Rumour Multiple GWS players are set to be suspended to start the 2025 season after distasteful costumes and skits from their post-season function

[Orange crush]

View attachment 2146957

 

[EagleShore]

The genital thing was more a reference to things you can do at home that you can’t do in a ‘private’ function.

Dark humour is such a silly term here. If what they were doing was offensive then humour has nothing to do with it. Maybe the staff members felt intimidated, maybe they did say something, maybe they said to their manager they didn’t want to host a function like that again, I don’t know, neither do you.

On your example, power imbalance would be a situation when someone may report them anonymously and a ceo may sanction - junior member of staff concerned, senior member making inappropriate comments.

Your last paragraph is utter nonsense. If GWS have so unfairly treated they will appeal these sanctions. AFL clubs appeal sanctions all the time, even when most would say they haven’t been unfairly treated.

Dark humour by definition has the potential to offend, and thus the two concepts are inextricably linked, especially in modern society where some people choose to deliberately misinterpret the intentions of others in order to take offence. It is therefore central to this issue, in my opinion.

If you have read the response by David Matthews (GWS CEO) to their members, you will see that it reads as though it has come directly from AFL house, and includes the disingenuous claim that "The players involved apologised unreservedly for their behaviour and have taken responsibility for contravening the standards we expect in relation to respect, equality, inclusion and safety."

While I admit that this is speculation, I would bet my house that some, if not all, of the players involved do not actually truly agree with the sentiments in the CEO's statement.

If you genuinely believe what you wrote in the second bolded part, you would be deluded because such a belief would not be possible unless The GWS Giants were truly independent from the AFL, AND they had not applied a cost:benefit analysis to their response, ie. it is foreseeable that they would incur more costs should they defend their players than any possible benefit derived from doing so.

This is akin to why people representing organisations tend to have a private opinion and a public opinion on such issues.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

Dark humour by definition has the potential to offend, and thus the two concepts are inextricably linked, especially in modern society where some people choose to deliberately misinterpret the intentions of others in order to take offence. It is therefore central to this issue, in my opinion.

If you have read the response by David Matthews (GWS CEO) to their members, you will see that it reads as though it has come directly from AFL house, and includes the disingenuous claim that "The players involved apologised unreservedly for their behaviour and have taken responsibility for contravening the standards we expect in relation to respect, equality, inclusion and safety."

While I admit that this is speculation, I would bet my house that some, if not all, of the players involved do not actually truly agree with the sentiments in the CEO's statement.

If you genuinely believe what you wrote in the second bolded part, you would be deluded because such a belief would not be possible unless The GWS Giants were truly independent from the AFL, AND they had not applied a cost:benefit analysis to their response, ie. it is foreseeable that they would incur more costs should they defend their players than any possible benefit in doing so.

This is akin to why people representing organisations tend to have a private opinion and a public opinion on such issues.

They’re AFL sanctions, not legal sanctions, it will cost 2/10ths of bugger all to appeal.

I know what dark humour is, in the context of this thread though it has been bastardised to mean anything people want it too, and as such, is silly.

Whenever the bush lawyers come out, you know the thread has jumped the shark. If this is so egregious, GWS will appeal - if not, well, that speaks for itself.

 

[EagleShore]

The moment you get into court, the fact that AFL players have different cultural expectations on their behaviour and get given greater social leeway goes out the window.

They're employees who, hypothetically at least, got disciplined for performing a rape skit at an unsanctioned employee event, where the venue put in a behaviour complaint back to the company. For most people, that is the kind of thing where you'd be lucky to keep your job.

You can't just throw up your hands and say, "but what is a reasonable person nowadays!", and have all such clauses declared null and void.

Was it an unsanctioned event, though?

And the problem with your assertions here is this: where is the line drawn in specific terms? And who is responsible for determining where that line is drawn?

Some people here have suggested that the 9/11 skit/dress-up is offensive...I mean, seriously? Whose standards do we apply, and why? It's not like the players knocked on the door of a family member of someone who died in the collapse of those three towers and played out a skit involving planes flying into buildings.

 

[EagleShore]

They’re AFL sanctions, not legal sanctions, it will cost 2/10ths of bugger all to appeal.

I know what dark humour is, in the context of this thread though it has been bastardised to mean anything people want it too, and as such, is silly.

Whenever the bush lawyers come out, you know the thread has jumped the shark. If this is so egregious, GWS will appeal - if not, well, that speaks for itself.

I suggest that the idea of dark humour in this context would be defined by the acts that were alleged to have occurred...dressing up as an alleged rapist and screwing a blow up doll, and dressing up as a building and a plane with the latter hitting the former in reference to an aspect of the events of 9/11, or a scene from a ****en movie depicting slavery.

 

[iameviljez]

Whenever the bush lawyers come out, you know the thread has jumped the shark. If this is so egregious, GWS will appeal - if not, well, that speaks for itself.

It’s the equivalent of saying that the player will take the AFL to court in trade week

 

[iameviljez]

Was it an unsanctioned event, though?

And the problem with your assertions here is this: where is the line drawn in specific terms? And who is responsible for determining where that line is drawn?

Some people here have suggested that the 9/11 skit/dress-up is offensive...I mean, seriously? Whose standards do we apply, and why? It's not like the players knocked on the door of a family member of someone who died in the collapse of those three towers and played out a skit involving planes flying into buildings.

“Reasonable person” is a long standing legal term that has stood many such questions before.

 

[kickazz]

No, anti-dobbing culture comes from the fact you’re dobbing to the most powerful entity you can find and thus siding with power.

Yeah this is a really good point.

If you are appealing to the powerful entity because you have no power, say like a small kid getting bullied at school telling the teacher, maybe that's all you've got and is ok?

If you are doing it just to be petty and enjoy currying favour of the powerful that is shit.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I suggest that the idea of dark humour in this context would be defined by the acts that were alleged to have occurred...dressing up as an alleged rapist and screwing a blow up doll, and dressing up as a building and a plane with the latter hitting the former in reference to an aspect of the events of 9/11, or a scene from a ****en movie depicting slavery.

I suggest you re enact what you have described at your next work get together, in the function room to be accurate. I’d be interested in the outcome.

 

[HairyO]

The statement says the sanctions were disproportionate and set without due process

But say nothing about telling the players to refuse to accept them.

 

[Orange crush]

But say nothing about telling the players to refuse to accept them.

Indeed …. It fell short in my opinion but did put afl house in a somewhat negative light

 

[captainMyCaptain]

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Was it an unsanctioned event, though?

And the problem with your assertions here is this: where is the line drawn in specific terms? And who is responsible for determining where that line is drawn?

Some people here have suggested that the 9/11 skit/dress-up is offensive...I mean, seriously? Whose standards do we apply, and why? It's not like the players knocked on the door of a family member of someone who died in the collapse of those three towers and played out a skit involving planes flying into buildings.

The AFL. They’re the ultimate employer. It’s got nothing to do with you.

Why are people acting like this is a law and order issue? It’s not. It’s between employee and employer.

 

[Chief]

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.

Doesn't sound like the person who put in the complaint was even working the event.

So there's that.

Doesn't sound like a private function then does it, genius?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

View attachment 2146963

Yes, they made submissions and the penalties may have been lessened as a consequence, they then agreed with the penalties.

I contend that there shouldn't be any penalties at all.

Instead of footballers being thought of dumb, entitled and having too much money, I think this has generated a large groundswell of support for them from the general community against the AFL and I wish they had, led by the AFLPA challenged the AFL properly instead of a limp wristed response and then eventually rolling over to have their tummy tickled.

Perhaps like the NRL did back in the day, the AFL simps could start with a shot across the bow and take them to court over the draft and trading.

 

[EagleShore]

The AFL. They’re the ultimate employer. It’s got nothing to do with you.

Why are people acting like this is a law and order issue? It’s not. It’s between employee and employer.

I am only using the law and order aspect as a proxy for determining right and wrong. Also, the AFL does not directly employ the players, though there is some jurisdiction as to the governance of standards of behaviour.

My opinion is that using dark humour as part of distasteful entertainment within a group situation that was supposed to be a private affair insofar as the general public were not supposed to be privy to what was going on, is not a problem for society.

For me, I suppose I best summarise my perspective as this - I view the cost to society of this type of "policing" of the non-illegal behaviour of others as outweighing the potential benefit derived from curbing the silly, nonsense behaviour of a group of people who are just letting their hair down after a stressful work year. Telling sick jokes, or acting out in a silly distasteful manner some terrible things that have happened in society DOES NOT constitute support for actually carrying out such acts in real life. Seth MacFarlane does not support terrorism simply because he made jokes about 9/11 in one of his shows.

Everyone draws the line on the spectrum in a different spot...as a libertarian minded person, I have the spot drawn as close to what is legally tolerated as possible. Some, like you and the AFL, draw the line further along the spectrum towards censorship of anything that may possibly cause offence to anyone at any time.

As to whether the AFL have the right to issue suspensions and fines as they did, of course they do. This does not mean that everyone has to like it, or agree with it. Indeed, there are most probably some people in our Australian society who believe that the AFL was too soft and that perhaps all of the players involved should be sacked.

Again, everyone draws the line along the spectrum in a different spot.

 

[Chief]

I think this has generated a large groundswell of support for them from the general community against the AFL

I think you might be experiencing false consensus.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

I think you might be experiencing false consensus.

I think you spend too much time here in your echo chamber.

 

[Chief]

I think you spend too much time here in your echo chamber.

Have a cry.

 

[Satan]

So the club paid for it

 

[Consolaçao]

Rape specifically is a problem here above others, because it's a uniquely traumatic experience that a lot of people - particularly, but not exclusively women - carry with them while they try and go about their day to day lives.

No doubt it’s traumatic.

Death is also traumatic (arguably moreso) and yet it’s a ready source of comedic material for people in societies with the lowest murder rates in human history. I think it’s really obvious that to joke is not to condone.

I do get what you’re saying though. For someone genuinely traumatised by rape (or any other crime) it must be hard to hear people making light of the thing that torments you.

In my view, the solution is for people who don’t want to be exposed to dark humour to avoid it where possible. Where they're unwittingly exposed to it, maybe it’s just a price to be paid for living in a free society?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It's not about someone taking 'offence'.

It's that your actions reveal your character, and that every organisation has behavioural standards and expectations. The AFL isn't alone in this.

Dressing up as a rapist and simulating a rape on a sex doll? That's just plain wrong. You would cop the full brunt of the boss's wrath for doing that in any decent workplace, and any decent bloke would call out a friend for doing that in private, too.

We don't know the full details but most of the other incidents reveal some pretty ordinary thinking and character too, and certainly inappropriate for the workplace:

• joking about 9/11 and simulating the attacks that caused the deaths of thousands of people? That's pretty bad
• re-enacting a movie about slavery with a black team-mate? My god.. that's just indefensible

That's appalling behaviour amongst friends, colleagues or anywhere and the fact that the GWS leadership group sat through it and let it roll on... sheesh.

Let alone that this is a public industry, where image is everything, and an industry where concerns about both sexual violence and treatment of people with colour have a pretty big history too...

It's an all-time 'what on earth were they thinking' situation and the fact that the Giants and their administrators have copped the penalties and committed to internal action as well is at least a start

IF there's any criticism possible for the AFL here it is that they appear to have issued the harshest sanctions on fringe players (including a guy who has been delisted) and not on some of the senior players who were involved as well

No the criticism for the afl is if they really cared about violence against women or abuse they would stop taking gambling revenue tomorrow and they would ban the clubs from doing it too.

The afl have no interest in public safety or the rights of vulnerable people at all, they just manage things in a fake PR way and people like you fall for it

If you are going to be hypocritical at least be honest about it-the afl can't even do that. The entire 'leadership' at the afl is rotten.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Going back to less woke times, were there penalties for "engaging" with a schoolgirl and setting fire to a height challenged person?

 

[iameviljez]

Death is also traumatic (arguably moreso) and yet it’s a ready source of comedic material for people in societies with the lowest murder rates in human history. I think it’s really obvious that to joke is not to condone.

Death isn't PTSD traumatic, IMO, unless it's a gory death that happens right in front of you. It's not graphic, it's not invasive, and if it's something that's done to you then you ain't going to any comedy gigs afterwards

I think we need to separate out grief from trauma here, too. Death induces grief much more so than trauma.

The other thing is that death is a leveller, it happens around everyone, and, eventually, to everyone.

 

[Consolaçao]

No the criticism for the afl is if they really cared about violence against women or abuse they would stop taking gambling revenue tomorrow and they would ban the clubs from doing it too.

The afl have no interest in public safety or the rights of vulnerable people at all, they just manage things in a fake PR way and people like you fall for it

If you are going to be hypocritical at least be honest about it-the afl can't even do that. The entire 'leadership' at the afl is rotten.

I feel for the AFL. They’ve taken the commercially-expedient pathway, which i think is also the ethically questionable one.

But they’re a commercial organisation. When they take a moral stance, it’s only because that stance is also the one that happens to be better for their brand.

If i were running the comp, where i’m judged on commercial KPIs, i’d have done what they did.

The real problem is us and the media (social and traditional) that manipulates us into responding emotionally to absolutely everything.