Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Guidelines on Tibet/China

Options
  • 30-07-2008 12:32pm
    #1
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭


    A while back a number of threads about Tibet/China were closed and further discussions about the Tibet/China issue were prohibited pending a drawing up of guidelines.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55676634&postcount=263

    The link in that post (April 2008) is to an announcement which is now unavailable but explained that guidelines for discussing these issues were to be drawn up by the moderators over the coming days and that discussions were suspended until then.

    Have these rules been drawn up? If so, where? If not when will they created?

    Thanks.
    Post edited by Shield on


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Would a PM to oscarBravo not have been your best bet?


  • Options
    #3
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    6th wrote: »
    Would a PM to oscarBravo not have been your best bet?

    Considering he is the only one who can answer the question, yup, a PM to oscarBravo.


  • Options
    #4
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    I don't consider it a personal or private issue between me or any particular mod. It was announced to everyone that guidelines would be drawn up. It is to the benefit of not just me that these guidelines be published. Therefore this thread.


  • Options
    #5
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Considering he is the only one who can answer the question, yup, a PM to oscarBravo.
    According to the public announcent it was a collective decision among the mods of the politics forum. The guidelines were to be made public.


  • Options
    #6
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    SkepticOne wrote: »
    I don't consider it a personal or private issue between me or any particular mod. It was announced to everyone that guidelines would be drawn up. It is to the benefit of not just me that these guidelines be published. Therefore this thread.

    Yes.
    But none of us know or have the answer for you here, hence it makes perfect sense to ask oscarBravo if you are actually looking for said info.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Yes.
    But none of us know or have the answer for you here, hence it makes perfect sense to ask oscarBravo if you are actually looking for said info.
    OK, point taken. My frustration is that I have refrained from discussing the politics of that country due to this ban. But since then I notice these discussions creeping back in with warnings from the mods but without guidelines that they promised (though perhaps I am mistaken).

    I will PM the mods and ask them to respond on this thread. Please keep it open for them to respond.


  • Options
    #8
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.


  • Options
    #9
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    6th wrote: »
    I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.

    Then that makes two of us who could be wrong because that's exactly what I'm getting from this too.


  • Options
    #10
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    6th wrote: »
    I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.
    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Then that makes two of us who could be wrong because that's exactly what I'm getting from this too.

    How can that be inferred from the plain-text typed here?

    Seriously, he is asking a question as to where the guidelines which were promised by the moderators in April are. Three, possibly four, months is not an unreasonable length of time for the user to question the taboo nature of a topic, on which guidelines for the facilitation of it's discussion were promised by the moderators.

    Fair enough, he may have went about it the incorrect way, and he was told that, and he has rectified the situation by now going to PM the moderators in question.

    It does look like the moderators are taking an inordinate amount of time in coming up with said guidelines, no?


  • Options
    #11
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Perhaps oB just forgot it after the announcement expired. I would agree with Des and reserve any judgements on either the OP or oB until oB has had a chance to reply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Ponster
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,912 Mod ✭✭✭✭Ponster


    Yea Des, I think you're right and the mods may have put this on the back-burner but I inferred the same hidden meaning as the other mods. A PM to Oscar and if there was no reply then a feedback thread would have been the path I would have taken. In skipping the first step it does look more 'personal'.

    That's besides that point though. It's a valid point by SkepticOne and we'll point Oscar in this direction to get an answer.


  • Options
    #13
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Des wrote: »
    How can that be inferred from the plain-text typed here?

    I dont know about Beru but I've got mind powahs!


  • Options
    #14
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    A pm to the politics mods and then a thread here if the guidelines didn't appear would have been the better approach.


  • Options
    #15
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    Why isn't discussion of that allowed? We are not in China.


  • Options
    #16
    _blank_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    5starpool wrote: »
    Why isn't discussion of that allowed? We are not in China.

    PM the Politics mods tbh.


  • Options
    #17
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    6th wrote: »
    I dont know about Beru but I've got mind powahs!

    Female intuition beats that hands down every time.


    Has this been sorted now Gandalf?


  • Options
    #18
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Female intuition beats that hands down every time.

    Cool, I have that too.


  • Options
    #19
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    Thanks for the suggestions, Beruthial and others. I have PM'd a couple of the moderators of the politics forum pointing them to this thread.


  • Options
    #20
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Has this been sorted now Gandalf?

    LOL don't ask me I have nothing to do with the Politics forum anymore. I mod the "Politics Mods" forum :)


  • Options
    #21
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    gandalf wrote: »
    LOL don't ask me I have nothing to do with the Politics forum anymore. I mod the "Politics Mods" forum :)

    lol
    Sorry, forgot you have retired :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    NP I have repeated the request in the Politics Mods forum incase they are ignoring their PM's (the facists that they are :p)


  • Options
    #23
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    This issue got lost in the storm that was the Lisbon treaty and the genesis of the EU forum.


    We are finalizing some guidelines now.


  • Options
    #24
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,235 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Freeeeee Tibet! /obligatory


  • Options
    #25
    Jack Sheehan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,693 ✭✭✭Jack Sheehan


    Overheal wrote: »
    Freeeeee Tibet! /obligatory

    I'll take it!


  • Options
    #26
    5starpool
    Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    Des wrote: »
    PM the Politics mods tbh.

    Very helpful, thanks. I'll rent the explanation dvd instead or download it perhaps.


  • Options
    #27
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    GuanYin wrote: »
    We are finalizing some guidelines now.
    Well done and thank you for your swift response. I am willing to assist in drawing up guidelines if it will speed things along. My opinion is that there is probably no need for special rules regarding China/Tibet issues any more than there are, say, for Israel/Palestine or other similar areas of conflict/human rights abuse.


  • Options
    #28
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    something i take umbrage with: why do specific topics merit a different rule set on the same forum? it seems ridiculous to me that one topic (or rather subset of topics) in particular should merit special treatment.

    addendum: PSI i see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda. what about the pro-China propaganda? or the anti Fianna Fail propaganda... or the pro Fianna Fail propaganda? or the pro-anti unionisation discussions... do they qualify as propaganda?


  • Options
    #29
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    leninbenjamin wrote: »
    something i take umbrage with: why do specific topics merit a different rule set on the same forum? it seems ridiculous to me that one topic (or rather subset of topics) in particular should merit special treatment.
    Because the subject generated alot of trolling and if I remember correctly near 100 offended Chinese accounts (usually multiple) to spam the forum.

    addendum: PSI i see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda. what about the pro-China propaganda? or the anti Fianna Fail propaganda... or the pro Fianna Fail propaganda? or the pro-anti unionisation discussions... do they qualify as propaganda?

    Who have I banned? :confused:

    I told a poster who insinuated I was a racist and sexist and claimed these insinuations "expained my posts" to back up his accusation (which was basic trolling) or I'd "moderate" - I then deferred the issue to my co-mods (and any mod can check this) stating I would not be banning the user myself.

    To date, I've neither banned nor offically sanctioned anyone.

    Ironically, this type of mis-representation of the facts is exactly the problem in the first place. It might have taken you 1 minute of careful reading to figure out your entire addendum was based on a fictional event construed by you.


  • Options
    #30
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Because the subject generated alot of trolling and if I remember correctly near 100 offended Chinese accounts (usually multiple) to spam the forum.

    so do other topics. perhaps a solution should be sought in the form of an access request system a la soccer? I still think it's unfair and dangerous territory to clamp down on individual topics based on their 'sensitivity'. either ban discussion outright, or tighten rules across the board but selective moderation imo goes against the grain of the impartiality needed in the current board. sh*te talkers are a fact of life.


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Who have I banned? :confused:

    I said banning, verb. not banned past tense. and i wasn't necessarily referring to you individually either, i meant you and you're moderating brethren.
    GuanYin wrote: »
    To date, I've neither banned nor offically sanctioned anyone.

    you issued a warning in a currently active thread did you not?
    GuanYin wrote: »
    Incidently, we've banned this topic in the past. I'll ban any person who uses this thread for anti-chinese propaganda. Stick to the facts, not conjecture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    leninbenjamin wrote: »
    so do other topics. perhaps a solution should be sought in the form of an access request system a la soccer? I still think it's unfair and dangerous territory to clamp down on individual topics based on their 'sensitivity'. either ban discussion outright, or tighten rules across the board but selective moderation imo goes against the grain of the impartiality needed in the current board. sh*te talkers are a fact of life.

    It is nothing to do with sensitivity, it is to do with the broader forum rules.

    Taboo offences according to the politics forum rules:
    Trolling
    Opinion as facts
    propaganda/soapboxing

    I said banning, verb. not banned past tense. and i wasn't necessarily referring to you individually either, i meant you and you're moderating brethren.
    You should be clearer, but OK, my apologies for assuming.
    you issued a warning in a currently active thread did you not?

    The warning is a contextual statement of the Politics forum rules (see above).

    It isn't "special" for the topic per se. We don't allow propaganda on the forum in any way.


Advertisement