honest.

Feline Groovy wrote: »

I'm not viewing the Boards moderator thing as a reason for discussion not being permitted (bit too conspiracy theory-ish - Boards hardly wants to protect someone like GD just because he may have volunteered here) but I can see why people are wondering why discussion of it is allowed elsewhere now that the verdict is in, but not on Boards.

It's a valid enough reason that's been given. It's silly, but that's the way the law is. Even in the mainstream media there's aspects of the case that they refuse to go into.

seventeen sheep

humanji wrote: »

It's a valid enough reason that's been given. It's silly, but that's the way the law is. Even in the mainstream media there's aspects of the case that they refuse to go into.

But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

Deank

seventeen sheep wrote: »

But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

It's like mentioning MCD all over again :rolleyes:

humanji

seventeen sheep wrote: »

But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

The thing is, the law apparently says it relates to cases before the courts, which this case is. While I think discussion should be allowed, if the law says it can't, then it can't. Regardless of what other sites do. There's no point saying other sites do it, so Boards should. That's not a valid defence in any court if Boards were to be sued or come under some sort of legal scrutiny.

It's a safe bet that Boards has been in contact with their legal reps on this, so they'll clarify probably on Monday when they're back in the office. Until then, there's not a whole heap any of us can do, and the mods will have to continue using the current site's policy on the matter.

Nodin

seventeen sheep wrote: »

But I'm not seeing that? As far as the mainstream media are concerned, there are no holds barred now that the verdict has been given. I'm seeing very personal and subjective opinions on every new site - websites where, up until now, they've been pointedly reporting the case on a very factual basis.

All the other websites have obeyed the law as the court case was ongoing, and are now allowing comments etc.

It's strange that Boards are making the website stand out as the one site that interprets (misinterprets?) the rules differently.

"foaming at the mouth" would be putting it mildly. It took me completely by surprise the language and tone being employed (and being employed so widely).

Can't blame the lads for carrying out orders over the weekend though.

seventeen sheep

Nodin wrote: »

Can't blame the lads for carrying out orders over the weekend though.

This case didn't come out of nowhere ... I don't blame the moderators for following instructions, but something has gone wrong somewhere. Surely instructions were given very well in advance.

If it was legal for this case to be openly discussed following the verdict, no reason it shouldn't be discussed on this website. If it's illegal, I'm interested to hear boards.ie position on how the law was violated by everyone else but obeyed by them.

My name is URL

Deank wrote: »

It's like mentioning MCD all over again :rolleyes:

The MCD thing was exceptional and kinda understandable though.

That's not really the case here. There are countless threads started about people who have just been convicted of crimes and this worry about appeals processes etc is never used as justification for completely shutting down discussion.

Anyway, imo any thread would turn to shit in no time. I'm actually kind of appalled by how it's being discussed and picked over in mainstream media. Some idiots on NewsTalk earlier moaning about a headline in the Irish Times yet spending an hour discussing the same thing!

I don't think that just because vultures like that are talking about it that Boards should necessarily allow it here.

Deank

My name is URL wrote: »

The MCD thing was exceptional and kinda understandable though.

Agree with you there, I was just making a point.

My name is URL wrote: »

That's not really the case here. There are countless threads started about people who have just been convicted of crimes and this worry about appeals processes etc is never used as justification for completely shutting down discussion.

So why shut this one down when a conviction has been passed, the only thing to come is sentencing, there's nothing going to be said here that can have any impact on the judges decision.

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyway, imo any thread would turn to shit in no time. I'm actually kind of appalled by how it's being discussed and picked over in mainstream media. Some idiots on NewsTalk earlier moaning about a headline in the Irish Times yet spending an hour discussing the same thing!

I don't think that just because vultures like that are talking about it that Boards should necessarily allow it here.

Really people are just voicing their dismay, that's perfectly natural.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Ok. Now I am understanding.

"waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/"

United Chester Men

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Now I am understanding.

"waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/"

haha! Sometimes that WW site hits the nail on the head!

heres the actual link though! http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2011/10/26/i-had-it-all-then-i-blew-itsacked-boards-ie-moderator-tells-all/

Nodin

Deank wrote: »

Agree with you there, I was just making a point.


So why shut this one down when a conviction has been passed, the only thing to come is sentencing, there's nothing going to be said here that can have any impact on the judges decision.


.................

.....going on the sunday papers that mention it, the word "restraint" seems to have been redefined for the moment.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/29/de-sunday-papers-101/

conorh91

My name is URL wrote: »

Anyway, imo any thread would turn to shit in no time. I'm actually kind of appalled by how it's being discussed and picked over in mainstream media. Some idiots on NewsTalk earlier moaning about a headline in the Irish Times yet spending an hour discussing the same thing!

I don't think that just because vultures like that are talking about it that Boards should necessarily allow it here.

+1

The reason many of us actually enjoy posting here is because it isn't full of the unmoderated sh1te you get elsewhere.

The legal concerns are obviously unnecessary, but as others have said, it's a matter of principle. Just because people are legally entitled to shoot their mouth off, doesn't make it a good idea.

padd b1975

He's probably blown his chances of getting a bump to C mod level now....:cool:

United Chester Men

conorh91 wrote: »

+1

The reason many of us actually enjoy posting here is because it isn't full of the unmoderated sh1te you get elsewhere.

The legal concerns are obviously unnecessary, but as others have said, it's a matter of principle. Just because people are legally entitled to shoot their mouth off, doesn't make it a good idea.

Conor, this isn't the point the majority of dissenters to this "silencing" are trying to make. It is the general legal concerns the moderators are claiming to have been instructed to abide by that people are bewildered/curious about. Personally I don't have much more to add to this ghastly case apart from discussing certain court procedures related to the trial and the Gardai investigation. But people who are questioning Boards stance on their position (which is the perogative of Boards authorities, no question) are simply questioning why the moderators were put into this position without proper legal source for them to explain to members who wish to discuss this and any other case post TRIAL.

I actually feel for the mods on this one as most of them wouldn't be versed in the ramifications of Trial discussion but the site should have readied themselves for this period and set up a thread explaining their decision to halt discussion until further notice and give a valid reason. And most would agree the sub judice rule at this juncture doesn't apply. or else every single other media outlet in Ireland is liable for a lawsuit considering the discussion of the case.

If you halted free speech on every topic just because it isn't a "good idea" and some may get offended/hurt by discussion we would live in a very subdued society.

conorh91

United Chester Men wrote: »

people who are questioning Boards stance on their position (which is the perogative of Boards authorities, no question) are simply questioning why the moderators were put into this position without proper legal source for them to explain to members who wish to discuss this and any other case post TRIAL.

I don't want to offend anyone working at Boards HQ but I suspect it's a ship on an extremely tight budget. I'd seriously doubt it's an outfit who can afford to circulate internal memos from counsel on the finer points of media law and the criminal process. Tbh, I'd doubt an opinion has been formally sought at all, except maybe casually. Companies like this tend to be instinctively conservative because they cannot afford not to be.

Maybe as the legal reality becomes clearer in the coming days, that will change.

United Chester Men

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't want to offend anyone working at Boards HQ but I suspect it's a ship on an extremely tight budget. I'd seriously doubt it's an outfit who can afford to circulate internal memos from counsel on the finer points of media law and the criminal process. Tbh, I'd doubt an opinion has been formally sought at all, except maybe casually. Companies like this tend to be instinctively conservative because they cannot afford not to be.

Maybe as the legal reality becomes clearer in the coming days, that will change.

This is a 17 year old site Conor, with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of threads. It is one of the largest social media sites on the island. It has overseen thousands of legal trials during these years and you mean to say the management team shouldn't be articulate in what is expected of them when such trials come along? The whole "sure we will say nothing just in case" is very amateurish if you ask me.

And it isn't costly to set up a thread with their legal stance on such discussion which the Mods can refer to when they are questioned by site contributors like me and you.

My name is URL

Apparently it says in the Mail on Sunday that Dwyer was 'removed' from boards in 2007 because people found his comments offensive.

Haven't seen the actual paper myself but it shows up on PressReader.com in a Google search

picture in case the result is removed..

seventeen sheep

I read that alright, username gdwyer (original!) Apparently he got angsty about people not doing a survey or something.

My name is URL

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I read that alright, username gdwyer (original!) Apparently he got angsty about people not doing a survey or something.

Definitely him alright!

Hello, I am an Architect doing a Masters Thesis in Urban Design

So obviously the following claim is bullcrap

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

He is a Boards moderator that's why it can't be discussed.

seventeen sheep

My name is URL wrote: »

Definitely him alright!



So obviously the following claim is bullcrap

Not necessarily ... If he rejoined later, no reason his new account would have been linked to the gdwyer one.

Rabbo

It's very eerie reading those posts now

United Chester Men

I think unless you are 100% sure of your facts re someones identity linked to a username you should end this discussion lads. I also think it is irrelevant at this stage and with almost a half million members on boards over the years it is hardly surprising if any given person is a member.

Luke92

I'm surprised nobody has posted in that thread he posted, to drag it back to the top.

seventeen sheep

United Chester Men wrote: »

I think unless you are 100% sure of your facts re someones identity linked to a username you should end this discussion lads

In fairness I doubt there are all that many architects with an interest in model aircraft that go by the name G Dwyer ...

Cold War Kid

He might have had another account, but I still don't see how that would be the reason for Boards not to allow discussion until after the sentencing. They are allowing discussion, just not yet.

United Chester Men

seventeen sheep wrote: »

In fairness I doubt there are all that many architects with an interest in model aircraft that go by the name G Dwyer ...

I amn't saying it isn't him. It more than likely is. And I am one of these people disputing the logic of this silencing of the Trial by Boards. But unless you are 100 % sure (which you cannot be at this point) you are verging on potentially defaming someone. Discuss it by all means but I anticipate the mods will delete it.

It is just giving the Mods stronger reasoning to keep this discussion ban up.

johnny osbourne

the conversation would be unmoderaterable

Nodin

Now on RTE a "primetime special" on the case.......

Zaph

OK, we're now getting into speculation of Boards members real identities, which as I'm sure everyone remembers is against the Terms of Use:

You agree, through use of this service, NOT to use boards.ie to:

* identify or speculate as to the identity of any anonymous or pseudonymous user

The guys will be back in the office in the morning and I'm going to direct them to this thread so they can tell everyone what is and isn't permitted, but in the meantime I'm locking it to prevent any further speculation or general silliness.