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

Banned from Politics!

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Who exactly are you to demand anything from OscarBravo? When you have the power to over turn a ban, I'm sure he'll get back to you.


  • Options
    #63
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    Boston wrote:
    Who exactly are you to demand anything from OscarBravo? When you have the power to over turn a ban, I'm sure he'll get back to you.
    Nice try boston, I'm around here too long to fall for your pathetic attempts at trolling. Back to the FAQ or Newbie forum with ya...


  • Options
    #64
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Hobart wrote:
    Nice try boston, I'm around here too long to fall for your pathetic attempts at trolling. Back to the FAQ or Newbie forum with ya...

    I've never posted in either. Seriously who do you think you are to be demanding such things from anyone, let alone telling me where to post?


  • Options
    #65
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    As far as I'm concerned, in no case is there to be allowed the accusation of lying levelled against any person(s). This is so for valid reasons that I'm positive I do not need to get into. However, the link in a signature to a blog containing such accusations, and whether or not that is to be allowed is surely a policy matter for forum moderators, unless and until the site administrators specify otherwise.

    The distinction is that to my mind, a link to defamatory material is defensible from the point of view of the site. It is still a grey area as far as the law is concerned, but it would appear to me that a competent lawyer could show that links on the internet do not count as publication.

    Legal aspects aside, it seems that the case at hand is one of a poster taking on a one-man mission to flout the rules that have been laid down in the politics forum. I'm not sure to what extent site policy addresses this, so until there is further direction from on high, the matter can suitably be dealt with by the moderators in question. Here, those moderators are doubtlessly among the most competent on the site, and I do not see that they have done anything here to change that view.


  • Options
    #66
    tbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭tbh


    Boston wrote:
    I wasn't, thats my point. You wheren't either, so comments about 'rights' to complain are just speaking out of turn since you don't know that he had any such 'right'.

    ahhh, so your comments about "sticking your oar in" was just you....ahem....sticking your oar in?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    bubonicus
    Registered Users Posts: 715 ✭✭✭bubonicus


    hullaball&#250 wrote:
    As far as I'm concerned, in no case is there to be allowed the accusation of lying levelled against any person(s). This is so for valid reasons that I'm positive I do not need to get into. However, the link in a signature to a blog containing such accusations, and whether or not that is to be allowed is surely a policy matter for forum moderators, unless and until the site administrators specify otherwise.


    what happens if you say it's your opinion the person(s) are/is lying?


  • Options
    #68
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    tbh wrote:
    ahhh, so your comments about "sticking your oar in" was just you....ahem....sticking your oar in?

    To a degree yes. In fact anyone without the full details and history are. I happen to know mroe about it then Ibid but far less then the parties involved.


  • Options
    #69
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    hullaball&#250 wrote:
    Legal aspects aside, it seems that the case at hand is one of a poster taking on a one-man mission to flout the rules that have been laid down in the politics forum. I'm not sure to what extent site policy addresses this, so until there is further direction from on high, the matter can suitably be dealt with by the moderators in question. Here, those moderators are doubtlessly among the most competent on the site, and I do not see that they have done anything here to change that view.
    I don't disagree with anything you have said. I simply don't see where rules were flouted.


  • Options
    #70
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,712 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    bubonicus wrote:
    what happens if you say it's your opinion the person(s) are/is lying?
    There's no distinction there, contrary to popular belief. It's still defamatory. What happens is that the defence works differently, and is slightly easier to show.
    Hobart wrote:
    I don't disagree with anything you have said. I simply don't see where rules were flouted.
    He's been warned before on numerous occasions about this sort of thing. I posted in a thread in politics at one point to outline where to be careful, and he seemed to accept that. I'm not fully au fait with the workings of the politics forum, but have had a considerable level of contact from the moderators about irish1.

    I cannot tell you where exactly he has broken the rules, because I don't particularly read all of his posts in politics. What I can say is that he has been a concern for the politics moderators for quite some time, and I have been asked to consider quite a number of his posts. I can only deduce that he has been digging for loopholes in the forum rules. That sort of peskiness may require a ban for any user. In this case, since he had been permanently banned in the past, and readmitted on strict conditions, I don't see that there is a problem with a feather-light pressure triggering reinstatement of the ban.

    As I have said, the administrators may well see things differently. I can only lend my opinions insofar as I have had some involvement in the matter.


  • Options
    #71
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    hullaball&#250 wrote:
    There's no distinction there, contrary to popular belief. It's still defamatory. What happens is that the defence works differently, and is slightly easier to show.


    He's been warned before on numerous occasions about this sort of thing. I posted in a thread in politics at one point to outline where to be careful, and he seemed to accept that. I'm not fully au fait with the workings of the politics forum, but have had a considerable level of contact from the moderators about irish1.

    I cannot tell you where exactly he has broken the rules, because I don't particularly read all of his posts in politics. What I can say is that he has been a concern for the politics moderators for quite some time, and I have been asked to consider quite a number of his posts. I can only deduce that he has been digging for loopholes in the forum rules. That sort of peskiness may require a ban for any user. In this case, since he had been permanently banned in the past, and readmitted on strict conditions, I don't see that there is a problem with a feather-light pressure triggering reinstatement of the ban.

    As I have said, the administrators may well see things differently. I can only lend my opinions insofar as I have had some involvement in the matter.

    I can appreciate that he can be a distraction (so can many others) and I can also understand that he may have been on his "last warning" so to speak.

    While you may not be able to point out the offending post, may Rock Climber can (or one of the other politics mods) as it was he who banned him in the first place.

    Being a pain in the ass should not and does not preclude one from posting on these boards, if it did the place would be a lot quieter.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hobart wrote:
    I'm not. I'm looking at the facts.
    Actually, you're looking at a subset of the facts and jumping to a conclusion.
    Hobart wrote:
    Tell you what OB, this is easily cleared up. Link me (us) to the post on politics which finally broke the camels back, and that should put to bed any ambiguity.
    I'll be happy to, immediately after you link me to the rule that says I'm only allowed to ban a poster for a single post that unambiguously breaches a clearly stated rule.


  • Options
    #73
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,562 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    oscarBravo wrote:
    I'll be happy to, immediately after you link me to the rule that says I'm only allowed to ban a poster for a single post that unambiguously breaches a clearly stated rule.

    I don't think anyone is saying that, but certainly to an outsider like me this stinks to high heaven.

    I've no doubt that Irish1 is a right PITA as demontrated by his posts on this thread. However he seems to have some reasonably well thought out arguments and could well be viewed to be in the right on this whole thing going way back.

    Banning him now for dubious and hidden reasons certainly doesn't seem right, whatever about it being justified it certainly isn't seen to be justified.

    As for Boston, this is feedback, anyone has the right to give their opinion. I'm sure if and when you get a ban apparently for something you post on feedback you'll be glad that there can be a free and frank exchange of views.
    As I'm sure the politics mods (maybe above others) are happy to listen to other peoples opinions whether they agree with them or not.


  • Options
    #74
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    tbh wrote:
    ahhh, so your comments about "sticking your oar in" was just you....ahem....sticking your oar in?
    Feedback is made easier by adding Boston's oar to your ignore list.


  • Options
    #75
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Hobart wrote:
    I can appreciate that he can be a distraction (so can many others) and I can also understand that he may have been on his "last warning" so to speak.
    I get the impression you may not have read the Politics Rules discussion thread linked to earlier.

    From my reading of it (and I read it before I posted on this thread), irish1 started his usual questioning/harassing of the Mods/modding - something he was forbidden to do if allowed back from a permban. That really is straight forward, as sigs, Feedback threads, etc. do not nullify this fact.

    I agree it's bad form if the ban was a result of this thread. But the time line suggests Rockclimber came along in the evening after reading the usual tripe form irish1 in the Discussion Rules thread from the day and issued a ban for it. He announced it in FB and in the Discussion Rules thread also. Only he can say if the FB thread caused a ban.
    Hobart wrote:
    Being a pain in the ass should not and does not preclude one from posting on these boards, if it did the place would be a lot quieter.
    Boston is proof of that. His sole contribution to this issue was to repeat something I said, and criticise everyone else's view point. Complete trolling.

    Having said that, you are suggesting that the constant harassment of Mods by irish1 is okay and should continue. There is a line there between "pain in the ass" and "harassment", irish1 crossed it before, got permbanned, got a reprieve, and crossed it again. Cut and shut, really.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    copacetic wrote:
    Banning him now for dubious and hidden reasons certainly doesn't seem right, whatever about it being justified it certainly isn't seen to be justified.
    Whats dubvious and hidden about it?
    In Post number 3 and 8 on this very thread,2 things were clarified (1) The reason for irish1's previous lengthy ban together with the condition he was let back in and (2)That (a) he conveniently omitted this information when he mentioned his previous ban and (b) he had to be corrected on the facts regarding that ban.

    To this his only reply was a form of personal abuse.

    While I'm here I'd like to clarify one more thing,It is my understanding that the ban was announced on this forum and in politics almost simultaneously.
    It would have been announced solely on the politics forum were it not for the fact that politics mods understandably don't like having pm conversations with irish1 any more(given his previous form harassing us with them) and it seemed reasonable to inform irish1 of his banning via his own feedback thread.


  • Options
    #77
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    I second cast_iron's comments - from the point of view of what's visible to us all, including the Feedback thread and the Discussion of the rules thread in politics, it's clear that irish1 is hell-bent on avoiding the rule that has been repeatedly stated and clarified for him (specifically stated as "don't call someone a liar unless you can provide proof", where lying entails knowingly misleading someone) and is going out of his way to kick up a fuss about the whole issue, on the basis of claims that the rule has not been enforced in the past. Claims he hasn't backed up, I might mention again as it's an important point which is being ignored or missed.

    Yes, it's an unusual situation. Yes, he's entitled to question the rules, as is anyone else. But, seriously Hobart, read the last few pages of the Discussion of the rules thread and tell me that, for a poster who had already been permabanned for harrassing mods about how the forum was managed, his conduct didn't merit a ban.

    Put it this way. Consider a poster in Horse Racing who repeatedly posts potentially libelous statements (such as "Horse owner X cheats and dopes his horses") without linking to proof. Upon being told off about doing this, he responds angrily that such statements have been allowed in the past, but does not provide proof of this either, instead telling you that if you look for the evidence you will find it. Then you find out that the poster had previously been permabanned from Horse Racing and was only allowed back in on sufferance. Would you not consider the poster's resurging disrespect for the mods of the forum sufficient reason to ban them?


  • Options
    #78
    DeepBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭DeepBlue


    Fysh wrote:
    I second cast_iron's comments - from the point of view of what's visible to us all, including the Feedback thread and the Discussion of the rules thread in politics, it's clear that irish1 is hell-bent on avoiding the rule that has been repeatedly stated and clarified for him<snip>

    But he didn't actually break the rule (how could he as he hasn't even posted in the Mahon thread :confused: ) but nevertheless he's still been banned. If he had actually broken the rule then there would have been a reason to impose a ban. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he actually posted what you claim he was trying to post.
    Should members be banned on the basis that maybe they might break a rule?

    I can fully appreciate how he's been irritating and annoying from the pov of the mods and clearly he's got under their skin but he hasn't used any derogatory language in his posts towards the mods. He's been persistently making his case - albeit not very well and in a repetitive manner.


  • Options
    #79
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    copacetic: I respect the rules of whatever forum I post one, with the effect that my posting style varies significantly from forum to forum.
    cast_iron wrote:
    Boston is proof of that. His sole contribution to this issue was to repeat something I said, and criticise everyone else's view point. Complete trolling.

    I love that I'm being held up as an example of how to be an asshole and not get banned for it. lol.

    Ibid for the next twenty minutes i will be looking at your post. That should be enough attention for you.


  • Options
    #80
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,562 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    Tristrame wrote:
    Whats dubvious and hidden about it?
    In Post number 3 and 8 on this very thread,2 things were clarified (1) The reason for irish1's previous lengthy ban together with the condition he was let back in and (2)That (a) he conveniently omitted this information when he mentioned his previous ban and (b) he had to be corrected on the facts regarding that ban.

    To this his only reply was a form of personal abuse.


    Well I'm sorry but that is just more obfuscation and more talk about his previous banning.

    What is dubious and hidden imo is the actual reason for his current ban.

    Lets be honest here, if it is just that the politics mods don't want him around, just say it. There are a lot of long posts here which imo are just noise to try and obscure the fact that there is no real reason for this new ban. Imo you guys have been waiting for an excuse to ban him and have jumped the gun.

    Now perhaps I am missing something, I'm not saying I know all the ins and outs and I mentioned above I am posting as an outsider who reads the politics forum on occasion but rarely posts.

    However it has mainly been the poor attitude of the politics mods on this thread leads me to my opinion.


  • Options
    #81
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Btw, I should add, this is what the mods get for giving irish1 a chance in the first place. I doubt that mistake will happen twice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    DeepBlue wrote:
    But he didn't actually break the rule (how could he as he hasn't even posted in the Mahon thread ) but nevertheless he's still been banned. If he had actually broken the rule then there would have been a reason to impose a ban. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he actually posted what you claim he was trying to post.
    Should members be banned on the basis that maybe they might break a rule?

    Sorry, I should've been clearer there. The rule I was referring to is the one OscarBravo mentioned - no calling anyone a liar unless you can prove it. Given that the tribunal is underway there hasn't been an official conclusion as to whether Ahern knowingly misled the public, thus one cannot strictly speaking provide evidence for claims that he definitively is a liar. However, looking through irish1's posts on that thread you can see he's pretty much itching to label Bertie a big fat liar (starting around here) despite the fact that it was clarified in this post in July (!) - his only response to that clarification has been to repeat, ad nauseaum, that there wasn't always such a rule in place.

    Edited to add quote and clarify post


  • Options
    #83
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    OK lets get something straight here as Ibid has said he and others have accused Politicans up north of all sorts of things and when someone brought it to the attention of a mod the mod simply asked them to state it was their opinion and allowed the accusations to remain.

    Now I read the Tribunal transcripts and drew an opinion from them I gave my opinion and gave linkage to why I had formed that opinion however in this case I wasn't allowed to post my opinion as the mods decided that Bertie deserved special rules.

    I asked a mod in the Politics thread if he would explain why this is the case and he said "NO" so I said I would start a thread here and I was told to work away.

    Now two Politics mods continued to reply to my posts and never once warned that my posts were in breach of the rules, however another mod comes onto this thread and just bans me without giving reason, I sent one pm asking if I could get a link to the post I had made which broke the rules however I got no reply.

    When I was re-admitted to the forum I was told not to send PM's to the mods about modding decisions I WAS NEVER TOLD I couldn't discuss the rules within the rules thread in Politics or start a Feedback thread.

    If the mods have banned me because they personally don't like me just come out and say so, but I don't understand how two mods can reply to each post I made without finding issue with them and then another mod come in and ban me.

    I may be a pain in the ass because I hold an opinion that others don't like but I don't see what I have done wrong here.


  • Options
    #84
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,010 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    lol

    This really makes me laugh. There are things on boards that you can get away with which would shame the long winded posts that jump through hoops to skirt around issues here. Why is liar being held up on a pedestal when other far more serious accusations are not? Did Bertie boy only ever tell the truth? I do not think he did. Can that be construed as accusing the man of lying? Maybees aye, maybees naw. Verbal mumbo jumbo tbh.

    As an aside, it is very obvious Rocky banned Irish1 because of something said in this thread! Was it valid to do that? I have no idea although let us call a spade a spade and not skirt around the issue.


  • Options
    #85
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    If you actually read my posts Boston you would know only too well I am not an apologist for the IRA.


  • Options
    #86
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Sorry, your right, replace IRA with sinn fein in the above post.


  • Options
    #87
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Thank you and seeing as Sinn Fein are a legal Political party my support of them in the past should have nothing to do with this topic.


  • Options
    #88
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    irish1 wrote:
    OK lets get something straight here as Ibid has said he and others have accused Politicans up north of all sorts of things and when someone brought it to the attention of a mod the mod simply asked them to state it was their opinion and allowed the accusations to remain.

    And yet you've failed, so far, to link to a single example of where this has happened recently, or where OscarBravo has explicitly stated that such posts are acceptable when they were highlighted to him. Surely it can't be that hard to find an example if they're so numerous?
    irish1 wrote:
    Now I read the Tribunal transcripts and drew an opinion from them I gave my opinion and gave linkage to why I had formed that opinion however in this case I wasn't allowed to post my opinion as the mods decided that Bertie deserved special rules.

    Hahahaha, it's such a dishonest misrepresentation of the facts that laughing is pretty much the only way forward. The clarification as to why you're not allowed to launch into a "he's a liar" rant was provided best in this post - ie that until the Tribunal is complete, no formally recognised verdict will have been reached as to whether an intentional misleading of the public was committed, thus making your statements potentially libelous and therefore risky for boards.ie to publish.
    irish1 wrote:
    I asked a mod in the Politics thread if he would explain why this is the case and he said "NO" so I said I would start a thread here and I was told to work away.

    Not quite, you asked if you could get a clarification as to why that thread had "special rules", and Tristrame, having decided that they had already explained this sufficiently, said no.
    irish1 wrote:
    Now two Politics mods continued to reply to my posts and never once warned that my posts were in breach of the rules, however another mod comes onto this thread and just bans me without giving reason, I sent one pm asking if I could get a link to the post I had made which broke the rules however I got no reply.

    When I was re-admitted to the forum I was told not to send PM's to the mods about modding decisions I WAS NEVER TOLD I couldn't discuss the rules within the rules thread in Politics or start a Feedback thread.

    Those involved would need to clarify this, but if you were previously banned for borderline harrasment of mods in the form of nagging them via PM about every mod decision that you disagreed with, then starting and carrying on a protracted argument about the "no calling people liars without proof" rule without providing evidence to back up your claim that the rule isn't enforced in other cases could easily be seen to constitute more of the same behaviour. In the best case scenario, it shows poor judgement on your part.
    irish1 wrote:
    If the mods have banned me because they personally don't like me just come out and say so, but I don't understand how two mods can reply to each post I made without finding issue with them and then another mod come in and ban me.

    I may be a pain in the ass because I hold an opinion that others don't like but I don't see what I have done wrong here.

    I get the feeling you were more likely banned because your agenda of calling Ahern a liar is by now more detrimental to the forum as a whole than whatever useful contributions you can make might be. Again, I'm not one of the deciding parties so I can't say for sure, but as conjectures go I'd imagine it's not too far from the mark.


  • Options
    #89
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Actually, you're looking at a subset of the facts and jumping to a conclusion.
    I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm basing my argument on what is in the public domain, and that which is available to me as a mod (yes I have access to the mod forum). I'm also basing this on past precedent, i.e. a user cannot be banned on one forum for what has happened on another, unless that user has been site banned. there may be exceptions, but i have only seen those exceptions been enacted by an admin.
    oscarbravo wrote:
    I'll be happy to, immediately after you link me to the rule that says I'm only allowed to ban a poster for a single post that unambiguously breaches a clearly stated rule.
    What? What exactly are you talking about? I now have to justify my questioning of your (or your fellow mods) continued banning of this poster. Please.....give me a break FFS.

    Tell me, and the community, what post on the forum, you moderate, constituted this ban.


  • Options
    #90
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hobart wrote:
    I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm basing my argument on what is in the public domain, and that which is available to me as a mod (yes I have access to the mod forum).
    Unless you've read somewhere in either the public domain or the mod forum a clear statement from Rock Climber that he banned irish1 from Politics based on a Feedback thread, you're jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen any such statement.
    Hobart wrote:
    What? What exactly are you talking about? I now have to justify my questioning of your (or your fellow mods) continued banning of this poster. Please.....give me a break FFS.
    I'm not asking you to justify your questioning. You're asking me to justify another moderator's ban based on a rule that, as far as I can tell, you've just made up.
    Hobart wrote:
    Tell me, and the community, what post on the forum, you moderate, constituted this ban.
    Tell me, and the community, where it's written that a ban can only be on the basis of a single post.

    Seriously, I'm starting to hear the umbrella song in my sleep at this point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    copacetic
    Subscribers Posts: 16,562 ✭✭✭✭copacetic


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Unless you've read somewhere in either the public domain or the mod forum a clear statement from Rock Climber that he banned irish1 from Politics based on a Feedback thread, you're jumping to conclusions. I haven't seen any such statement. I'm not asking you to justify your questioning. You're asking me to justify another moderator's ban based on a rule that, as far as I can tell, you've just made up. Tell me, and the community, where it's written that a ban can only be on the basis of a single post.

    Seriously, I'm starting to hear the umbrella song in my sleep at this point.

    I must be going nuts or something but I really can't see a reason why you are all acting so weirdly over this. Instead of spouting all this bs could one of you just actually tell the community why he was banned?

    You are saying that people are jumping to conclusions and basically accusing all of us of being 'not in the know'. Well why don't you actually tell us the reason and we will all shut up rather than keep up this charade of 'there is a really good reason, we just aren't telling you'.

    It's farcical and you all appear to be trying very hard to defend the indefensible imo, and doing a very poor job of it too.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement