Guy banned for thinking Bertie lacks credibility..WTF?

gbh

I really wish we could move away from the hypothetical scenario's used by the mods such as person A said this about person B. They don't really work that well to support arguments and bear little or no relation to what is being discussed here..

Secondly...I think there is a question here of people being offended by the truth or people reporting the truth of what is coming out of the tribunal...this is a whole different kettle of fish to someone libeling someone...

What I and others on the thread in question have done is merely reflect what is coming out of the tribunal....and say that there are serious questions which need to be asked about who is telling the truth...the fact is and anyone who disagrees with this is a liar, mod or not, Bertie has changed his story on the question of the dig outs from what he told tribunal lawyers in private..you cannot argue with that...there's no libel in saying that...however if a mod gets offended by someone saying that he may well ban that person...

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote: »

Ah yes he just ignores the posts that he doesn't want to discuss as usual but as I said, a brain.......

I'm puzzled as to why you think there's anything to discuss. An administrator of the site has told you your ban stands. That's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

oscarBravo

gbh wrote: »

Secondly...I think there is a question here of people being offended by the truth or people reporting the truth of what is coming out of the tribunal...this is a whole different kettle of fish to someone libeling someone...

Wrong. The question is one of people not following the rules set down for discussion of a sensitive subject. You may not like those rules, but they weren't put in place to suit you.

gbh wrote: »

What I and others on the thread in question have done is merely reflect what is coming out of the tribunal....and say that there are serious questions which need to be asked about who is telling the truth...

No, that's not all you've done. If that was all you had done, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

gbh wrote: »

the fact is and anyone who disagrees with this is a liar, mod or not, Bertie has changed his story on the question of the dig outs from what he told tribunal lawyers in private..you cannot argue with that...there's no libel in saying that...however if a mod gets offended by someone saying that he may well ban that person...

This isn't about moderators getting offended.

By the way, the full stop key on your keyboard seems to be sticking.

gbh

gbh wrote: »

I really wish we could move away from the hypothetical scenario's used by the mods such as person A said this about person B. They don't really work that well to support arguments and bear little or no relation to what is being discussed here..

Secondly...I think there is a question here of people being offended by the truth or people reporting the truth of what is coming out of the tribunal...this is a whole different kettle of fish to someone libeling someone...

What I and others on the thread in question have done is merely reflect what is coming out of the tribunal....and say that there are serious questions which need to be asked about who is telling the truth...the fact is and anyone who disagrees with this is a liar, mod or not, Bertie has changed his story on the question of the dig outs from what he told tribunal lawyers in private..you cannot argue with that...there's no libel in saying that...however if a mod gets offended by someone saying that he may well ban that person...

Just to support what I'm saying and and give an example...Take the Padraic Nally case...If the evidence was heard in court on a particular day that Mr. Nally struck the deceased with a stick several times, then shot him twice...if I then said to someone later that Mr. Nally struck the deceased several times with a stick and shot him twice, would I be telling a lie or libeling Mr. Nally? If Mr. Nally said this in court himself then it's not Libel for me to repeat it because he has admitted it....it makes no difference if i said later he leathered him with a stick and shot him twice..it makes no difference how I say it as long as the facts are correct...

I guess its no point arguing with the mods anyways...better arguing with a brick wall...might get more reasoned debate from a brick wall...mods are like middle managers...they dont think just implement...there is no leeway for lateral thinking...if in doubt...BAN...

oscarBravo

Maybe you have me on ignore or something, but I'll try again:

You weren't banned for reporting what was said at the Tribunal. psi has already pointed this out. Also, under the law, it is perfectly possible to libel someone by repeating what someone else has already said. You may think that shouldn't be the case, or that it's a silly law, or whatever, but that doesn't change the way it works.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to why you think there's anything to discuss. An administrator of the site has told you your ban stands. That's the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.

In other words you can't defend it so you won't, also what legal training have you got to state what is libel and what isn't?

Restating something that is a matter of a public record i.e. the tribunal hearings is not libel, especially when it can be supported by linking to the Tribunal transcripts.

gbh

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe you have me on ignore or something, but I'll try again:

You weren't banned for reporting what was said at the Tribunal. psi has already pointed this out. Also, under the law, it is perfectly possible to libel someone by repeating what someone else has already said. You may think that shouldn't be the case, or that it's a silly law, or whatever, but that doesn't change the way it works.

To be honest I don't think it is possible to libel someone by repeating what they say or admitted to...

Can you give precedents for all these by the way? That's usually how arguments about legal matters works...well in most countries anyways...

Hate to use imaginary scenarios but, if person A admits to something...later I repeat what person A has admitted to, I do it in good faith...If at a later stage person A changes their story about what they said, that doesn't make me a liar....it makes person A a liar...there is a crucial difference here...

I agree that reporting on what is said in the Tribunal is not Libel....what is happening here is a shooting of the messengers...or at least a banning of them...

gosplan

gbh wrote: »

small minded immature people like you, somehow put in a position of moderation, ruin this site

Kinda like politics really. Power hungry meglomaniacs!!!

gbh

Ibid wrote: »

That's wrong. Many mods hold fellow mods to a higher standard than new posters.

Not in my experience...

Ibid wrote: »

There may be no exclusivity between these two.

i dont know what you mean here...doesnt make much sense...

Ibid wrote: »

Who says they're presuming to know the law better than everyone else?

They dont listen to arguments of others or are unwilling to be persuaded...this means they presume to know more...

Ibid wrote: »

But surely that's just "their opinion and not objective fact"? Also, you know people can know the law and still break it, right? Also you know it's perfectly acceptable for the owners of this site to take a no-risk policy, right? You also know that Boards' legal advice in regard to other matters has been precisely that of a no-risk one, right?

A no-risk one...isnt that the Taleban approach to women's rights...if you let them go out without the Burka today, tomorrow, hell they might want to go to school or something radical like that...

gosplan

Wasn't there a poll where 60% or something of people said they didn't believe Bertie's evidence to the Mahon tribunal?

majority...percieve...

where's the problem?

Do you need to say according to a recent poll(quote source), the majority of people percieve....

gbh

psi wrote: »

I'm curious, if you maintain you did nothing wrong, why you felt the need to leave out the stronger worded parts of your post in recounting it, so as to make the post seem less offensive (I highlighted those points above).

Was I banned for being offensive or for Libel?

I suspect it was for being offensive...I think we are getting close to the crux of the issue of bans in the politics forum....it's not for libel at all...it's for saying things that are offensive...perhaps to people of other political parties...well to be honest there is no law against being offensive...

and it's a completely different issue to Libeling someone...

AlmightyCushion

irish1 wrote: »

In other words you can't defend it so you won't, also what legal training have you got to state what is libel and what isn't?

You do realise that the admins own this site? They pay to keep it running, they're the ones that have to fix something when it goes down. What they say goes. If an admin says your ban stands then the ban stands. Arguing about it with OscarBravo is just pointless.

Villain

Well you see AlmightyCushion I believe the only reason the Admins have said that is because the Politics mods threw their toys out of the pram and threatened to resign as mods if my ban was lifted, I could of course be wrong on that but I don't think I am.

I certainly think if the Admins read through what I said they wouldn't find any reason to ban me, sadly the Politics mods decided to back Rock Climber (who is no longer a mod) when he banned me, at the time I was actually in discussion with two other mods on this forum after been directed to post here by one of them.

One of the main issues was around my sig at the time but I had asked Devore if I could have such a sig before I posted it and he said he had no problems with it??

AlmightyCushion

Do you really think the admins are that indebted to us mods? If a mod threatened to resign over something, I'm pretty sure the admin would tell him to go jump. If I remember correctly, Devore once said that he doesn't respond well to threats, imagine how he would respond to a mod getting too big for their boots and threatening to resign because they thought the admin decision was wrong.

Don't get me wrong the admins do take our points on board and listen to our opinions. At the end of the day if an admin thinks a mod is in the wrong they would have no problems correcting it.

Keep in mind that moderators have been de-modded (sometimes they choose to step down, sometimes the admins de-mod them) and moderators have been site banned before (Some permanently).

Crash

gbh wrote: »

A no-risk one...isnt that the Taleban approach to women's rights...if you let them go out without the Burka today, tomorrow, hell they might want to go to school or something radical like that...

excellent analogy. I never thought one could so thoughtfully compare their own struggle with the megalomaniac moderators of the politics forum with the women rights movement in Afghanistan.

Thats real food for thought now, i'm gonna sit down and mull that one over...

Villain

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Do you really think the admins are that indebted to us mods? If a mod threatened to resign over something, I'm pretty sure the admin would tell him to go jump. If I remember correctly, Devore once said that he doesn't respond well to threats, imagine how he would respond to a mod getting too big for their boots and threatening to resign because they thought the admin decision was wrong.

Don't get me wrong the admins do take our points on board and listen to our opinions. At the end of the day if an admin thinks a mod is in the wrong they would have no problems correcting it.

Keep in mind that moderators have been de-modded (sometimes they choose to step down, sometimes the admins de-mod them) and moderators have been site banned before (Some permanently).

Oh I agree with you except in this ALL the mods including the SMOD backed Rock Climber and I don't think the Admins were going to overrule them all.

Listen I know the Admins rule the site and this is far from a democracy I get that, but I also think that if they are going to allow discussion within a Politics Forum it should be unbiased and I can tell you it certainly isn't in relation to Bertie.

I also would expect rules to govern bans, however I didn't break any rules I simply challenged the bias towards Bertie.

Time Magazine

gbh wrote: »

Not in my experience...

I know; I wasn't speaking from your experience, I was speaking from mine. Which is more expansive than yours.

i dont know what you mean here...doesnt make much sense...

Bluntly, I think this is your problem.

They dont listen to arguments of others

That's incorrect.

or are unwilling to be persuaded

That's incorrect.

this means they presume to know more

That's incorrect.

A no-risk one...isnt that the Taleban approach to women's rights...if you let them go out without the Burka today, tomorrow, hell they might want to go to school or something radical like that...

I agree you could plausibly claim that the Taliban's approach to women's rights is of a no-risk nature. You could also say it's Iarnród Éireann's approach to workers' safety. It may even be psi's approach when engaging in fornication. What's your point?

Time Magazine

irish1 wrote: »

Listen I know the Admins rule the site and this is far from a democracy I get that, but I also think that if they are going to allow discussion within a Politics Forum it should be unbiased and I can tell you it certainly isn't in relation to Bertie.

I agreed with you and argued your case in relation to the signature thing so I'm certainly not coming from a blinded pro-Politics mods approach, but if there's any bias related to Bertie it's purely a precautionary one. You can argue until you're blue in the face or you can see it as simply a no-risk approach. Perhaps this is not the best approach for healthy discussion, but at the very least it's a position you have to respect Boards has to take.

Faith

irish1 wrote: »

Oh I agree with you except in this ALL the mods including the SMOD backed Rock Climber and I don't think the Admins were going to overrule them all.

And does that not make you think that maybe you were actually wrong? If there was a unanimous agreement with Rock Climber, that's a fairly good indication that he was right. I'd be more concerned if half the moderators disagreed with him, yet your ban still stood.

Villain

The thing is Faith if the other 2 mods were in the middle of a discussion and neither of them thought to ban me you have to wonder why Rock Climber did, I mean surely if OscarBarvo or Tristrame thought I should been banned they would have done so themselves and not continued to discuss the topic with me?

However once Rock Climber banned me they just stood by their co-mod, if Tristrame or OscarBravo had banned me instead of telling me to take the discussion to Feedback and then continue to discuss it there I might understand.

Ibid you want have to ask in that context why is Boards being so precautionary towards Bertie and yet allowed others to be accused of a range of things. As I said if they want to have a politics discussion forum surely it should not be biased to favour one Politician over another.

Crash

irish1 wrote: »

if Tristrame or OscarBravo had banned me instead of telling me to take the discussion to Feedback and then continue to discuss it there I might understand.

I somehow doubt that.

Villain

Well we'll never know.....

GuanYin

irish1 wrote: »

Be neutral and honest and have a read of that and we'll see if you favour other mods.

Unless I've been made cmod, an smod or admin (*checks* - nope, nope, nope), I don't really see why you're asking me specifically to get involved.

In fact, I don't quite appreciate the way you are approaching me at all - giving me a rather loaded situation to *prove myself* to you (as if I had a need?).

At this point, your only recourse is through the admins themselves. I can give an opinion (and my opinion is that you overstepped the boundries in the forum before they banned you and didn't exactly enhance your chances or compromise with the whole sig thing - which in truth, surprises me, because from what I know of you in soccer, you're very reasonable), but at the level we're playing at, my opinion isn't worth much.

gbh wrote: »

Was I banned for being offensive or for Libel?

I suspect it was for being offensive...I think we are getting close to the crux of the issue of bans in the politics forum....it's not for libel at all...it's for saying things that are offensive...perhaps to people of other political parties...well to be honest there is no law against being offensive...

and it's a completely different issue to Libeling someone...

I think this has been answered for you all ready. You were banned for breaking forum rules. The rules are in place to ensure the continued running of the politics forum, and indeed, the website. They are not based on libel laws per se, but may be forged with certain laws in mind.

All in all, if you don't follow the forum rules and you get banned, you have little cause to complain.

Instead of addressing what laws or offence are involved, why not (as I've previously advised) contrast what you wrote with what the forum rules say are acceptable.

Nevyn

irish1 wrote: »

The thing is Faith if the other 2 mods were in the middle of a discussion and neither of them thought to ban me you have to wonder why Rock Climber did, I mean surely if OscarBarvo or Tristrame thought I should been banned they would have done so themselves and not continued to discuss the topic with me?

Ever stop to think that they consider you to be a pain in the arse that they don't want to interact with you ? I certainly would not.

irish1 wrote: »

However once Rock Climber banned me they just stood by their co-mod, if Tristrame or OscarBravo had banned me instead of telling me to take the discussion to Feedback and then continue to discuss it there I might understand.

It does not matter the semantics of the ban it is in place and enforced by an admin and there won't be anything gained by revisiting the matter.

Villain

psi wrote: »

Unless I've been made cmod, an smod or admin (*checks* - nope, nope, nope)

Well you have moved from soccer to politics you certainly are heading up the chain

psi wrote: »

I don't really see why you're asking me specifically to get involved.

In fact, I don't quite appreciate the way you are approaching me at all - giving me a rather loaded situation to *prove myself* to you (as if I had a need?).

Well its just you said you didn't believe the mods favoured other mods, I was asking you to read my thread and see if you have the same opinion after reading it, not a test as such.

psi wrote: »

At this point, your only recourse is through the admins themselves. I can give an opinion (and my opinion is that you overstepped the boundries in the forum before they banned you and didn't exactly enhance your chances or compromise with the whole sig thing - which in truth, surprises me, because from what I know of you in soccer, you're very reasonable), but at the level we're playing at, my opinion isn't worth much.

Oh your opinion is worth a lot, you are now a mod of the forum which I was banned from however you weren't at the time so I'd be very interested to hear your reason for supporting my ban if in fact you do. I am very reasonable when people are reasonable with me and I don't think you could say that about the way Rock Climber banned me, I wouldn't have put that sig in place if Devore hadn't have told me it was ok which he did.

Villain

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ever stop to think that they consider you to be a pain in the arse that they don't want to interact with you ? I certainly would not.

By a pain in the arse I gather you mean I don't just accept Bias but question it, yea?

Thaedydal wrote: »

It does not matter the semantics of the ban it is in place and enforced by an admin and there won't be anything gained by revisiting the matter.

Well I have never had an Admin tell me why I was banned or discuss the matter and its seems from this thread that the issue I raised in my thread for which I was banned is still ongoing as is evident from this thread.

gbh

Ibid wrote: »

I know; I wasn't speaking from your experience, I was speaking from mine. Which is more expansive than yours.

Bluntly, I think this is your problem.

That's incorrect.

That's incorrect.

That's incorrect.

I agree you could plausibly claim that the Taliban's approach to women's rights is of a no-risk nature. You could also say it's Iarnród Éireann's approach to workers' safety. It may even be psi's approach when engaging in fornication. What's your point?

Ibid...no-one invited you into this dicussion...now you are proving beyond all doubt that mods stick together with your interventions...its sad really..."oh no we don't stick together" ... not that im bothered but yeah its sad and funny how mods back each other when one is challenged...it's like safety in numbers...

gbh

But I aint going to waste much more of my time arguing with mods....there is clearly censorship of anything resembling criticism of Bertie in the politics forum...The fact that in this thread it takes 4, 5 or even more mods to help each other out tells its own story...

Here's a tip...anyone moding politics should have at least a basic knowledge of law and I mean read at least one book on it and not listen to the RTE news for their education...and also they should not be biased towards protecting one politician or another...even though they will deny it, its fairly obvious, either that or its ignorance of the law...

I honestly think if we said anything about any other person before the tribunal, altho what we were saying is merely reporting the facts then there would be no problem..

But one mod got upset with the language used.....that's what you are dealing with...

GuanYin

gbh wrote: »

But I aint going to waste much more of my time arguing with mods....there is clearly censorship of anything resembling criticism of Bertie in the politics forum...The fact that in this thread it takes 4, 5 or even more mods to help each other out tells its own story...

Here's a tip...anyone moding politics should have at least a basic knowledge of law and I mean read at least one book on it and not listen to the RTE news for their education...and also they should not be biased towards protecting one politician or another...even though they will deny it, its fairly obvious, either that or its ignorance of the law...

I honestly think if we said anything about any other person before the tribunal, altho what we were saying is merely reporting the facts then there would be no problem..

But one mod got upset with the language used.....that's what you are dealing with...

Your complete refusal to even acknowledge what I've told you (several times) and your early instance or distorting the facts of the incident really make me think the previous mods got it spot on.

Irish1. Try helpdesk or PM and admin.

Villain

psi wrote: »

Irish1. Try helpdesk or PM and admin.

Are you not going to give me your own opinion then?