Banned from Politics!

Villain

Right first off anyone who is going to post cat pictures please keep them to pictures of Bertie's cats only.

Some time ago in Politics there was a thread on the Mahon Tribunal http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055100299&page=4 I provided a link to the transcripts of the opening statement by the Tribunal and I concluded from the evidence that was reported by the tribunal that in my opinion Bertie Ahern lied before the election when he said he never dealt in Dollars.

Another thread was http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055121766

It seems for reasons unknown to me and most here Bertie is getting special treatment for some reason, first of all discussing the Mahon Tribunal was banned from June until the Mods clarified the legal position, I sent a mod a PM last month asking if the ban was going to be lifted and I got a reply saying that if I pm again I will be banned, then Tristrame started a thread at the weekend which will open tomorrow for the topic http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055147722

However in the rules discussion thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=97080&page=9 I asked could he explain why the thread had different rules than other threads and he said no so hence that is why I started this thread.

I'm sure anyone who has read the Politics forum over the years will remember all sorts of accusations been made against Politicians especially Sinn Fein members and anytime I brought this up the poster was simply asked to clarify it as their opinion once they did that it was fine.

However for some reason this is not the same for Bertie can anyone explain why?

Edit I have changed the title as Rock Climber has now banned me from Politics

You know it's funny,theres already an appropriate thread open discussing this in politics.
It's called the discussion on the rules thread.

Page 8 down near the bottom is where we started to discuss our position on how these threads are being moderated.
Then on into page 9 it's made perfectly clear why.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I sent a mod a PM last month asking if the ban was going to be lifted and I got a reply saying that if I pm again I will be banned

Why not add why that was the reply you got...
You were banned for a year from the politics forum because you literally sent dozens of annoying pm's to the mods of that forum questioning every single modding decision you didn't like.

You were left back in on the strict instruction that you do not do that ever again.

The Hill Billy

Tristrame wrote:

You know it's funny,theres already an appropriate thread open discussing this in politics.
It's called the discussion on the rules thread.

Page 8 down near the bottom is where we started to discuss our position on how these threads are being moderated.
Then on into page 9 it's made perfectly clear why.

That's quite funny when you put this exchange into context:

irish1 wrote:

Can you explain why that thread has different rules than every other thread?

Tristrame wrote:

no.

Not what I'd call a "discussion".

Hill Billy

Hill Billy wrote:

Not what I'd call a "discussion".

Well context is everything and in the context of the thread that question was answered several times.
I'm not Rhianna you know,I don't do too many repeats in my lyrics...

togster

ella ella eh eh under my umbrella ella ella eh eh eh oh under my umbrella ella ella

Villain

Tristrame if you were willing to Discuss the issue on the rules thread in Politics I wouldn't have started this thread, the fact is you have failed to explain why the rules are different for that one thread you simply replied "no".

As for me getting banned for sending PM's in the past I think you'll quite rightly remember that an Admin agreed with the me in relation to the content of those PM's he just didn't want to upset you and Gandalf but thats old news.

Just explain now why this thread has different rules and why people could accuse Politician's of all sorts of things including being a leading member of a terrorist group yet saying anything about your dear old Bertie is not allowed.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Tristrame if you were willing to Discuss the issue on the rules thread in Politics I wouldn't have started this thread, the fact is you have failed to explain why the rules are different for that one thread you simply replied "no".

Ok I give in.
I'll sing a bit of Rhianna...

ella ella ella ella

But only because It sounds more musical than repeating over and over again whats in the guidelines thread.

As for me getting banned for sending PM's in the past I think you'll quite rightly remember that an Admin agreed with the me in relation to the content of those PM's he just didn't want to upset you and Gandalf but thats old news.

I still have copies of all that crap.I never delete pm's.
Therefore your revisionism of what was actually the case there regarding what amounted at the time to harassment on an almost obsessional scale doesn't wash.
But as you say thats old news because you certainly won't be repeating it.

Just explain now why this thread has different rules and why people could accuse Politician's of all sorts of things including being a leading member of a terrorist group yet saying anything about your dear old Bertie is not allowed.

For a start he's not "my old dear bertie".

As for your question I have a dilemma now , I'm Torn.. [wait thats natalie Embruglia...] between singing my own lyrics from the discussion on the rules thread or just doing Rhianna again...ella ellla ellla...
Oh I'll just reply with the obvious.
Mahon is a legal process.I tend to have a respect for the course of a legal process.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Ok I give in.
I'll sing a bit of Rhianna...

ella ella ella ella

But only because It sounds more musical than repeating over and over again whats in the guidelines thread.

Why are the guidelines for one thread different to the rest?

I still have copies of all that crap.I never delete pm's.
Therefore your revisionism of what was actually the case there regarding what amounted at the time to harassment on an almost obsessional scale doesn't wash.
But as you say thats old news because you certainly won't be repeating it.

I still have them too, you simply banned me because you couldn't win an argument but hey your the mod and this isn't a democracy so thats cool

For a start he's not "my old dear bertie".

As for your question I have a dilemma now , I'm Torn.. [wait thats natalie Embruglia...] between singing my own lyrics from the discussion on the rules thread or just doing Rhianna again...ella ellla ellla...
Oh I'll just reply with the obvious.
Mahon is a legal process.I tend to have a respect for the course of a legal process.

Oh I don't know I think you have a bit of a "thing" for auld Bertie, Mahon is a legal process however that doesn't stop people offering an opinion on what has been heard and discovered at the tribunal, god knows I think the media might even report on it before it finishes, but hey come on we wouldn't want someone saying anything bad about poor old Bertie..... even if you can say all sorts of things about Politicians.

Thats it irish1 resort to make believe and personal abuse.
That will "encourage" me to "discuss" things with you.

Villain

Your not willing to discuss the decision anyway Tristrame, you simply don't want to or can't explain why the rules for this topic are different???

I already explained umpteen times.
You are not willing to listen.

Would you like more repetition of the nutshell in a nutshell?

## Ella ella ella under my umberella eh eh eh eh eh eh ella ella ella under my umberella ella ella eh eh eh... ##

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Why are the guidelines for one thread different to the rest?

As I've explained in the guidelines thread, specifically because of your determination to undermine the forum's guidelines by roundabout means. I don't know why it's so important to you to call Bertie a liar, but I'm not going to give you a platform to do so in contravention of the rules of the forum.

But I'll tell you what: I'm a flexible kind of guy. If it upsets you so much that there's a different rule for one particular thread, I'm open to the possibility of extending the rule to the entire forum so you can't use your sig in any Politics thread. Would you prefer that?

irish1 wrote:

Oh I don't know I think you have a bit of a "thing" for auld Bertie...

Why are you making this personal?

irish1 wrote:

...Mahon is a legal process however that doesn't stop people offering an opinion on what has been heard and discovered at the tribunal, god knows I think the media might even report on it before it finishes, but hey come on we wouldn't want someone saying anything bad about poor old Bertie..... even if you can say all sorts of things about Politicians.

I'm at a total loss as to when this discussion became about saying bad things about politicians, in general or in particular. This discussion has always been about your determination to break the Politics rule that says you can't accuse people of lying.

Villain

Ah its ok Tristrame, OscarBravo has told me why:

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

My Reply:


So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules? I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

As I've explained in the guidelines thread, specifically because of your determination to undermine the forum's guidelines by roundabout means. I don't know why it's so important to you to call Bertie a liar, but I'm not going to give you a platform to do so in contravention of the rules of the forum.

I just think I should be allowed express my opinion on the topic.

But I'll tell you what: I'm a flexible kind of guy. If it upsets you so much that there's a different rule for one particular thread, I'm open to the possibility of extending the rule to the entire forum so you can't use your sig in any Politics thread. Would you prefer that?

Well the Admins have told me my Sig is ok until they say otherwise I will leave it in place if Dev changes his mind and wants me to delete I will.

Why are you making this personal?

I'm not

I'm at a total loss as to when this discussion became about saying bad things about politicians, in general or in particular. This discussion has always been about your determination to break the Politics rule that says you can't accuse people of lying.

Oh really so all those times people said Gerry Adams lied and he was a member of the IRA Army council and the mods said it was ok to say that as long as they said it was their opinion was ok but I can't give my opinon on Bertie??

oscarBravo

I don't know what you hope to achieve by cross-posting here. If you want to continue the discussion, do so over there, but if you do, please discuss what I've actually told you rather than what you'd like to think I meant by it.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

I just think I should be allowed express my opinion on the topic.

You will be, as long as you do so within the guidelines as set out.

irish1 wrote:

Well the Admins have told me my Sig is ok until they say otherwise I will leave it in place if Dev changes his mind and wants me to delete I will.

Similarly, if an admin tells me to allow your sig in the thread in question, I will. Until then, as moderator of the forum, it's not allowed.

irish1 wrote:

I'm not

Oh, please. You accused a moderator of not allowing you to break a rule because of a political bias.

irish1 wrote:

Oh really so all those times people said Gerry Adams lied and he was a member of the IRA Army council and the mods said it was ok to say that as long as they said it was their opinion was ok...

Tell you what: next time someone calls Gerry Adams a liar, report the post and I'll take the appropriate action.

irish1 wrote:

...but I can't give my opinon on Bertie??

Who said you can't give your opinion on Bertie?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Ah its ok Tristrame, OscarBravo has told me why:

My Reply:

He's not said anything different to what I said.
I've said also of course that I am respecting a legal process.

Maybe OscarBravo has a better singing voice in your imagination as you read Oscars posts?
That happens.

Anyhow lets continue the discussion (as if there hasnt been enough repetition) back where it started over on the politics forum and where it hadn't ended.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

You will be, as long as you do so within the guidelines as set out.

You mean as long as my opinion doesn't say Bertie Lied or mslead the public before the election.

Similarly, if an admin tells me to allow your sig in the thread in question, I will. Until then, as moderator of the forum, it's not allowed.

Thats not an issue for me I have already said I won't post my sig in that thread.

Oh, please. You accused a moderator of not allowing you to break a rule because of a political bias.

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

Tell you what: next time someone calls Gerry Adams a liar, report the post and I'll take the appropriate action.

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

Who said you can't give your opinion on Bertie?

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

Would you like to tell me the colour of my eyes,my hair and perhaps my shoe size while you are at it.
You haven't a clue as to my politics and it isn't any of your business.
But hey,this wouldnt be the first time that you've resorted to the last resort of bad debate-personal abuse.Thats twice in this thread.

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

LoL is all I can say at this stage to your mantra.

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

Sorry but this thread is not about the mahon tribunal.
I'd humbly suggest you post about that in your blog for now.

Villain

I'll humbly remind you that this is the Feedback forum and you aren't a mod here

Oh and it isn't mantra its the truth but I suppose its easier to lol than accept that Bertie is getting treated differently than others have been on the Politics forum for the past years.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

You mean as long as my opinion doesn't say Bertie Lied or mslead the public before the election.

I mean what I say. It's a useful approach, you should try it sometime. In the meantime, please stop telling me what I mean.

irish1 wrote:

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

What's clear to you and what is fact are often two very different things. Ironically, that goes to the heart of this whole pointless debate.

irish1 wrote:

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

I'm not aware of a time when it was OK to call him a liar on the Politics forum.

irish1 wrote:

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

No, what you said was what I quoted.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

I mean what I say. It's a useful approach, you should try it sometime. In the meantime, please stop telling me what I mean.

Well you said I could post my opinion within the guidelines and the guidelines say I can only express my opinion as long as I don't say Bertie lied or mislead the public.

What's clear to you and what is fact are often two very different things. Ironically, that goes to the heart of this whole pointless debate.

Ah its called an opinion!

I'm not aware of a time when it was OK to call him a liar on the Politics forum.

The mods have allowed posters to call many politicans liers in the past as long as they said it was "IMO" if you can't remember do a search of posts about Gerry Adams and you will find many many examples.

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

WAH! I'm not allowed to call Bertie a liar in the middle of a thread discussing the tribunal investigating certain transactions which may have been insufficiently legal!

Everyone else wrote:

Too right. Umbrella ella ella

irish1 wrote:

But I WANNA call Bertie a liar! It turns me on! *throws toys out of pram*

Everyone else wrote:

Well do it on your own blog then! Ella Ella

irish1 wrote:

But I wanna do it HERE! Anyway other people have made statements about whether politicians were liars in the past, why have the rules changed?

Everyone else wrote:

Because you touch yourself at night. Ella ella.

Man, how this thread delivers.

Seriously, irish1, let it go. You've been told the rules by the mods, and you don't like them. That's fine. But they've told you they're not changing, and nobody else seems to see a particular problem here except you. How about this as a reason:

"In the Mahon Tribunal thread, no user shall make statements or express opinions on the broad matter of whether Bertie Ahern did or did not mislead the public, lie, bend the truth, tell a little tiny white lie, let rip with a dirty great fib, or even go number two through his mouth. This rule is in force to avoid causing unnecessary confusion in the discussion, since the purpose of the Tribunal is to ascertain whether Mr Ahern did in fact mislead the public, and those responsible for the Tribunal are, within the structure of the Irish government, those deemed best able to resolve this matter and make an informed decision."

The thing is, look at how long and horribly-worded that is. It's certainly not as simple as "No calling Bertie a liar in this thread, not even if it's your own opinion,", although maybe "No calling Bertie a liar in this thread; that's for the Tribunal to decide so any discussion should stick to the Tribunal itself" would do the trick. It's for the mods to decide, not me - in much the same way as Bertie's official legal status as a liar or otherwise is for the Tribunal, not you or Tristrame or anyone else on boards, to decide.

At the end of the day though, you've gone out of your way to irritate the mods, which makes it hilariously improbable that they'll do anything much other than select your account and let their cursors hover longingly over the "ban" button...

Villain

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Well you said I could post my opinion within the guidelines and the guidelines say I can only express my opinion as long as I don't say Bertie lied or mislead the public.

I'm perfectly aware of what I said. I said it, remember?

irish1 wrote:

Ah its called an opinion!

In this context, it's called a personal attack. You've explicitly accused a moderator of the Politics forum of allowing a presumed political bias to inform his moderation of the forum. That's a pretty serious accusation.

irish1 wrote:

The mods have allowed posters to call many politicans liers in the past as long as they said it was "IMO"

Righto. This is the point where I get into a long-winded discussion, at the end of which you explain that when you said we let people call politicians liars you actually meant that we allowed something different. Right?

Unless of course you're suggesting that we've actually said it was OK to breach the forum charter in the case of specific politicians. This would be another serious accusation, this time levelled at the entire team of Politics moderators. Naturally, you wouldn't make such a serious accusation without evidence, right?

irish1 wrote:

...if you can't remember do a search of posts about Gerry Adams and you will find many many examples.

Ah, I see. You've made the accusation, but it's up to me to find your evidence for you.

Sorry, I don't think so.

Gordon

irish1 wrote:

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

You are lying*.


*IMO

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

Oooooooh, nice try but no cigar.

1) As per the thread title and the relevant mods who have posted here, the rule you're arguing about is in force in the Tribunal thread, so it's not a general "No criticism of Bertie, but feel free to rip into anyone else" rule like you're apparently suggesting.

2) In a thread whose purpose is to discuss the Tribunal - a government-sanctioned investigation into the allegations of misconduct on the part of Bertie Ahern - it will undoubtedly make the discussion easier to understand if a blanket ban on "personal opinion" posting is in force. At the end of the day, the Tribunal's conclusion on whether Bertie is guilty of misconduct is the only one that matters so if, when discussing the tribunal, the mods enforce a rule that trims out opinions that don't matter (because they are, as per the laws and government of this country, not considered fit to pass a legally binding and valid judgement on the whole situation), where's the problem? Oh, wait, it means you don't get to Bertie-bash in the thread, which means that in some part of the world there's a place where you aren't able to ensure that everyone knows that BERTIE'S A LIAR (or at least that you think so, and also that you're so full of yourself that you consider both of those to be the same thing despite not having had full access to all the evidence relating to the investigation).

Here's the deal : there are plenty of places where you don't have some inalienable right to make claims about people, be they politicians or otherwise. My front room would be one of them. The tribunal thread is another. You can suck it up and get on with it, or you can continue to try and get around the issue by generalising your statement and misrepresenting what people have said.

3) Has it occurred to you that perhaps the more cautious approach to letting people post potentially libelous statements in the midst of a Tribunal may have been inspired by, say, boards.ie having legal action taken against them? Because for all your bitching and moaning, you don't seem to appreciate that the rules may have changed because people in the past were given a freedom that boards.ie wasn't actually in a legally tenable position to offer. But no, it's more important that you be allowed to complain about Bertie in every single thread there is. Who cares if it's relevant?! I can't wait for you to join us in the Comic Forum : "What about that Superman, eh? What a dick! You know who else is a dick? Bertie Ahern! And by 'dick', I mean 'lying liar who tells big dirty fibs all the time and certainly hasn't ever told the truth, nuh uh, never ever, liar liar pants on fire!' Anyone agree?"

Jesus. Every once in a while I forget why I don't like getting into political discussions. Threads like this are a good reminder...

Villain

I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

But hey this is boards and the mods will do what they like, I'm just surprised we have got to post 29 without someone finding a picture of Bertie's cat.

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

Dude. "Bertie is a liar" is not an opinion about the Tribunal, it's an opinion about the subject of the Tribunal. Which is exactly why you aren't being allowed to post it on-thread, any more than, I imagine, "Bertie is not a liar" would be allowed on-thread. It's only going to cause confusion between the current status of the Tribunal's investigation, and what you or anyone else think the Tribunal should conclude from the investigation.

Incidentally, I only thought of point 3 in my previous post after you'd replied - it may also offer a different perspective on the issue for you.

oscarBravo

Just to be clear, Fysh: there's a rule in Politics that means you're basically not allowed to call someone a liar unless you can prove it. irish1 has some sort of pathological need to call Bertie a liar, I'm not sure why.