censorship on the politics forum

Overheal

rockbeer wrote: »

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.

Good post.

Reminded of 2 threads this afternoon in After Hours. Someone posted a thread about a subject thats already been widely debated and I linked them to thread. However a lot of discussion went on in the new thread too so it was decided to merge the two.

Maybe he should, then, be allowed to post the video and see what responses he receives to it in its own container. If my shoebox correction proves true, oh well, and we move on. Let normal posters flame bait him and once the verdict is in/out the thread can be locked once it has had its due. If it manages to go well it can be merged into the Mega-Thread at a later date if it becomes relevant to that discussion.

This has happened now in PI as well. Once instantly locked were Medical Discussion threads; now room is given for Posters to have a say. A thread will still be locked if the near-unanimous response is "go see a doctor", for example.

You'll have to forgive my attitude about this but I've been suddenly overcome with my own impressions of the OP, as indicated purely in this thread. He appears to be making a serious number of claims with a poor amount of evidence, if I have been keeping up properly.

oscarBravo

When a Politics thread is started, one of the questions I ask myself is: "is the OP interested in a discussion?"

Having read this thread, do you think jessop1 was (or is) interested in a discussion?

Rb

Well if they came looking for lolcats then they've been bitterly disappointed.

oscarBravo

Overheal

gandalf

FS 9 pages it took to whip your LOLCats out, disappointed I am !!

oscarBravo

Only four pages if you're doing it right.

Overheal

gandalf wrote: »

FS 9 pages it took to whip your LOLCats out, disappointed I am !!

excusey: I used a lolhamster.

nesf

rockbeer wrote: »

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 theory yes, but in reality mods don't generally do this without good reason. Usually off-topic stuff gets moved to the proper forum or threads are merged to keep the discussion in a single thread or similar. It's rare that a thread would simply be deleted.

However, Politics is far more strictly moderated than the rest of the site mainly because people take the piss far more on it which means that you don't get as much leniency shown as you would on most of the other forums.

jessop1

rockbeer wrote: »

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?

Good question. Good luck getting a sensible answer on that unless you can get someone senior and outside of politics to advise.

I'm still waiting for an answers on why the video is banned from discussion in the politics forum.

(and any evidence to back up the accusations of soapboxing and posting innacuracies and other lies posted by oscar and co on this thread)

If I can just get an answer on the video though I'll be happy enough.

Sherifu

Gordon

jessop1 wrote: »

If I can just get an answer on the video though I'll be happy enough.

What was the question again?

Villain

Op don't bother, the Politics mods do want they want and the admins seem happy to let them.

The politics forum became a complete joke when they first censored discussion on the Mahon Tribunal and then banned it altogether, the biggest political story for years in Ireland and boards censored discussion about Bertie giving him treatment that no other party leader got despite all the media stories and tribunal transcripts, then they stopped discussion.

The mods were all changed with the exception of Oscar Bravo in one swoop and Tristrame even disappeared so I'm not sure if the admins did anything but if they did things don't seem to have changed.

jessop1

jessop1

Villain wrote: »

Op don't bother, the Politics mods do want they want and the admins seem happy to let them.

The politics forum became a complete joke when they first censored discussion on the Mahon Tribunal and then banned it altogether, the biggest political story for years in Ireland and boards censored discussion about Bertie giving him treatment that no other party leader got despite all the media stories and tribunal transcripts, then they stopped discussion.

The mods were all changed with the exception of Oscar Bravo in one swoop and Tristrame even disappeared so I'm not sure if the admins did anything but if they did things don't seem to have changed.

I see what you're saying villain, but the hypocrisy and disingenuousness going on here should still be highlighted. Their illogical position on this video illustrates this perfectly.

Simplicity

<lolocat>

I think the OP is right.

VOTE NO TO LISBON



http://www.no2lisbon.ie/

http://www.voteno.ie/

http://www.libertas.org/content/view/191/110/


They answer the op's better than I ever could.

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

I'm still waiting for an answers...

(and any evidence to back up the accusations of soapboxing and posting innacuracies and other lies posted by oscar and co on this thread

You're waiting for answers, and I'm a liar?

You're a funny fecker, I'll give you that. Twelve out of ten for having a neck like a jockey's bollox.

randylonghorn

jessop1 wrote: »

Good question. Good luck getting a sensible answer on that unless you can get someone senior and outside of politics to advise.

Absolutely!

Because the person who posted immediately before you is not a mod of long standing, and doesn't have a clue what they're talking about ... obviously, loike!!

rockbeer

oscarBravo wrote: »

When a Politics thread is started, one of the questions I ask myself is: "is the OP interested in a discussion?"

Having read this thread, do you think jessop1 was (or is) interested in a discussion?

I don't really want to get sucked into the whole discussion about the OP or the specific grievances, I was just looking for clarification about how these decisions are made.

However, your reply raises a couple of interesting points...

Should I assume from the fact that you consider the motives of the OP when looking at a new thread, that you would regard the same thread starter differently depending on whether it was posted by someone who's motives you trusted or who's motives you doubted?

Following on from that, and given that the value of a discussion is a product of the contributions of all the participants, not just the OP, I find myself wondering whether or not you think it possible for worthwhile discussions to take place even in threads started by people who have no interest in such discussion themselves.

Just curious.

GuanYin

I think OBs point is that you can usually tell from an OP's post (and admittedly, sometimes their posting record) whether their intentions are to discuss a specific issue, or whether they're trying to use the forum to preach a political viewpoint.

One is encouraged the other is not.

The contributions often allow for the value of the discussion, but if the discussion itself is based on an erroneous, mis-represented or mis-understood premise, then the discussion will never really be worthwhile unless you're specifically asking about a hypothetical situation.

For instance, if someone were to start a discussion a thread here stating that immigrants should not be given administrative jobs in this country because administration in their own countries is a failure and this is down to their heritage, it would be hard to imagine a worthwhile discussion coming from that thread. The poster would obviously be someone with an axe to grind and was starting a thread to express his/her distaste for immigrants.

Its a hard call to make, and maybe I've illustrated it poorly, but thats why we get paid the good cocaine.

Overheal

HANG ONA MINUTE

you lolcatted your own thread?

Honestly: Get The **** Out.

rockbeer

PSI wrote: »

I think OBs point is that you can usually tell from an OP's post (and admittedly, sometimes their posting record) whether their intentions are to discuss a specific issue, or whether they're trying to use the forum to preach a political viewpoint.

One is encouraged the other is not.

Sure, I can see that. Difficult to separate the message from the messenger.

PSI wrote: »

The contributions often allow for the value of the discussion, but if the discussion itself is based on an erroneous, mis-represented or mis-understood premise, then the discussion will never really be worthwhile unless you're specifically asking about a hypothetical situation.

Well, I don't entirely know about that. The ensuing discussion could help to correct the errors, debunk the misrepresentations and clarify the misunderstandings. In a theoretical and ideal world, of course

PSI wrote: »

Its a hard call to make, and maybe I've illustrated it poorly, but thats why we get paid the good cocaine.

A tough call indeed, but the rewards must make it all worthwhile. Where do I sign up to be a mod?

PSI wrote: »

The trick to staying in power, is to make sure all fractions hate you equally.

- but did you mean factions?

GuanYin

rockbeer wrote: »

A tough call indeed, but the rewards must make it all worthwhile. Where do I sign up to be a mod?

You have to sleep with an existing mod, thats what they keep telling me.

- but did you mean factions?

*blush*

Oh dear.

Rock Climber

Villain wrote: »

The mods were all changed with the exception of Oscar Bravo in one swoop and Tristrame even disappeared so I'm not sure if the admins did anything but if they did things don't seem to have changed.

Peddling utterly uninformed rubbish like that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the rest of your posts.

But then you are banned from politics so bound to have axes to grind.
Not alone that but you were demodded on a previous occasion for carrying tales as to the modding of politics from the mod forum to public open fora.
So theres probably not much confidence in your opinions in higher boards echelons anyhow notwithstanding normal curteous interactions..
Grind away though if thats your bag baby.However I do understand that you were warned by an admin to stop stalking Tristrame so I'd respectfully suggest that you don't mention him here further either as your post is in my opinion treading close to the line on what you were told not to do.

For the record,the busy lives of 1 of the politics mods and subsequently a fourth meant that they had been discussing for some time about retiring fully or helping out occasionally on the site with less demanding jobs.
Long before the Mahon thread in fact.

Also on a point of information two of the team remained on not just one so get at least one of your "facts" straight.

k thanks bye.

bonkey

Villain wrote: »

The politics forum became a complete joke when they first censored discussion on the Mahon Tribunal and then banned it altogether

So all those times before that, when we saw threads in Feedback similar to this one about how Politics was engaging in unfair censorship....they were just from begrudging whingers, but now its different.

Its nice to see that, at least in hindsight, the quality of moderation at the time is finally being recognised.

The mods were all changed with the exception of Oscar Bravo in one swoop and Tristrame even disappeared so I'm not sure if the admins did anything but if they did things don't seem to have changed.

My understanding was that at least part fo the reason why some of the mods stepped down was because they had had enough of whingers complaining about the historical quality of moderation.....y'know....back before you now think it first became a joke.

What a pity you didn't come into threads at the time, supporting the moderators and expressing your admiration for the quality job they were doing. They might still be here today.

Boston

I feel I must clear up some miss perceptions here. Oscar, concerned about the merits of your posts passed on the issues to those more capable of emphasising with your world view, in order to make a fairer decision. Alas, a half frozen bag of pies offered no sound advice and merely reiterated "no to lisbon" over and over. Ultimately he passed the decision on to moi (for ****s and giggles) and I decided the correct course of actions was to fuk with you via cyber space for my own amusement. Correspondingly I banned you and your family and bulldozed your homes Israeli style.

Villain

Rock Climber wrote: »

Peddling utterly uninformed rubbish like that doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the rest of your posts.

But then you are banned from politics so bound to have axes to grind.
Not alone that but you were demodded on a previous occasion for carrying tales as to the modding of politics from the mod forum to public open fora.
So theres probably not much confidence in your opinions in higher boards echelons anyhow notwithstanding normal curteous interactions..
Grind away though if thats your bag baby.However I do understand that you were warned by an admin to stop stalking Tristrame so I'd respectfully suggest that you don't mention him here further either as your post is in my opinion treading close to the line on what you were told not to do.

Well I wasn't really a mod, I requested a froum to be created and it was so I was made mod of it, then someone in Politics was banned but it was never stated on the forum that he was banned and posters were wondering why he wouldn't reply to posts and I simply said he had been banned, hardly a big deal.

Confidence in my opinion may not be very high but I do think the admins were wrong to allow Bertie special treatment. With regards to tristrame I'll just say I wasn't warned about stalking him by an admin, so we can all get facts wrong and well rock climber when it came to posting in the politics forum you got a long wrong.

Sherifu

Villain wrote: »

Confidence in my opinion may not be very high but I do think the admins were wrong to allow Bertie special treatment.

*cough*

Villain

bonkey wrote: »

So all those times before that, when we saw threads in Feedback similar to this one about how Politics was engaging in unfair censorship....they were just from begrudging whingers, but now its different.

Its nice to see that, at least in hindsight, the quality of moderation at the time is finally being recognised.

Nice, oh no it was a joke on previous occasions but the censorship of the tribunal thread and then closure was the biggest joke ever, I mean come on it was front page of every national paper for days and days yet boards didn't allow discussion on it?

bonkey wrote: »

My understanding was that at least part fo the reason why some of the mods stepped down was because they had had enough of whingers complaining about the historical quality of moderation.....y'know....back before you now think it first became a joke.

What a pity you didn't come into threads at the time, supporting the moderators and expressing your admiration for the quality job they were doing. They might still be here today.

Well I actually did state that some mods were doing a good job, I thought you did a good job long ago and Screpte always seemed fair enough.

The mods for whatever reason always had a grudge against Sinn Fein and it would appear in recent times bent over backwards to protect Bertie.

Villain

Sherifu wrote: »

*cough*

Yep and that was raised in the thread on that incident and also a thread I had on "Fair comment" as a defence in respect of Defamation law after the case up north about the review of a restaurant.

Politics.ie got in trouble for comments made a witness to the tribunal, i.e. Ms Caruth not anything that was said about Bertie, anything I posted about Bertie was backed up by facts and would have been fair comment based on Irish Defamation law