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

Guy banned for thinking Bertie lacks credibility..WTF?

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Tha Gopher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Tha Gopher


    WhiteWashMan wrote: »
    arent you a little shinning diamond of wonder.

    And doesnt your post remind me of Alan Partridge if he had a boards account.

    Minus the comedy of course.


  • Options
    #33
    transylman
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭transylman


    Yeah, the moderation of any issues relating to Bertie Ahern is suspicious to say the least. Then yesterday when I posted saying that if people wanted to go to a more open discussion they should go to politics.ie it was deleted. There is a definite FF bias from two of the mods.


  • Options
    #34
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    How is deleting a comment instructing people to go to a rival discussion board FF bias. Christ have you watched too many episodes of the X-Files or something.


  • Options
    #35
    transylman
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭transylman


    gandalf wrote: »
    How is deleting a comment instructing people to go to a rival discussion board FF bias. Christ have you watched too many episodes of the X-Files or something.

    Chill out man. First of all, I didn't cite the removal of that post as the reason for my belief that the mods are biased. Second, why was a post suggesting another discussion board deleted from the politics board when one on this thread seems to be okay. Thirdly, if you compare the debate here with the one on politics.ie the difference is night and day. Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.


  • Options
    #36
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    transylman wrote: »
    Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.

    It's not just on the Bertie issue that they are strict though. If this was the case you'd have a point but it's not like I could go in there are start making accusations about members of the Opposition parties.

    People are blowing this completely out of proportion. That and politics.ie and boards.ie are like chalk and cheese across the board really. They are two different approaches to the same thing, a bit like football365.com versus the soccer forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Procasinator
    Registered Users Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    I don't see why he was banned, to be honest. If it is from his first post where he said:
    Mr.Micro wrote:
    The country needs a strong leader and not someone who many people perceive as a liar and shady

    Then I don't see how he has accused Bertie of being a liar. He has stated that many people see him as a liar -a fair and accurate statement.

    He never made any direct accusations of Bertie Ahern, and references some of his more damning points to newspapers and such.

    Am I missing something? Has some of his posts been deleted?

    As it stands, I personally think it was heavy handed to ban him.

    I wouldn't be a conspiracist and say that this was done by a mod who has bias towards FF, but rather just executed the ban because they believe the posts were borderline.


  • Options
    #38
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    transylman wrote: »
    Chill out man. First of all, I didn't cite the removal of that post as the reason for my belief that the mods are biased. Second, why was a post suggesting another discussion board deleted from the politics board when one on this thread seems to be okay. Thirdly, if you compare the debate here with the one on politics.ie the difference is night and day. Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.

    One there is no bias at all so how you can come to this conclusion is beyond me.

    Secondally Politics.ie run their forums in their way, its successful but it is different from here, we're successful as well.

    Thirdly maybe you are not used to the way things work on the politics forum here but we do have a very tight reign on things to ensure discussions stay on topic. Again there is no conflict of interest and this is no indication of a conflict in interest. If you are sensing this I think you need to relax a bit.


  • Options
    #39
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    Now waiting with bated breath for the ensuing and ironic Guy almost banned for thinking 3 lacks credibility..WTF? thread

    Cat pictures to follow.


  • Options
    #40
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    gandalf wrote: »
    One there is no bias at all so how you can come to this conclusion is beyond me.

    Secondally Politics.ie run their forums in their way, its successful but it is different from here, we're successful as well.

    Thirdly maybe you are not used to the way things work on the politics forum here but we do have a very tight reign on things to ensure discussions stay on topic. Again there is no conflict of interest and this is no indication of a conflict in interest. If you are sensing this I think you need to relax a bit.

    I'm no supporter of SF but it's seems to be okay to say quite a bit in relation to them but not a fraction of that when to comes to FF. I was banned in the thread discussing Berties tribunal dealings. I saw several posts deleted and edited for reasons that I didn't understand even after rereading the charter and the thread charter. Interestingly mostly by the same mod, not you Gandalf. My own ban was for implying there was a FF bias, at least in that thread there appeared to be (Wasn’t posting in there for that long so…). I can honestly say I'm not party political and have voted FF in the past so I don't see why I'd just imagine things were not even-handed. I dunno it was like you had to follow the rules and some of the whims of certain mods as well. It might be an interesting exercise for regular posters and mods to have to fully reveal who they voted for in the last election. Obviously we've no way to know if they told the truth but still.

    At the end of the day I’ve been posting on boards for over 7 years and it's the only ban I've received.


  • Options
    #41
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Well if you have been posting on boards for so long then you should have realised that firing accusations like that in thread was probably not a good idea. A thread in feedback referencing the original thread or even a PM to the mod in question would have cleared that up.

    I understand everyones frustration regarding Bertiegate (or is it loangate?) and I would love to write exactly what I think of our "great leaders" protestations of innocence. The problem is until the tribunial or the papers come up with something that allows us to let loose then we have to be careful. Now if one of the admins turn around and say "free for all" is allowed then we can also open the flood gates so to speak (see what I did there the "Justice Flood Gates" well well!!).

    oh and to kick things off I voted Labour, The Greens (will never make that mistake again) and FG (to get that other crowd out).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,632 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    seemed a bit harsh but then again i dont frequent the politics forum that much. As the saying goes, If you wanna discuss politics, then dont do it in the polictics forum! :p


  • Options
    #43
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Definite Pro-FF bias from one of the mods on the politics forum...I was banned for making a statement of fact....

    The Mahon Tribunal is central to the politics of this country in that it investigates alledged corruption in the planning process....By the way I said alledged...

    These are political issues...and no allegations were made by me, only statements of fact...

    So if you are going to ban and delete people for expressing the truth, then free speech is being censored in certain parts of this site...if that is the case then its no longer a place of responsible free speech but a censors paradise.


  • Options
    #44
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    gbh wrote: »
    Definite Pro-FF bias from one of the mods on the politics forum
    Heh, this the one is/was in a different political party?
    I was banned for making a statement of fact....
    By the way I said alledged...
    Alleged facts, eh?

    "Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.
    So if you are going to ban and delete people for expressing the truth, then free speech is being censored in certain parts of this site...if that is the case then its no longer a place of responsible free speech but a censors paradise.
    It's never been a place for free speech. Link to the post you were banned for stating only facts?


  • Options
    #45
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Ibid wrote: »
    Heh, this the one is/was in a different political party?


    Alleged facts, eh?

    "Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.


    It's never been a place for free speech. Link to the post you were banned for stating only facts?

    Can't beat the bit of selective editing to misrepresent what someone else says...

    I was discussing a difference of accounts at the Tribunal...and i am presuming both were telling the truth and they want us the public who pays for the Tribunal to accept what they say as fact...

    I would link to it but it has been deleted...

    But look it's no problem...i can take a month's ban...


  • Options
    #46
    Procasinator
    Registered Users Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Ibid wrote: »
    "Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.

    How is that comparable? That is your allegation, which you plucked from thin air.

    What he describes is a allegation - hell it is a tribunal!

    As an example, you could say "2 plus 2 equals 5".
    Which is not a true proposition.

    I, however, can say "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5", and I would not be lying.


  • Options
    #47
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    gbh wrote: »
    Can't beat the bit of selective editing to misrepresent what someone else says...

    I was discussing a difference of accounts at the Tribunal...and i am presuming both were telling the truth and they want us the public who pays for the Tribunal to accept what they say as fact...

    I would link to it but it has been deleted...

    But look it's no problem...i can take a month's ban...
    Well I can't really comment as I have not read your post. I've disagreed with the Politics mods a few times in the past (been banned more than once, too) but suffice to say I would be surprised if you were banned for simply stating facts.
    Procasinator wrote: »
    How is that comparable? That is your allegation, which you plucked from thin air.
    I'm pointing out that simply prefixing statements with "allegedly" makes no difference. It was in response to "By the way I said alledged...".
    What he describes is a allegation - hell it is a tribunal!

    As an example, you could say "2 plus 2 equals 5".
    Which is not a true proposition.

    I, however, can say "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5", and I would not be lying.
    If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence. But, I haven't seen his post. The primary purpose of my post was to rebut the "allegedly" defence, if such a case was being made.


  • Options
    #48
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    Tristrame wrote: »
    Most comments are removed.
    The one Mr micro made wasn't because it doesn't seem to be a direct accusation.

    Because it was his perception of the man and events surrounding him maybe??


  • Options
    #49
    Procasinator
    Registered Users Posts: 1,311 ✭✭✭Procasinator


    Ibid wrote: »
    If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence. But, I haven't seen his post. The primary purpose of my post was to rebut the "allegedly" defence, if such a case was being made.

    Well, okay, that just nitpicking. Let's look at the sentence again from the quoted post:
    gbh wrote:
    The Mahon Tribunal is central to the politics of this country in that it investigates alledged corruption in the planning process....By the way I said alledged...

    So he said that the Mahon Tribunal looks into alledged (sp) corruption, and further added on the "By the way I said alledged(sp)".

    The last fragment, while not necessary, makes sense in the context of this thread. He wants to clarify that he was talking about alleged corruption, currently under investigation, and so was not defaming anyone.

    The tribunal does look into alleged corruption.
    Ibis wrote:
    If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence.

    No, but he is one more layer out - in both the tribunal allegations and my hypothetical situation. If I say to gbh "Ibis said 2 plus 2 equals 5", then he could say "Procasinator the sexy says that Ibis allegedly said 2 plus 2 equals 5" to whoever he wants, and the proposition would hold true whether or not you did ever say it.

    Edit: Also, I am not saying gbh has nothing wrong. He very well could have.


  • Options
    #50
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Procasinator wrote: »
    Well, okay, that just nitpicking.
    The last fragment, while not necessary, makes sense in the context of this thread.
    You're right. I read the two as unrelated entities (that said, it wasn't articulated all that well) but I imagine that's what he meant.

    However I disagree with you that it's nitpicking. You'd be surprised how many people try to get away with "In my opinion, you're an idiot" or "Allegedly, your mother is sleeping with gandalf" though, admittedly, nobody would sleep with gandalf :D.


  • Options
    #51
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    gandalf wrote: »
    Well if you have been posting on boards for so long then you should have realised that firing accusations like that in thread was probably not a good idea. A thread in feedback referencing the original thread or even a PM to the mod in question would have cleared that up.

    I understand everyones frustration regarding Bertiegate (or is it loangate?) and I would love to write exactly what I think of our "great leaders" protestations of innocence. The problem is until the tribunial or the papers come up with something that allows us to let loose then we have to be careful. Now if one of the admins turn around and say "free for all" is allowed then we can also open the flood gates so to speak (see what I did there the "Justice Flood Gates" well well!!).

    oh and to kick things off I voted Labour, The Greens (will never make that mistake again) and FG (to get that other crowd out).

    I didn't just throw an accusation in, there was a buildup...posts being deleted and edited which as far as I could tell were within the rules as set out by the charters and usually by the same person. A person who's attitude stank and who only inflamed the situation. I sent a PM to the Mod and I posted in Helpdesk, you agreed with me in there that my ban seemed harsh. At the end of that the ban was left in place. Now if I can get banned for next to nothing, have agreement with me it was harsh but cannot get it lifted, what's the point in going back just to potentially go through that same process again. It was frustrating enough the first time.

    I voted FG(even with plank Kenny), Labour and the Greens(not next time). I didn't vote FF this time as they badly needed to be put out on their arses.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gbh wrote: »
    Definite Pro-FF bias from one of the mods on the politics forum...
    Given that I banned gbh, I assume this refers to me. Which is funny, considering something I posted in the same thread that got gbh his ban.
    gbh wrote: »
    I was banned for making a statement of fact....
    No, you were not. If you don't know the difference between a fact and an extrapolation that you made from evidence that's been presented during the course of an ongoing tribunal of inquiry, that's not my problem.
    gbh wrote: »
    The Mahon Tribunal is central to the politics of this country in that it investigates alledged corruption in the planning process....By the way I said alledged...

    These are political issues...and no allegations were made by me, only statements of fact...
    Again, not true.
    gbh wrote: »
    So if you are going to ban and delete people for expressing the truth, then free speech is being censored in certain parts of this site...if that is the case then its no longer a place of responsible free speech but a censors paradise.
    You don't have free speech here. You most certainly don't have the right to post allegations based on your interpretation of the evidence placed before a tribunal.

    The unedited version of the post can be found here, if an admin wants to draw his own conclusions about the appropriateness of my actions.


  • Options
    #53
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Given that I banned gbh, I assume this refers to me. Which is funny, considering something I posted in the same thread that got gbh his ban. No, you were not. If you don't know the difference between a fact and an extrapolation that you made from evidence that's been presented during the course of an ongoing tribunal of inquiry, that's not my problem. Again, not true. You don't have free speech here. You most certainly don't have the right to post allegations based on your interpretation of the evidence placed before a tribunal.

    The unedited version of the post can be found here, if an admin wants to draw his own conclusions about the appropriateness of my actions.

    I'm debating whether I should reply or not...Because if I push it far enough you will use it as an excuse to site ban me....whereas you can say what you like...

    the point I will make again is that I was discussing albeit perhaps not in the best of terms the fact that there was a difference of opinion of testimony regarding the same item....but look i agree you have to moderate a thread ...but i also think there is a clear legal line which people shouldn't cross which goes into libel and which of course your site needs to prevent...and imo i don't believe i crossed that line...but its a mute point now...and that's all I will say on the matter...i'm not going to contest the ban...you had your reasons for banning, i believe it shouldn't have been a ban, but lets not allow it degenerate into an ugly slanging match...


  • Options
    #54
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,632 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    This thread is turning into its own tribunal ;)


  • Options
    #55
    projectmayhem
    Registered Users Posts: 9,480 ✭✭✭projectmayhem


    1192278145928.jpg?t=1196970670


  • Options
    #56
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gbh wrote: »
    I'm debating whether I should reply or not...Because if I push it far enough you will use it as an excuse to site ban me....whereas you can say what you like...
    I can't siteban you. I moderate Politics, not the whole site.
    gbh wrote: »
    the point I will make again is that I was discussing albeit perhaps not in the best of terms the fact that there was a difference of opinion of testimony regarding the same item....
    You can point out to your heart's content the differences of opinion highlighted in the tribunal. Where you went wrong is you crossed the line by arriving at a conclusion from the evidence presented. That's something that only the tribunal can do.
    gbh wrote: »
    but look i agree you have to moderate a thread ...
    Thank you.
    gbh wrote: »
    but i also think there is a clear legal line which people shouldn't cross which goes into libel and which of course your site needs to prevent...
    It's not my site.
    gbh wrote: »
    and imo i don't believe i crossed that line...
    That's not your call to make.
    gbh wrote: »
    but its a mute point now...and that's all I will say on the matter...i'm not going to contest the ban...you had your reasons for banning, i believe it shouldn't have been a ban, but lets not allow it degenerate into an ugly slanging match...
    Ugly slanging matches are not (as a rule) my style.


  • Options
    #57
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    haha excellent, never saw that one before...


  • Options
    #58
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,632 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    View.aspx?CANIMODPOLI128414449493865000.jpg


  • Options
    #59
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I can't siteban you. I moderate Politics, not the whole site. You can point out to your heart's content the differences of opinion highlighted in the tribunal. Where you went wrong is you crossed the line by arriving at a conclusion from the evidence presented. That's something that only the tribunal can do. Thank you. It's not my site. That's not your call to make. Ugly slanging matches are not (as a rule) my style.

    look whatever..tbh i cudn't be arsed arguing with ya...it's just not worth my time...i know i was in the right and thats it...everyone in this country is entitled to draw a conclusion from the evidence ok, and you cannot actually stop people drawing conclusions..but you can censor people and you seem good at doing that...and there was no conclusion drawn...the facts are there for everyone to see and in fact if i repeated the FACTS here of the Tribunal i'd probably get banned from here as well...


  • Options
    #60
    gbh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭gbh


    Actually you know what, I am going to restate the facts here...

    Bertie got money from NCB stockbrokers...FACT
    NCB stockbroker guys said it was a political donation...FACT
    Bertie said it was a loan...FACT

    That is essentially what I said in the politics thread as well....

    so do your worst....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,804 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gbh wrote: »
    Actually you know what, I am going to restate the facts here...

    Bertie got money from NCB stockbrokers...FACT
    NCB stockbroker guys said it was a political donation...FACT
    Bertie said it was a loan...FACT

    That is essentially what I said in the politics thread as well....
    Oh look, a lie. Bear in mind I still have a copy of what you actually said before I edited it.


Advertisement