Moriarty's hissy fit in the Politics forum

Mr.Nice Guy

I started a thread in the Politics forum highlighting how the European Parliament had voted against an amendment to accept the outcome of Ireland's decision on the Lisbon Treaty.

I returned to the thread just now to find the thread title had been altered to 'RabbleRabbleRabble' (how very witty), that it had been locked, and that the moderator Moriarty had left this message for me at the end:

Moriarty wrote:

What a load.

Mr. Nice Guy, go somewhere else if you want to post misleading posts like the above.

If anyone here wants to continue the debate on the treaty in a rational way then please do in the thread which has been around for quite a while.

My original post can be seen here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55239168&postcount=1

Firstly I'd like to know how my post was 'misleading'?

Also, what's with the attitude, Moriarty? I feel this was an OTT reaction to an issue that warranted discussion - the fact that the Irish referendum result won't be respected, an issue that is separate from whether or not one feels the Lisbon Treaty should be endorsed or rejected.

I'm here long enough to know how this place works, and I appreciate the work mods do and that they have a difficult - and often thankless - task but I feel Moriarty showed poor form in how he dealt with me.

That's all I wanted to say. Thanks for hearing me out.

Boston

Your wrong.

Sherifu

Isn't the real reason the amendment was voted down posted here in your thread and that's why Moriarty accused you of "misleading posts", locked your thread and directed you to an existing thread? Why was he OTT?

Karl Hungus

Hmm, I wouldn't say "Hissy fit", but that does seem kinda poor form. If the problem was that there was already a thread on the subject, then merging it or locking it and leaving a link to the other thread would be enough. Just my €0.02.

TelePaul

Hmmm. On the surface, it looks like you were hard-done by, especially considering you were asking a very open and subjective question. I think editing someone's post is BS, it's an attempt to undermine their credibility. Locking the thread or deleting would have been more appropriate if there was something explicitly 'wrong' about your post or if it was a duplicate.

Pherekydes

Boston wrote: »

Your wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. Your wrong what?

Overheal

My 2 cents: the Mod was being excessively rude, and editing the post title was a needless low blow. It should have been enough to lock it with an uncommented link to the existing thread, if not merged.

Tha Gopher

While I have never personally had any bad dealings with Moriarty (in fact iirc he once called out one long standing knob on the Politics forum as a liar, which deserves a fair play) I have been banned by one mod for disagreeing with his opinion (ban lifted within an hour of pointing out that the charter had not been violated and this person just plain didnt like someone disagreeing with him) and got labelled as a troll in-thread for disagreeing with the opinion of another mod (something which is banned by the Politics charter itself)

Without wishing to repeat Steve Stauntons view of the San Marino coverage, its like something out of Russia from the 1950s. A Stalinist purge is called for.

mike65

Good mods are like the best refs, you hardly notice thier handiwork.

Mike.

oscarBravo

There's already a thread on Lisbon in the forum, and it's already full of lies and misinformation. Another thread whose sole purpose was to offer yet more misinformation on the subject was, shall we say, less than welcome.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

mike65 wrote: »

Good mods are like the best refs, you hardly notice thier handiwork.

Mike.

in general maybe but sometimes a player will whip his dick out and start beating fans to death with it.

Tha Gopher

Clammy Todgers wrote: »

in general maybe but sometimes a player will whip his dick out and start beating fans to death with it.

WTF man.


Its been like 3 days and you still have the same username.

pfft.

Fysh

On the face of it, this appears to be unfair.

Until, that is, you take account of this being specifically the Politics forum. Remembering the lengthy thread a while back in which some idiot was essentially demanding the right to be allowed to call Gerry Adams a terrorist on the basis that he was sure other people had made similar comments about other politicians in the past, and another lengthy thread in which another twit was trying his damnedest to find a way of calling Bertie Ahern a liar despite being told repeatedly and explicitly that he was not to do so, I feel unable to criticise Moriarty for this.

Frankly, I wouldn't accept an invitation to moderate Politics even if someone offered me a big clock and a suitcase full of cash; I have nothing but admiration for Moriarty and the rest of them for managing to keep the place functioning without going on frequent clock-tower style banning sprees.

mike65

Bertie Ahern is not a liar?

Mike.

Fysh

I think the point was more that, at a time when the Mahon Tribunal was just getting underway, allowing the posting of statements alleging that Bertie was a liar could have severe legal implications for admin, the person in question essentially refused to accept that he could not use boards.ie as a place from which to espouse his beliefs regarding Bertie's truth-telling abilities.

On a more general note, though, have a look at the following threads. These are all feedback threads started by people complaining about bans in politics:

"But I thought I was allowed to slag off politicians in here"

"Damnit, I want to say that he's a liar! Change the damn rules so that I can say he's a liar!"

"If I insult a political party publicly and then privately apologise afterwards, that makes it ok, right?"

"Why can't I just quote promotional material from other sites and insult people who disagree with me?"

(I'm not saying the Politics mods get it right all the time; however, bearing in mind just how many people they seem to have to deal with who think that "accidentally" breaking the rules should be forgiven with a slap on the wrist, I can't blame them for being harsh and making examples of people.)

Tha Gopher

Fysh wrote: »

Frankly, I wouldn't accept an invitation to moderate Politics even if someone offered me a big clock and a suitcase full of cash;

Im tired. I speed-read the words "wouldnt accept.....to mod Politics.....even if someone offered me a big clock"

And misread the word clock in particular.


And then wondered how the mods of Ladies Lounge and the Gay forum were recruited.

leninbenjamin

the lock was fair. Considering there is an entire section of the politics charter on civility though, i think it's not unreasonable to expect the mod to have conducted himself a bit better with regards to the manner of the lock. Without question there's a not so thinly veiled insult in his post.

Overheal

Aye being slanderous about the original poster while maintaining the same cannot be done of a politician for example, seems wrong.

Moriarty

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I started a thread in the Politics forum highlighting how the European Parliament had voted against an amendment to accept the outcome of Ireland's decision on the Lisbon Treaty.

I returned to the thread just now to find the thread title had been altered to 'RabbleRabbleRabble' (how very witty), that it had been locked, and that the moderator Moriarty had left this message for me at the end:

The thread was yet another attempt at undermining the Lisbon Treaty in the eyes of voters via misleading and spurious arguements. I'm all for open debate but it's unacceptable to be making implications like you did - that the European Parliament will somehow ignore a "No" vote from Ireland and force through the lisbon treaty - when it's completely untrue and muddying the waters.

I do not accept that you arrived at the wording of your thread title by accident - it was a deliberate attempt to let another snipet of "The EU is up to no good, the bastards" into the minds of people seeing the thread title on the main page of boards every time it was replied to and on the front page of the politics forum. I can't prevent a lot of that despicable behaviour going on all around us, but I sure as hell can prevent it from happening on the politics forum. If it wasn't a politically loaded topic, I wouldn't have edited it. All I did edit was the thread title, your original post is otherwise entirely intact.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Also, what's with the attitude, Moriarty? I feel this was an OTT reaction to an issue that warranted discussion - the fact that the Irish referendum result won't be respected, an issue that is separate from whether or not one feels the Lisbon Treaty should be endorsed or rejected.

It's a non-issue. It's a completely engineered misreading of parliamentary business for the sole purpose of placing mistrust of EU institutions in the centre of peoples minds months before an important referendum. Scofflaw had explained exactly why that was the case in multiple posts in the thread. Therefore, thread closed. As I mentioned in my post, debate on the Lisbon Treaty itself is more than welcome in the main thread on the topic.

TelePaul

Moriarty wrote: »

The thread was yet another attempt at undermining the Lisbon Treaty in the eyes of voters via misleading and spurious arguements.

To be honest man, I think you're doing a discredit to the members of your forum

Moriarty wrote: »

I do not accept that you arrived at the wording of your thread title by accident - it was a deliberate attempt to let another snipet of "The EU is up to no good, the bastards" into the minds of people seeing the thread title on the main page of boards every time it was replied to and on the front page of the politics forum.

Again...people are capable of independent thought.

Moriarty wrote: »

I can't prevent a lot of that despicable behaviour going on all around us, but I sure as hell can prevent it from happening on the politics forum.

See above.

Moriarty wrote: »

If it wasn't a politically loaded topic, I wouldn't have edited it. All I did edit was the thread title, your original post is otherwise entirely intact.

A politically loaded thread in the politics forum? :eek::eek::eek:

Come on man. Sounds like your devotion to the 'growth and jobs' mandate is obscuring any sense of impartiality.

Moriarty

I was referring to people who wouldn't normally frequent the poltics forum but who might see the thread title. How many links do you read which you don't click on during your travels around the internets?

Overheal

I dont know of any locked thread were it was deemed necessary to smear the subject line of the thread like that. What was the motivation for calling more attention to a locked thread? Forum charters suffice very well for every other thread on keeping passer by's aware of the rules.

TelePaul

Moriarty wrote: »

I was referring to people who wouldn't normally frequent the poltics forum but who might see the thread title. How many links do you read which you don't click on during your travels around the internets?

How many headlines do you suppose I glance at while I queue for pack of smokes? Quite a few. They have very little direct impact on how I live my life.

Irish Wolf

TelePaul wrote: »

obscuring any sense of impartiality.

I don't see any obscuring of impartiality tbh..

imo. the OP tried to gain page views (support) by creating a new topic linking to a blantant anti treaty "news" articles. "News" in the loosest sense of the word given that one headline was "EU To Ireland: Go F*** Yourselves", and hovering over the other brings one to votenoe.ie..

Moriarty linked to an existing discussion on the particular topic when they closed the thread, and I'd have no doubt they'd do the same should someone pop up and link to some blatant pro treaty articles.

TelePaul

Irish Wolf wrote: »

I don't see any obscuring of impartiality tbh..

imo. the OP tried to gain page views (support) by creating a new topic linking to a blantant anti treaty "news" articles. "News" in the loosest sense of the word given that one headline was "EU To Ireland: Go F*** Yourselves", and hovering over the other brings one to votenoe.ie..

Moriarty linked to an existing discussion on the particular topic when they closed the thread, and I'd have no doubt they'd do the same should someone pop up and link to some blatant pro treaty articles.

If this is the case I don't really see the point of a politics forum. Anyways, I'm out. I've had my say, I think every aspect of this is ridiculous.

Irish Wolf

TelePaul wrote: »

If this is the case I don't really see the point of a politics forum.

Why?

It's not meant to be a party political broadcast forum, it's meant for political discussion.

TelePaul

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Why?

It's not meant to be a party political broadcast forum, it's meant for political discussion.

And you really believe a discussion wont influence peoples thoughts, but a broadcast will? A discussion seems far more likely to provoke consideration in my opinion. Or yeah, you could believe everything you read without questioning it.

Irish Wolf

TelePaul wrote: »

And you really believe a discussion wont influence peoples thoughts, but a broadcast will? A discussion seems far more likely to provoke consideration in my opinion. Or yeah, you could believe everything you read without questioning it.

Exactly! And there was already an on-going discussion on the topic.. so by your own logic, Moriarty was correct.

TelePaul

Irish Wolf wrote: »

Exactly! And there was already an on-going discussion on the topic.. so by your own logic, Moriarty was correct.

What does 'exactly' pertain to?

Irish Wolf

TelePaul wrote: »

A discussion seems far more likely to provoke consideration in my opinion.

It pertains to your wise words up there ^^

TelePaul

Irish Wolf wrote: »

It pertains to your wise words up there ^^

Which ones? All of them? So you agree that a discussion has a greater power to unduly influence than a one-liner? In that case, we've proved moriarty wrong.

Man it's late, I'm barely keeping up with all this.