censorship on the politics forum

jessop1

thanks for the support from various posters, its obvious others have noticed the problem too.

Can I get a definative answer from a senior boards mod as to whether
a) my thread can be re-opened and
b) can a directive be given that dedicated threads started to discuss specific aspects or items in relation to the treaty will not be closed.

As I've said and others have also pointed out, restricting discussion to the mega thread only is not conducive to open and ongoing discussion.

Noone wants to have to trawl through scores of pages (many of which be covering aspects not relative or relevant to the specific issue at hand) in order to catch up with the debate and then guide it to the specific issue they want to raise. It just doesnt make sense. Fine if people want to post on the mega thread but stiffling all other threads on the matter...:eek::mad:....... senior mods, please tell me you can see the problem here.

And btw, thats a great idea about having a dedicated sub forum for the treaty. how do I go about requesting it? A PM to the mods of politics? a thread in feedback?

thanks

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

thanks for the support from various posters, its obvious others have noticed the problem too.

Can I get a definative answer from a senior boards mod as to whether
a) my thread can be re-opened and
b) can a directive be given that dedicated threads started to discuss specific aspects or items in relation to the treaty will not be closed.

Just to be clear (and in case it wasn't obvious), I'll be opposing any such moves.

As I've said and others have also pointed out, restricting discussion to the mega thread only is not conducive to open and ongoing discussion.

You're not interested in discussion. You want a platform to soapbox. The moderation of Politics is specifically geared towards the former and away from the latter, which is why you have such a problem with it.

This thread is a case in point. You've refused to even acknowledge anything I've said so far. You also ignored my request in Politics to read the existing thread before posting in it.

Noone wants to have to trawl through scores of pages (many of which be covering aspects not relative or relevant to the specific issue at hand) in order to catch up with the debate and then guide it to the specific issue they want to raise.

The point you're missing is that it's entirely possible that the specific issue you want to raise may well already have been raised, debunked and put to bed in that very thread.

And btw, thats a great idea about having a dedicated sub forum for the treaty. how do I go about requesting it? A PM to the mods of politics? a thread in feedback?

I'll be strongly opposing this idea also, for reasons I've made clear in this very thread, and which you've chosen to ignore.

Moriarty

I was going to reply, but I'll just say "what he said ^" instead, along with the following..

There have been a number of cases specific to debate around the treaty with posters creating multiple accounts to make it appear that their "main" account has popular support (whatever the hell that's worth on an internet forum.. I've yet to figure out) on specific anti-treaty positions. Further, when they're challenged to prove their vague doomsday assertions they either (1) ignore the challenges and continue as before or (2) attempt to redirect debate.

You (plural) can't expect to act like children and then protest when you're treated like children in return.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not interested in discussion. You want a platform to soapbox.

coming from someone who let out a rant at me and then closed the thread before I could respond, I find your hypocrisy breathtaking.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is a case in point. You've refused to even acknowledge anything I've said so far. You also ignored my request in Politics to read the existing thread before posting in it.
The point you're missing is that it's entirely possible that
the specific issue you want to raise may well already have been raised, debunked and put to bed in that very thread.

I wont play your silly games oscar. I wanted to discuss the leaked memo specifically, which was in todays news, so a bit unlikely to have been already covered in the mega thread. New developments like this are a perfect reason to have new threads. Also, it should be entirely appropriate to start a new thread to discuss specific aspects of the treaty, even if that aspect has already been mentioned in some form and "debunked" (you wish) in some obscure page, mid mega thread.

jessop1

Hmm, I can see that the politics mods are sticking together on this one.

Can I ask a senior mod, perhaps someone more neutral and objective to take a look at this issue? Doesnt it seem a tad inappropriate that they stiffle all discussion on the treaty bar on that unwieldy mega thread, while at the same time there is an entire forum dedicated to the (much less relevant to us) US elections? Its obvious that the 2 politics mods above dont want to go for this but there is undoubtedly a strong case for it.

And I ask, please take a look at the mod decisions of oscarbravo, it is obvious that some of his decisions are driven by his own vehemently held political views. On a politics forum, that just aint right. Objectivity should be the order of the day for moderators, no?

thanks
Jessop

jessop1

Moriarty wrote: »

I was going to reply, but I'll just say "what he said ^" instead, along with the following..

There have been a number of cases specific to debate around the treaty with posters creating multiple accounts to make it appear that their "main" account has popular support (whatever the hell that's worth on an internet forum.. I've yet to figure out) on specific anti-treaty positions. Further, when they're challenged to prove their vague doomsday assertions they either (1) ignore the challenges and continue as before or (2) attempt to redirect debate.

You (plural) can't expect to act like children and then protest when you're treated like children in return.

Not sure what you mean? is this an accusation? perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Certainly I have never posted on boards.ie using anything other than my own (ie this) user account. And how is your point re: duplicitous posters in any way relevant to the common sense request that more than one thread of discussion be allowed on the lisbon treaty?

You know, the more you guys post on this thread, the clearer it becomes that there is a serious bias problem with the politics forum moderation.

The_Minister

I vote Progressive Democrat, and I am not ashamed of it.

I feel that OscarBravo is biased towards Labour.

I feel that this is because OB has political beliefs of his own, because he doesn't just mod politics, he also partakes in discussion.

As a member of the most disliked political minority in Ireland, I would just like to say that I do not feel that OB has ever acted on his political beliefs while moderating, and I do not recall him ever banning someone who was not a tard.
In short OP, go jump in the Liffey, and take that link to the pile of crap in your sig with you.
It is people like you that mean I don't read the Treaty thread, because every time I do I want to write till my fingers bleed, as I decimate, point by point, the obnoxious lies that groups calling themselves the People's whatever, post up. And such anger isn't healthy;)


That said, the OP has a point.
No seriously.
It must be the 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters phenomenon.

We could benefit from a forum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Treaty is a multifaceted and complex document, and can't be discussed in one thread. If we want to actually discuss it, several threads are needed.
The moderation would be murder though, and we would probably need a subforum of feedback for it.

gandalf

I would like a senior admin to close this thread because quite frankly it is a waste of electrons.

jessop1

The_Minister, its not about party political affiliation, its about his vehement political views on the treaty (he's a yes man, in case you havent guessed). Thats whats influencing his moderation.

But, insults, nonsensical rants, sweeping dismissals and instructions to commit suicide aside, you have crystallised the main point I was making, ie:

The_Minister wrote: »

The Treaty is a multifaceted and complex document, and can't be discussed in one thread. If we want to actually discuss it, several threads are needed.

Esel

The_Minister wrote: »

I vote Progressive Democrat, and I am not ashamed of it....As a member of the most disliked political minority in Ireland,......

You're confusing me here. You vote PD, but are a member of SF?

The_Minister

esel wrote: »

You're confusing me here. You vote PD, but are a member of SF?

I've been spat at for voting PD, and someone from SF threatened "to roll me down the street" once.

The Progressive Democrats are far and away the most disliked party in Ireland. You would not believe the **** I've heard people say about the PDs, most people don't seem to have a firm grasp of what they are even about.



EDIT: And, just to clarify, I am still on the fence regarding the Treaty. I just hate being lied to by the No side, and patronised by the Yes side.

javaboy

The_Minister wrote: »

I just hate being lied to by the No side, and patronised by the Yes side.

That sums up my feelings on the treaty so far. +1 for the idea of a sub forum for the Treaty.

Overheal

As this thread shows i know sweet **** all about your irish politicals. Nor do I especially care.

Ironically I think this would make me an ideal politics mod candidate impartiality or ignorance ill let you decide.

Nerin

Overheal wrote: »

As this thread shows i know sweet **** all about your irish politicals. Nor do I especially care.

Ironically I think this would make me an ideal politics mod candidate impartiality or ignorance ill let you decide.

amp test this mo fo

you are always sneaking around trying to get in the door

LostinBlanch

I'm with the minister on this one.

A bit worried though, if I keep agreeing with him does it mean I'll vote PD? Eeeek!

Overheal

Nerin wrote: »

amp test this mo fo

you are always sneaking around trying to get in the door

Shhhh....

GuanYin

jessop1 wrote: »

Can I ask a senior mod, perhaps someone more neutral and objective to take a look at this issue? Doesnt it seem a tad inappropriate that they stiffle all discussion on the treaty bar on that unwieldy mega thread, while at the same time there is an entire forum dedicated to the (much less relevant to us) US elections? Its obvious that the 2 politics mods above dont want to go for this but there is undoubtedly a strong case for it.

Do I count? Here is my take. You didn't read the rules, ergo you didn't folow the rules. You got moderated, didn't like it and you're here complaining about the mods behavior.

May I ask, why you didn't read the rules first, voice your opinions to the mods, or indeed the forum (via the thread in politics specifically designated "a discussion of the rules") and let natural debate take its course.

It seems to me that its a bit rich of you to come here and make accusations against a very senior and very well respected moderator when you yourself have not acted in an appropriate manner at any stage of procedings.

Or perhaps you feel that you should just be allowed do as you please and ignore the rules.

And I ask, please take a look at the mod decisions of oscarbravo, it is obvious that some of his decisions are driven by his own vehemently held political views. On a politics forum, that just aint right. Objectivity should be the order of the day for moderators, no?

I don't know OB, we communicate on a purely policy based level. He strikes me as a person of great balance and integrity and I'm the last person on boards.ie to give false platitudes to a mod (indeed, I'm usually the first vulture to start circling).

The issue with politics moderation is that because so many posters arrive with a certain level of righteous belief, anyone who disagrees is seen as the enemy. As Moriarty rightly points out, we get accused of every bias possible.

Personally I've been accused of being both a brainwashed communist chinese ex-pat AND an anti-chinese pro-tibet westerner by two separate people within maybe 4-5 hours of each other (I have the PMs if anyone doesn't believe this). The truth is I'm neither of these things, but because I must moderate and retain the right to express my opinions, it is an accusation that I and all the other politics mods must constantly endure.

OB merely acted according to the rules outlined. Rules you ignored.

In future if you wish to challenge a policy, why not do it the correct way? As it stands, as far as I'm concerned OB is the highest authority on this matter, barring the intervention of the site owners.

Overheal

The Islamofascist has a point you know.

humanji

Just to guage interest, I created a topic in the forums forum. So vote yay or nay for a sub-forum for the Lisbon Treaty.

Ron DMC

humanji wrote: »

Just to guage interest, I created a topic in the forums forum. So vote yay or nay for a sub-forum for the Lisbon Treaty.

I voted nay, but made a better suggestion.

DeepBlue

This is just a comment on the politics forum rather than the specific instance that the OP is talking about and perhaps I should start a new thread but I'm a bit lazy .

I'd be an example of a poster that would like to use the politics board but as it currently stands I find it unusable for the purposes of having a free flowing political debate. One example of this is the locked Tribunal thread.
The Tribunal and fallout from the events thereof has been probably the biggest political story of the last 18 months and it's not possible to discuss it on boards. That pretty much says it all.

Of course part of the reason the thread has been locked is because of trollish behaviour by posters. However that's why we have mods - so that they can cut that type of behaviour out, ban the trolls and facilitate a free and open discussion in the best interests of boards, and the members who want to discuss politics. The fact that that thread is locked is a clear indication that they have failed to do that and that's a pity.

This isn't a "fight de powah" post (as I said above I'm lazy and that would involve far too much effort ) - it's more just a token of my disappointment that we (i.e. boards members) haven't yet devised a way in which we can discuss sensitive political issues in a way that doesn't lead to a premature lock.

JOHNSPILLANE

Anybody who is still pro Europe needs to have get an education.

We're all one, why not go for a united world, just skip all the tatter in between.

Peace Man, we are all one.

What a joke. Small independent economies, and regions are the only chance for a suitable living environment.

But for that we need a population who are not plebs, happy slaves.

Ireland is full of good guys.

oscarBravo

Honestly casey, haven't you found a new playground yet?

The_Minister

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Small independent economies, and regions are the only chance for a suitable living environment.

You mean like North Korea, Zimbabwe etc?

Nerin

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Anybody who is still pro Europe needs to have get an education.

jessop1

FAO: PSI

thanks for your feedback, although, with respect, I cant say I agree with any of it. You seem to think Oscar is above reproach because he is senior and you feel he is well respected? surely noone is above the law.

PSI wrote: »

You didn't read the rules, ergo you didn't folow the rules. You got moderated, didn't like it and you're here complaining about the mods behavior.

May I ask what rule I was moderated on?. I dont believe there is a written rule in the charter saying only one thread is allowed on the lisbon treaty??

Overheal

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Anybody who is still pro Europe needs to have get an education.

You mean like those great educations we're provided now on the back of the European Central Bank? Union?

jessop1

A certain amount of unrelated discussion has taken place on this thread, I'd appreciate if that could be deleted mods.

But getting back to my complaint, can one or all of the politics mods give me their take on the following:

1 - I post a new thread on the leaked memo report in yesterdays news. Oscar invokes the one thread rule, closes my thread, and then states on the mega thread:

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is the "conversation" on the Lisbon Treaty

2 - Last evening, I posted a video showing a noisy protest by a large number of MEPS in the EU partiament. They were demanding a referendum on the treaty for their respective countries. I posted it on the mega thread, as per oscars directive. A number of posts on the video ensued before the other mod, Moriarty, deleted them all, stating they, along with the video, were off topic.

Confused? aye me too.

So heres the current situation - if I re-post the video in a new thread, oscar will close the thread and possibly ban me for not posting it in the mega thread.

If I re-post it in the mega thread moriarty will delete the posts and possibly ban me posting it it in the mega thread.

Can I get some sane advice here? where is the appropriate place to post this video??

This is getting beyond ludicrous!!

oscarBravo

Have you read the Politics forum charter?

Time Magazine

Overheal wrote: »

You mean like those great educations we're provided now on the back of the European Central Bank?

WTF does the ECB have to do with providing education?