Moderating in Politics

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:03am #1

This post has been deleted.

Kintarō Hattori · 02-12-2008 2:09am

The moderator made it clear:

She didn't stick to the gameplan.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:19am

This post has been deleted.

Frisbee · 02-12-2008 2:24am

Yes with a thread of that volatile nature, imo of course

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:36am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:39am

This post has been deleted.

Xavi6 · 02-12-2008 2:41am

So what do you expect then? To have running lists kept by mods so you can see what can and cannot be posted? Would you like this info PM'd to you as it happens? Maybe it can be accompanied by a little 'Have a nice day' message at the end just to make you feel warm inside?

If you missed something that was in the thread or another similar thread it's not the mods fault. Thousands of users can't be spoon fed every bit of information.

Why do you have an issue with the infraction? You made a cheap sly dig at a mods decision.

GuanYin · 02-12-2008 2:49am

I'll try keep this short.

Point 1: I'm making this clear. You have been infracted for questioning moderation in the politics forum thread. Had you made your complaint here, you would have received no censure. I don't care how people perceive this, creating a feedback thread doesn't get you amnesty from breaking a forum rules in case the mod looks "petty" if it did we could all go break rules by safely creating feedback threads. The post has been deleted, but mods can still view it.

Point 2: If you're going to try and make a rational debate about immigration or asylum in the Politics forum, we expect you to have some clue on the matter your speaking. Of course we don't expect people to know the law inside out, but when something has been explained several hundred times before in tens of similar threads, we become more impatient. If you're going to come into a thread 600 posts in and post something potentially inflammatory without at least skimming through the thread, on your head be it.

Point 3: Regarding your counter argument, the legitimacy of which aside, HollyB still asked a question which ignored something previously explained 1 zillion times and was warned about.

If I can understand it and I don't even live in your country, so should she.

Bob the Builder · 02-12-2008 3:08am

Umm, I think I'm with GY on this one I'm afraid.

Indeed it is a gray area, or so appears to be, but it veers clearly towards GY, given the content of the thread and what both of you have said.

Overheal · 02-12-2008 5:47am

Its a big huge thread, and I cant blame the mods for trying to curb down repitition. An infraction, also, is just a warning, not a ban - no need to get terribly hot and bothered by one.

The only thing I would suggest is locking the thread, and reposting a Part II that summarizes the discussion so far, without so much eye-strain.

Hagar · 02-12-2008 7:32am

Is that statement regarding safe haven accurate?
AFAIK it can only be accurate if you flee from danger directly into Ireland with no stops in a safe country on the way. A refugee ceases being a refugee upon leaving first save haven and then becomes either an immigrant or an asylum seeker. Anyone entering Ireland from another EU State should legally have sought asylum in the other EU State. That puts 99% of these so called refugees/asylum seekers firmly in the "immigrant" category.
Given our geographical location and relatively limited air links with African countries I don't believe that direction given by the mod to be reasonable.

/Edit/

Reading the links to various international agreements and conventions and unravelling what they mean in plain language is not a job for the faint hearted.

Any chance we could have a definitive ruling on the term refugee and their legal status in Ireland following passage through a previous save haven state, possibly another EU state, by Hullaballú or one of our other resident legal eagles? Thanks.

/Edit/

Permabear · 02-12-2008 11:35am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 11:50am

This post has been deleted.

Hagar · 02-12-2008 11:57am

Obviously since I'm a mod and have agreed with your stance on the matter that statement is untrue and making unfounded claims like that can undermine your credibility.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 11:59am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred · 02-12-2008 1:00pm

I got infracted by GuanYin for posting off topic. i thought it a bit harsh, but what the heck, it was probably fair. I think it would be fair to say that as a new mod in Politics, GuanYin is kind of being a new broom and whipping a few of us back into shape. (Which to be fair, is needed in politics).

I think we are missing the real issue here though, is the OP inferring that GuanYin a "She"?

We have a female soccer mod?

this could stop the world from spinning:eek:

Permabear · 02-12-2008 1:05pm

This post has been deleted.

_blank_ · 02-12-2008 1:12pm

Do try and keep up.

oscarBravo · 02-12-2008 1:38pm

HollyB wasn't infracted for asking a question. She was infracted for stating as a fact that Ms Izevbekhai should have applied for asylum in the first "safe" country she set foot in. There is no such requirement.

There have been many heated threads in the Politics forum driven by people whose only agenda is keeping Ireland free of those nasty foreigners, and who have repeatedly and deliberately obfuscated the distinctions between immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers. They have also sought to perpetrate the above-mentioned myth about the requirement to seek asylum in the first port of call, because it allows them to paint all asylum seekers in Ireland as being de facto chancers.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 1:50pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 02-12-2008 2:00pm

You're not listening. We don't infract for stating things that are factually incorrect, we infract for not following explicit moderator instructions. The assertion that asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first country they set foot in has been repeatedly used in the past as vindication for xenophobic sentiment. It's not true, and those who have used it as ammunition for their cause have ignored the fact that it's been repeatedly debunked. So we've issued an explicit instruction that this particular misconception may not continue to be propagated as a substitute for reasoned argument.

Maybe HollyB didn't know that such an explicit prohibition existed; she does now.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:09pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:12pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 02-12-2008 2:49pm

I'm not getting into a semantic quibble with you. The context of her post made it clear that the distinction is moot.

I have no doubt that, should the learned gentleman choose to participate in a debate on boards.ie, he would do so within the rules as set down.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 2:55pm

This post has been deleted.

tallaght01 · 02-12-2008 3:00pm

Do other people reall read through massive threads, and past threads, in their entirety before posting??

I often just wander round if I'm bored and join a discussion. Wouldn't be reading no 600 posts or whatever beforehand.

I guess the issue is context. If a poster genuinely doesn't know, then so what? Let it go, and have a quiet word by PM, IMO.

~Rebel~ · 02-12-2008 3:06pm

Holly wasn't banned or anything, infraction is just a warning, so seems a bit of a storm in a teacup...

Boo thread, Yay GY!

On a more serious note, would it be possible to have a boards-wide structure where any warnings given during a thread (e.g Next person to mention such-and-such is infracted) could be placed in the very first post, so users could scan the first post of a big contentious thread and see whats off limits, rather then having to look through the whole thing.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 3:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 02-12-2008 3:18pm

This post has been deleted.

nesf · 02-12-2008 3:30pm

If a moderator is involved in the debate then sometimes they don't act as a moderator because they may not be seen as neutral. i.e. If I disagree with a post of yours and then ban you for it, it doesn't look very impartial, even if the ban was fair.

Moderating in Politics

Comments