censorship on the politics forum

GuanYin

jessop1 wrote: »

PSI, you still havent provided any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that I posted innacuracies and was soapboxing. Nothing.

Nor have you answered my question about where is the appropriate place to discuss the protest video and what if any restrictions shoule be placed on the debate.

all you've done is warn me not to break rules.

jessop1, I'm not interested in providing you with anything more than the other mods have already provided you with. You've been told, you've been warned, if you want to be obtuse about it, your call.

thebman

Okay from my understanding of it Jessop1's thread with the video was deleted and then the post deleted from the other thread on Lisbon for being off topic.

Well surely if the mods feel that the video is not related to the Lisbon treaty they should have just asked that the thread be renamed to the topic of the thread. Jessop1 does seem to have been given the run around on this issue IMO. Being told his wrong to post it in a thread of its own and wrong to post it in the stickied thread. If it doesn't belong to the Lisbon thread fine, tell him the thread name is misleading and lock it or rename it or whatever.

Also there does seem to be some clear bias against the no campaign going on here by some mods although I won't mention names. Seems they are sick of cleaning up what they consider mud slinging and inaccurate statements but this goes on all the time in plenty of other threads in politics and is basically part of politics although a nasty side of it. The people that support the yes side can stick up for their side on the issue and show that the video is misleading yes? Then let them and let there be a debate about how worthwhile the video is IMO.

BTW I don't support the yes or no campaign yet on Lisbon because I don't know enough about it and I'm rarely in the Politics forum (for a number of reasons I won't go into here) and my post history will most definitely back that up, lol.

I just saw this in recent posts listing and got interested to find out what was going on and thought I'd give my opinion on it.

jessop1

FAO: MORIARTY

In retaining and subsequently re-posting those deleted posts, you have broken the stated rules of the politics forum
From the Guidelines for posting

"Moderators may not keep a copy of any edited/deleted material"

More evidence of the rot going on. stop the rot!

Gordon

Why not put the video in the cool links and vids forum?

jessop1

PSI wrote: »

jessop1, I'm not interested in providing you with anything more than the other mods have already provided you with. You've been told, you've been warned, if you want to be obtuse about it, your call.

first substanceless accusations (mud slinging), now evasion. pure desperation evidently.

oscarBravo

jessop1, please answer the question I've asked you twice now.

Moriarty

jessop1 wrote: »

FAO: MORIARTY

In retaining and subsequently re-posting those deleted posts, you have broken the stated rules of the politics forum
From the Guidelines for posting

"Moderators may not keep a copy of any edited/deleted material"

More evidence of the rot going on. stop the rot!

Heh. Something that hasn't kept track with the vbulletin capabilities. I didn't keep any copies, vbulletin (the software this forum runs on) keeps everything that has been posted, including deleted posts. Lets not address the subject of the posts though, eh?

I expect you'll repeat your request for information on where to post the video in your next post, it's about that time again isn't it?

Overheal

jessop1 wrote: »

bizarre reasoning. The american election is less relevant so give it more bandwith than something more relevant? Leave the rest of the forum alone? wouldnt a sub forum be a good way of doing that? And I thought you were against soapboxing....

Alright thats Strike Three pal. I'm quite sick of you bringing up oh boo hoo the yanks get a thread why dont I WHAAAAAAA.

Honestly stfu the moderators have addressed the issue of a sub-forum several times.

It's OK to link to a video...

...but it should be accompanied by a detailed summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

So far All I have heard is look! MEPs do not want! Wou!

Forgetting about the cheesy music and the parts of the onscreen narrative that are in dispute and under discussion, the key thing here is that on 12/12/07, a large number of MEPs protested in the parliament causing a rucus, in the video they are holding large referendum banners which are being confiscated from them, the camera is eventually forced down...mad.

Yes. They had a protest. Thats about enough information to fit inside a shoebox and could be completely exhaust of its own discussion before the Weather and Sports.

let me get this straight - a protest for a referenda across europe on the lisbon treaty is not related to the lisbon treaty?

Its not relevant to Ireland. For a third time: youre getting one. Right now as someone with a vote that carries the weight of Europe with it you really ought to quit bickering over this Youtube video and really should get back to the body of the treaty itself. I think everyone is already well aware that there is protest and unrest over the Lisbon treaty hence I really dont see what this adds to the discussion except to say more people are protesting. woot.

Or are you saying that any and all protests about the treaty are not related to the treaty?

Lets visualize this. Right now, Ireland is the Jury and Michael Jackson is the Lisbon Treaty. Theres a thousand Protesters and A thousand supporters outside. That is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is the facts of the case.

why should there be a disclaimer on something that represents anti (or pro for that matter) treaty viewpoints??

Otherwise its just going to be disregarded as propoganda anyway. Kinda like FOX News. Have you ever listend to Bill O'Reilly smell his own farts? Its disgusting.

However for me to form an opinion its good to know beforehand which side of the fence I am viewing information from. I'll even turn on FOX News and I'll listen, knowing its predominantly conservative. That doesnt stop them from making good arguments from time to time. Same with any political camp.

I strongly advise you just drop it. Its a ****ing video. It shows MEPs protesting for referenda. Grand. MEPs want referenda. Move on.


as for OscarBravo I still don't know what his opinion on the treaty is so I disagree with the comments about bias.

And look youve managed to get me entirely off the topic and ironically started getting me talking about what you wanted to talk about in the first place.

So I have to wonder if you arent just taking it to feedback at this stage to have your little mound of dirt.

To summarize: the Mods have not abused their position; they have not pushed a personal agenda; they are not censoring the discussion and for the last time that video does not merit its own thread.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

jessop1, please answer the question I've asked you twice now.

No. This is a feedback thread. I will however be happy to resume that discussion with you in where it was raised - in the politics forum (yes, even on the mega thread if you insist) - when my complaint is satisfactorily resolved.

As things stand, your co mods are either slinging mud at me or breaking their own forum rules and you are just doing your usual 'ol power mongering threating etc... this issue needs to be properly resolved first and foremost as far as I'm concerned.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

No. This is a feedback thread.

Yes: a feedback thread that you started by lying about me. I've called you on that lie, and I want an answer.

I will however be happy to resume that discussion with you in where it was raised - in the politics forum (yes, even on the mega thread if you insist) - when my complaint is satisfactorily resolved.

What complaint? It's based on a lie in the first place.

As things stand, your co mods are either slinging mud at me...

What mud?

...or breaking their own forum rules...

Please read the rules again, and this time make an effort to understand them.

and you are just doing your usual 'ol power mongering threating etc... this issue needs to be properly resolved first and foremost as far as I'm concerned.

No, first and foremost I want you to back up your accusation or retract it, because without it you don't have a complaint.

oscarBravo

I will make a side observation here for anyone that's interested: note how jessop1 doesn't like answering questions? That's exactly what we want to avoid in Politics, and particularly on the Lisbon topic - soapboxing.

jessop1

Moriarty wrote: »

Heh. Something that hasn't kept track with the vbulletin capabilities. I didn't keep any copies, vbulletin (the software this forum runs on) keeps everything that has been posted, including deleted posts.

you think you can get off on a technicality just because the posts werent deleted from the recycle bin? what a joke of an excuse. You deliberately retrieved them for re-use. I dont think anyone can deny that is a breach of your own stated rule. I will be looking into this further.

Moriarty wrote: »

Lets not address the subject of the posts though, eh?

I expect you'll repeat your request for information on where to post the video in your next post, it's about that time again isn't it?

The subject of the posts is where to post the video so you are kind of contradicting yourself here mate. and it is you who is refusing to discuss that. another joke.

Overheal

the issue is resolved as in the bottom of my last post.

Now you have to answer to Bravo.

Jessop1 wrote:

you think you can get off on a technicality just because the posts werent deleted from the recycle bin? what a joke of an excuse. You deliberately retrieved them for re-use. I dont think anyone can deny that is a breach of your own stated rule. I will be looking into this further.

Mods/Admins have on more than one occassion pulled up deleted posts for the sake of a Feedback thread. Take a look around. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055278448

Now I and others have answered your questions: answer ours or it will be the lolcats for you.

jessop1

You are caught out this time oscar and you know it.

AlmightyCushion

jessop1 wrote: »

you think you can get off on a technicality just because the posts werent deleted from the recycle bin? what a joke of an excuse.

Their is no recycle bin to empty. When a mod deletes a post they really only remove it from view for non-mods of that forum. We can't permanently delete a post (admins can though).

jessop1

Overheal wrote: »

Alright thats Strike Three pal

Frikkin chuck norris over here eh?

Overheal wrote: »

Honestly stfu

No

Overheal wrote: »

So far All I have heard is look! MEPs do not want! Wou!

I posted a detailed description on the lisbon thread but it was deleted. You can see it in the undeleted posts moriarty posted on this thread

The rest of your post was just your opinions/tirade on the video, the protest etc which would be better placed on a dedicted thread.. iin politics! ironic, seeing as you say:

Overheal wrote: »

for the last time that video does not merit its own thread.

And btw, when you say "doesnt merit", does this mean that others should be prevented from discussing it in politcs? If so, for the umpteenth time, why? . And for the umpteenth time, can you or anyone supply even one example of my soapboxing or innacurate claims?

jessop1

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Their is no recycle bin to empty. When a mod deletes a post they really only remove it from view for non-mods of that forum. We can't permanently delete a post (admins can though).

thanks for the clarification. It is still a breach to re-post it in the way he did. no doubt.

Overheal

You are caught out this time oscar and you know it.

then answer is question, so you can really have him by the balls with some cold truth. If not GTFO.

It wasnt being barred from discussion. It was being barred from having its own thread. Like I said it has about as much information in it as can fit in a shoebox. You could have alternately posted in the MegaThread that MEPs are seriously against this too. Thats really all the information in there. Thats all that needs to be brought up from the video.

[why?]

I have a good answer for that, but I'm sick of answering your questions until you answer some yourself. When you do I will gladly respond.

It is still a breach to re-post it in the way he did. no doubt.

Not in Feedback it isnt. Youre really pulling at straws here.

AlmightyCushion

jessop1 wrote: »

thanks for the clarification. It is still a breach to re-post it in the way he did. no doubt.

Not really. That rule most likely dates back to an earlier version of vbulletin (the software that runs boards). In earlier versions of vbulletin (I don't know as I don't have much knowledge of the earlier versions) I'd imagine that when a post was deleted it was gone for good. The current version of vbulletin only removes the post from view so that it can be un-deleted at a later date if needs be.

That rule was most likely put in place so that the mods wouldn't be obliged to keep a copy of all posts they delete (in case a user requested it) simply because vbulletin didn't provide them with a means to keep a copy. Luckily this isn't the case anymore.

jessop1

Overheal wrote: »

It wasnt being barred from discussion. It was being barred from having its own thread.

It was deleted from the main lisbon thread. This has been covered on this thread. obviously no point in talking to you

jessop1

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That rule was most likely put in place so that the mods wouldn't be obliged to keep a copy of all posts they delete

not obliged and not allowed are two very different things

AlmightyCushion

jessop1 wrote: »

not obliged and not allowed are two very different things

If we weren't allowed to keep a copy then we would have the option to permanently delete them and we wouldn't have the option to soft delete them (that's the one that only removes them from view). If we weren't allowed to keep a copy of a post, don't you think the admins would remove the option to keep them?

Overheal

Jessop1 wrote:

not obliged and not allowed are two very different things

jessop1 wrote: »

It was deleted from the main lisbon thread. This has been covered on this thread. obviously no point in talking to you

Talking and typing are two very different things.

It was deleted from the main lisbon thread.

I doubt it would have brought a great deal of substance to the argument anyway.

randylonghorn

jessop1 wrote: »

you think you can get off on a technicality just because the posts werent deleted from the recycle bin? what a joke of an excuse. You deliberately retrieved them for re-use. I dont think anyone can deny that is a breach of your own stated rule. I will be looking into this further.

Do. Sounds like a nice little project to fill some of your obviously abundant free time. When you have looked into it exhaustively, and written up your findings (btw, we prefer the Harvard referencing system around here) do post your conclusions. Please use the unique reference tag WGAF as the subject line; this tag has been reserved especially for this specific topic, and its use will ensure that boards users will not only know at a glance what the thread is about, but also be aware of its importance to them.

On more general matters, this thread didn't exactly made my eyes bleed, but the nasty throbbing behind my pupils is no doubt a warning sign.

Initially, I was actually inclined to agree that a mega-thread of 20 pages and rising was unlikely to foster much positive debate ... I'm one of those eccentric people who actually likes to read a full thread before posting in it (assuming it's a serious topic) and that volume would seriously put me off.

The more I read of this thread, however, the more I remembered:
... that "political debate" tends to be an oxymoron for most people
... why I seldom browse either the politics forum here, or indeed any internet forum discussing political subjects.

I would therefore like to propose a different, but I feel effective, solution to the bulging Lisbon Mega-thread of Death.

Delete it.

Start afresh.

I could suggest a similar solution to other headaches evidenced by this thread, but I'm a nice guy.

Really ... I am!!

BuffyBot

thanks for the clarification. It is still a breach to re-post it in the way he did. no doubt.

I think you're misunderstanding the "may not" as meaning "cannot" as opposed to "might not bother".

Honestly, the more I read of this thread, the less I have any faith in your complaints. You're evading questions, accusing others when it boils down to "I didn't get my own way, and I don't like that"

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

You are caught out this time oscar and you know it.

I've suspected for some time that you live in an alternate reality, but now I know it for sure.

You made a complaint here based on a lie, which you've tacitly admitted by your refusal to back it up. I think that says it all, really.

seamus

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That rule was most likely put in place so that the mods wouldn't be obliged to keep a copy of all posts they delete (in case a user requested it) simply because vbulletin didn't provide them with a means to keep a copy. Luckily this isn't the case anymore.

If you read that thread it's 100% clear that it's not a "rule" at all. It's an advisory position, i.e. "Moderators may delete/edit your posts and may not go to the trouble of holding onto the original material, so tough **** if that happens".

The charter isn't written like legislation or a constitution. What jessop1 quoted was clearly not a "rule" that moderators have to abide by. There are no arguments about confusion or "technicalities" here. If he misunderstood the guidelines for posting, that's unfortunate but it's not a technicality he can use to attack moderators.

humanji

But that's not going to stop him.

Overheal

will if he's banned.

rockbeer

Overheal wrote:

for the last time that video does not merit its own thread.

Could somebody clarify the Boards policy on this kind of statement please? If a thread is posted (in any forum, not just politics) which a moderator considers to not merit discussion, does the mod have the power to simply delete it? If so, why?

In general on Boards it seems that the merit of a thread is determined democratically i.e. if people discuss it, it's merited and if they ignore it it's not. Why is the politics forum any different? Why not allow the video to be posted on its own thread under a heading such as 'MEPs protest in favour of Europe-wide referenda for Lisbon Treaty' and see what level of discussion is generated. If it genuinely adds nothing to the debate, people will ignore it and we will have our answer. If the discussion degenerates into soapboxing the mods can lock the thread: no harm done.

But for mods to to decide arbitrarily what discussions are allowed on the basis of what they consider might bring 'a great deal of substance to the argument' (Overheal again) surely makes a mockery of the whole idea of a discussion forum? Regardless of their political affiliations, doesn't this degree of power place way too much emphasis on their personal opinions about what sort of discussion is worthwhile, with the consequent risk of personal prejudice informing their decisions on such matters.

From my own perspective, I consider most of the discussions on the whole of boards unmerited and pointless, and therefore take no part in them. But I wouldn't want to see them banned.