Banned from Politics!

gandalf

This particular "user" was perm banned previously for badgering the moderators constantly. He then badgered the admins into petitioning us to allow him back. We did under very specific instructions that he desist in this type of behaviour and if he did start again he would be banned and there would be no way back. He has and the current mods of politics and the category mod of society will not consider allowing him back period. If the admins want to remove us all then they can allow him back. Given this persons history in the past I sincerely doubt that.

This thread has now served its purpose. Irish1 will not be readmitted to Politics period. There will be no further interaction from me on this subject.

Dirk Gently

I think this is a case of why video referees are needed in football.
All them penos not given against united at old trafford pisses me off

meglome

copacetic wrote: »

I think he does get it, the point is that it appears particularly unfair and arbitrary and it does seem that it is people holding certain opinions that are banned. There is a distinct lack of independent oversight on the politics forum imo and not even the pretence of fairness and impartial moderation. Why people don't just go other places for politics discussion like the rest of us I don't know, but lets not pretend that the politics forum is run fairly..

I'm wondering about this myself.

Again I still haven't read all the detail of the thread and I'm not sure I want to But since I've been banned I have followed the 'proper' procedure to get myself unbanned. And I have to say I feel my issue has been largely ignored. I realise no one here owes me anything and besides I feel it would be better not to post on the politics forum of boards.ie even when my ban is up. I think it wouldn't be long before I was banned again and I don't think my views are particularly contentious. I'm not associated with any political organisation. I've had several people contact me to say they don't like the modding on the politics forum after seeing my thread in helpdesk and I'd have to agree wholeheartedly.

In support of the OP I would say that when you're banned you kinda feel helpless to do anything about it. The reasons are not always clear, or consistent or even mentioned at all. Posts get deleted when they appear to be quite legitimate. He may have got carried away and hassled mods and admins but I do see where he's coming from (even though I wouldn’t recommend doing it).

Villain

gandalf wrote: »

This particular "user" was perm banned previously for badgering the moderators constantly. He then badgered the admins into petitioning us to allow him back. We did under very specific instructions that he desist in this type of behaviour and if he did start again he would be banned and there would be no way back. He has and the current mods of politics and the category mod of society will not consider allowing him back period. If the admins want to remove us all then they can allow him back. Given this persons history in the past I sincerely doubt that.

This thread has now served its purpose. Irish1 will not be readmitted to Politics period. There will be no further interaction from me on this subject.

Oh so its Us or him? very mature!

I would love to see how you can reason that my behaviour is the same as what I was warned against. But hey I know you won't even discuss it because you know as well as I do that my point was correct.

DeepBlue

irish1 wrote: »

Oh so its Us or him? very mature!

I would love to see how you can reason that my behaviour is the same as what I was warned against. But hey I know you won't even discuss it because you know as well as I do that my point was correct.

The fact that the politics forum has a rule enforcing a month's ban for stating that Bertie is lying while a recent Sunday Business Post/Red C poll shows that less that a third of voters believe Bertie's evidence to the tribunal surely undermines any credibility that the politics forum might have as a venue for discussion and debate on matters political?

Given that state of play I'm confused as to why you want to continue to post in the politics forum when there are other "politics" forums easily reachable by google?

Rozie

Tristrame wrote: »

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.

That's bull****. Everyone should be allowed to question actions like that. Mods should always have to justify their actions.

Boston

DeepBlue wrote: »

The fact that the politics forum has a rule enforcing a month's ban for stating that Bertie is lying while a recent Sunday Business Post/Red C poll shows that less that a third of voters believe Bertie's evidence to the tribunal surely undermines any credibility that the politics forum might have as a venue for discussion and debate on matters political?

Libel is Libel.

Villain

Boston wrote: »

Libel is Libel.

I think you mean Libel against Bertie is Libel but Libel against Sinn Fein or Gerry Adams is fair game.

Boston

You need to learn the difference between proven fact and popular fact.

axer

Boston wrote: »

You need to learn the difference between proven fact and popular fact.

Ive never heard of a difference between a proven fact or a popular fact. I would think that a popular fact is a popular proven fact i.e. a fact is [SIZE=-1]a statement that is objectively true and can be verified.

[/SIZE]So please elabourate oh wise one. :rolleyes:

Boston

let me rephrase that as popular 'fact'. Understand now?

axer

Boston wrote: »

let me rephrase that as popular 'fact'. Understand now?

Ahh I see. So now you are putting the word fact between quotation marks to mean that you don't really mean the word fact.

I'm sorry oh wise one to be a burden, but do you mean that the OP does not know the difference between fact and non-fact given that fact is [SIZE=-1]a statement that is objectively true and can be verified whereas [/SIZE]popular 'fact' (as you put it) is what some ill-informed people think is fact?

Boston

axer wrote: »

[SIZE=-1] whereas [/SIZE]popular 'fact' (as you put it) is not fact at all?

lol at all the nit picking. popular 'fact' would be one that may or maybe not be true, but is believe regardless due to its popular nature. But I don't think we're here to debate the definitions of terms. Simple fact is, bertie has successfully sued for libel in the past, Gerry adams hasn't conclude what you want from that. You can read about it here.

*awaits request for definition of simple fact, libel and successfully*

Sonnenblumen

Boston wrote: »

Libel is Libel.

and Fact IS Fact.

Boston

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

and Fact IS Fact.

Lets see them so.

axer

Boston wrote: »

lol at all the nit picking. popular 'fact' would be one that may or maybe not be true, but is believe regardless due to its popular nature.But I don't think we're here to debate the definitions of terms.

I'll take it you mean popular 'fact' is a statement that *is not* factual - there is no "may or maybe not be true" in it as otherwise it would be just fact. Making a statement against someone that is not factual in a fixed medium is potential libelious.

Boston wrote: »

Simple fact is, bertie has successfully sued for libel in the past, Gerry adams hasn't conclude what you want from that. You can read about it here.

*awaits request for definition of simple fact, libel and successfully*

and your point?

Villain

Boston the Fact is Bertie said a lodgement he made was not of Dollars but of a large ammount of Sterling and the FACT is the bank records show that isn't possible, thats a fact discovered by the tribunal and Bertie's magic little forumla couldn't prove otherwise. If you want to discuss this matter please at least read the facts.

Boston

axer wrote: »

I'll take it you mean popular 'fact' is a statement that *is not* factual - there is no "may or maybe not be true" in it as otherwise it would be just fact. Making a statement against someone that is not factual in a fixed medium is potential libelious.

making a statement which cannot be proven to be factual is potentially libelous. The statement may be true in the greater sense and still be libelous. As for my point, its a proven fact that bertie has been both accused of corruption and cleared of corruption in an Irish court of law.

irish1: You're going from A to B to G without the intermediate steps.

DeepBlue

Boston wrote: »

Libel is Libel.

axer

Boston wrote: »

making a statement which cannot be proven to be factual is potentially libelous.

Huh? How is that different to this:

Axer wrote:

Making a statement against someone that is not factual in a fixed medium is potential libelious.

?

Boston wrote: »

The statement may be true in the greater sense and still be libelous.

How can a statement be true and libelous at the same time? If a statement is true then it is [SIZE=-1]consistent with fact or reality. So if there are non-factual parts to the statement then the statement is not factual and thus [/SIZE]libelious.

A wise man once said:

You're not the brightest are you?

Fysh

I think the greatest part of the argument going on right now is the notion that it might, inany way, contribute to irish1 being unbanned from Politics, when one of the relevant mods has popped into this thread and laid down the law as it's going to be enforced.

But, you know, carry on, lads. I'm sure arguing with Boston over the the truth-content of popular facts, popular but unverified facts, and outright lies, will do much for the case of irish1 not being an argumentative so-and-so who refuses outright to do what he's told by the mods.

Villain

Fysh, two of those continued to discuss this topic with me in the rules thread and incouraged me to start this thread soI'm not sure how I refused to do what the mods ask.

Boston I may haved jumped to G but what I have posted is 100% correct and I'd love to see you prove otherwise.

Sonnenblumen

Boston wrote: »

Lets see them so.

I'll go and get a large weighing scales or perhaps an extra long measuring tape.

Boston

axer wrote: »

Huh? How is that different to this:
?

How can a statement be true and libelous at the same time? If a statement is true then it is [SIZE=-1]consistent with fact or reality. So if there are non-factual parts to the statement then the statement is not factual and thus [/SIZE]libelious.

The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, not on the person being accused. Yourself and Irish1 there seem to be under the impression that you can make accusation and then say 'If I'm wrong prove me wrong', thats simply not how it works. Something may be true, but you have to be able to prove it for it not to be libel. Theres plenty of people I know to be criminals (drug dealers, even a murderer) however if I was to accuse these people of crimes which I could not later back up, it would be libel. Is any of this starting to register with you people?

axer

Boston wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, not on the person being accused. Yourself and Irish1 there seem to be under the impression that you can make accusation and then say 'If I'm wrong prove me wrong', thats simply not how it works. Something may be true, but you have to be able to prove it for it not to be libel. Theres plenty of people I know to be criminals (drug dealers, even a murderer) however if I was to accuse these people of crimes which I could not later back up, it would be libel. Is any of this starting to register with you people?

I am not under any impression that you can make accusations and then say prove me wrong. That is the type of statements I am against but I believe that it should be that way across the board i.e. it should be the same for accusations regarding SF and Gerry Adams as it is about other politicians - in the political forum that is not the case. A fact is not a fact unless it is verifiable - if it verifiable then it is not libelous as you could obviously verify the fact in court again. I hope you have the ability to understand this as I am not going to keep explaining it to you.

Boston

axer wrote: »

I am not under any impression that you can make accusations and then say prove me wrong. That is the type of statements I am against but I believe that it should be that way across the board i.e. it should be the same for accusations regarding SF and Gerry Adams as it is about other politicians - in the political forum that is not the case. A fact is not a fact unless it is verifiable - if it verifiable then it is not libelous as you could obviously verify the fact in court again. I hope you have the ability to understand this as I am not going to keep explaining it to you.

Do you understand that something maybe true and factual and still not verifiable in court? Its a point you seem to be have trouble with.

Villain

Boston my opinion is based on FACTS discovered by the tribunal, you seem to missing that point or ignoring it. The bank records show what Bertie said is not possible thats a fact Boston.

Fysh

The facts of the tribunal presumably show that the reality of the transfer does not match Ahern's description of it. Stating that he lied about it suggests that you have additional factual evidence which can prove that not only was he aware of the discrepancy at the time he made those statements, but was deliberately being deceitful.

If you can't provide that additional factual evidence that proves this awareness and intent, then stating that he lied can still be considered libelous. Making a factually incorrect statement does not always equate to lying.

_blank_

Most of this thread isn't feedback. FACT

Villain

Oh if you read the transcripts from the Tribunal Fysh you see that he was certain it was Pounds and not Dollars, and it couldn't have been you can't be certain of something under Oath and then when the facts prove you were wrong not have lied, if he said he couldn't remember whether it was Pounds or Dollars then you could say he simply didn't know but thats not the case here.

You see I think one major problem here is people haven't read the transcripts and are simply going on what they have heard, read the facts its very simple really he was sure of what he said before the election but what he said couldn't be true, simple.

Gerry Adams on the other hand, well he heads up a front for a terrorist organisation and was a member of the IRA army council*

*Thats not based on any facts however has been stated in the Politics thread many times without a mod blinking an eye well except the odd time to ask people to clarify it as their opinion. You see its easier to perm ban me than actually reason out a discussion, but Tristrame, Rock CLimber and the rest know what I am saying is correct, I'm guessing thats why they won't discuss it.