You'd make a great paparazzi reporter.
Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function
- Thread starter holybishop
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You'd make a great paparazzi reporter.
It depends - which is the same with almost all of these skits, it depends. People want some kind of hard and fast yes/no rule that they can apply to everything and there just isn't one.
That distinction doesn't apply now and hasn't applied for a very long time. Most workplaces no longer treat unofficial or non-affiliated events as being off-limits for sanctions if the behaviour is bad enough.
Haha and you'd make a great Commisariat for Communications.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. All they did is make a complaint, which they have every right to do.
They didn't ask for $20,000 fines and suspensions. Probably just a personal and private apology from the parties involved would have done the trick for them, and a voucher or three from a sponsor wouldn't have hurt.
The fines, the suspensions and the publicity - that's the AFL's fault.
Wrong.
Even the venue's label such events as "private" functions.
If staff are leaking information of events to outside parties then they need their sorry arses fired.
I work for a asx50 company and our line communicated from our MD that a gathering of colleagues outside of the workplace does not constitute a work event. If the business is paying, different story.
Ie sort it out yourself if you have issue with someone else's behavior
There are a few things i think people miss with these sorts of controversies.
Firstly, joking or making light of something isn’t the same as supporting or condoning it. Humour is about crossing lines and so much of the best comedy is ‘dark’ in this way.
Second, context is important. We aren’t members of the GwS list, so when these antics are described to us in a clinical and journalistic way, they of course come across as unfunny and weird. We don’t ‘get it’, and how would we? There’s a reason the saying ‘you had to be there’ is a bit of a trope.
Firstly, joking or making light of something isn’t the same as supporting or condoning it. Humour is about crossing lines and so much of the best comedy is ‘dark’ in this way.
Second, context is important. We aren’t members of the GwS list, so when these antics are described to us in a clinical and journalistic way, they of course come across as unfunny and weird. We don’t ‘get it’, and how would we? There’s a reason the saying ‘you had to be there’ is a bit of a trope.
I don't think you know what that means.
It's the opposite of wanting people to be able to poke fun of whoever they like
"Private" just means exclusive and not open to the general public, it doesn't mean "our lips are sealed and we keep your secrets".
When we refer to the "private sector" or "private ownership", we pretty clearly don't mean "everything is a secret".
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 28,899
- 104,946
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,786
I think you will find you are very much incorrect
Yeah that has changed over the years, hasn't it.
I remember sending around emails organising the pub on the last day of work - you'd always have the old "this is not an official work sanctioned event" tacked on.
Then we got training saying you could still be in violation of workplace rules if you did bad shit.
Then we got training saying it can be considered bullying (or something) if you don't invite everyone. (Like it can be mean to exclude people but sometimes you just have separate groups at work you know)
To think if we all followed the "Don't be a dick" rule we wouldn't need all of this imposed upon us.
Well that's nonsense.
They let them off with next to no punishment for doing illicit drugs.
Yes, that's the case for us too (I work for a global aerospace company), because the company does NOT want to be held legally liable if things go wrong.
However, it is made clear that our behaviour in such an event is still subject to sanction. For example, someone tried to inappropriately corner and crack onto an intern half their age at an unofficial Christmas pissup a few years ago and almost got sacked (but for the intern refusing to press it).
I think you'll find I've worked far more of these types of events than you have.
If we had staff spreading shit to outside of the event they are gone.
Private means private.
So if some young girls having a 21st get a bit loose you think it's fine for the venue staff to review and share, maybe post the cctv online ? What if there is nudity involved either deliberately or accidental wardrobe malfunction
I know what it means, I was just surprised at your censorious stance given your libertarian leanings, I couldn't help but poke you with the commie stick.I don't think you know what that means.
It's the opposite of wanting people to be able to poke fun of whoever they like
The intention was that this function was to be private, no public 'knowledge' of the event.
So yeah for all intents and purposes, it was absolutely a private event.
The only thing that made it public was that someone(s) has found offence and informed the AFL, not a member of the public, likely a hotel employee(s).
If that didn't happen we wouldn't have 70 odd pages of virtue signalers vs virtue signalers, losing their shit about the hypocrisy of the AFL and the bleeding hearts oh so at the ready to condemn the players and anyone with a skerrick of sympathy for the players.
Yes it can.
There's so much shit going on out there that players do that never gets reported because venue and their staff are often worded up to keep it in house.
I've worked security, I know this for a fact.
Dill thanking the informer.
I'd bet my house and life savings he's not thankful, couldn't have a safer bet.
Nothing surer if this didn't go public, it wouldn't be discussed.
I'd bet my house and life savings he's not thankful, couldn't have a safer bet.
Nothing surer if this didn't go public, it wouldn't be discussed.
Yeah, it's a bit of a bit each way but I kind of get it to be honest.
Legally speaking, if for example somebody had their drink spiked or got sexually assaulted, the company (rightly) doesn't want to be liable for providing an unsafe environment for their employees.
But on the other hand, if a bunch of your employees - known to be your employees - behaved like absolute douchebags a la private schoolboys on the train singing misogynistic songs, then HR wants to have that kind of thing in their back pocket.
If you invited literally everyone except one single person as a real High School move, then yeah, I get it. It's probably also written around the old trope of senior exec teams having boozy client lunches at girly clubs full well knowing that the one female exec wouldn't go.
Muddiemoose
Moderator
- Aug 24, 2017
- 28,899
- 104,946
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #1,797
Of course not, and that isn’t what has happened so let’s not try and act like it’s the same thing
A staff member complained and passed the footage onto the afl who were conducting a investigation on the complaint
I'm not censoring anything.
I'm railing against the losers who prop up the pathetic industry that love to report on people's private lives constantly.
Then this person shouldn't have been there.
Yeah, if they are worded up beforehand and given the genuine option to back out (and I do mean a genuine option, not just "you've got the choice to do this or quit your job), that's completely different.
Similar threads
