Objections raised Re: Declaring Allegiance

Time Magazine

In the spirit of the private ballot, I refuse to declare affiliation.

Riamfada

The Economist wrote: »

In the spirit of the private ballot, I refuse to declare affiliation.

Then you exclude yourself in posting in the other thread. Now you are only asked to declare affiliations if you are involved or campaining. You cant campaign for someone in secret

Time Magazine

Grimes wrote: »

Then you exclude yourself in posting in the other thread. Now you are only asked to declare affiliations if you are involved or campaining. You cant campaign for someone in secret

Technically I wouldn't be excluding myself from posting in the other thread.

Riamfada

The Economist wrote: »

Technically I wouldn't be excluding myself from posting in the other thread.

Technically I have other thing to be doing on a Sunday afternoon than to argue the semantics of an SU thread.

Time Magazine

Grimes wrote: »

Technically I have other thing to be doing on a Sunday afternoon than to argue the semantics of an SU thread.

Great. No need to re-iterate something I'm already well aware of in future so.

Brimmy

I know no one.

I don't agree with this thread though.

Raphael

The Economist wrote: »

In the spirit of the private ballot, I refuse to declare affiliation.

Brimmy wrote: »

I know no one.

I don't agree with this thread though.

The reason for this thread, in case it should happen to allay your issues, is that in the past there were severe problems with SU candidates & campaign teams shilling the forum - regging accounts to come in and attempt to appear unbiased and proclaim how awesome they were from a seemingly neutral standpoint, thus appearing more valuable.

At the time, the entire SU was banned from boards.ie. When they were let back, threads like this one were created, to avoid the same problem occurring again. They are not intended to impinge upon the spirit of the private ballot, merely to let people know who is proselytizing at them.

the evil lime

Because linking makes things easier and because the thread has always amused me: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=206793

Antagonist

Raphael wrote: »

They are not intended to impinge upon the spirit of the private ballot, merely to let people know who is proselytizing at them.

While that might not be their intent that is what they do, so if I were you I would be quick in dispatching it.
Your motivation hardly required statement, the counterargument being obvious, you cannot curb somebody else's right out of laziness or to make your job easier.
In the interest of full disclosure I did join this forum to comment on this thread because, without disintegrating into hyperbole, it is offensive to my basic human dignity.

Raphael

Antagonist wrote: »

While that might not be their intent that is what they do, so if I were you I would be quick in dispatching it.
Your motivation hardly required statement, the counterargument being obvious, you cannot curb somebody else's right out of laziness or to make your job easier.
In the interest of full disclosure I did join this forum to comment on this thread because, without disintegrating into hyperbole, it is offensive to my basic human dignity.

Yes Sir, I'll get right on that.

I won't

Zounds

Antagonist wrote: »

While that might not be their intent that is what they do, so if I were you I would be quick in dispatching it.
Your motivation hardly required statement, the counterargument being obvious, you cannot curb somebody else's right out of laziness or to make your job easier.
In the interest of full disclosure I did join this forum to comment on this thread because, without disintegrating into hyperbole, it is offensive to my basic human dignity.

R4ph didn't so I will: what rights, exactly, do you think are being curbed?

the evil lime

Antagonist wrote: »

While that might not be their intent that is what they do, so if I were you I would be quick in dispatching it.
Your motivation hardly required statement, the counterargument being obvious, you cannot curb somebody else's right out of laziness or to make your job easier.
In the interest of full disclosure I did join this forum to comment on this thread because, without disintegrating into hyperbole, it is offensive to my basic human dignity.

1. No, it's not.
2. We've been doing this for years.
3. I've already explained why we're doing it.
4. That post is hilarious and wonderfully nonsensical.

Antagonist

the evil lime wrote: »

1. No, it's not.
2. We've been doing this for years.
3. I've already explained why we're doing it.
4. That post is hilarious and wonderfully nonsensical.

With regards to 1: Admittedly there is a difference between private ballot and the right to freely express an opinion.
With regards to 2: So what? That is hardly a justification.
With regards to 3: No you did not, you provided a link to where this was discussed four years ago without giving any hint as to what the link might have contained. Because linking makes things easier and the tread has never really amused me http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055494789&page=2
With regards to 4: You managed to discern atleast three points in it worth answering in some fashion, in what world does that 'nonsense' make?

To Raphael: Thank you, that is very humble. Admittedly my tone was not likely going to win you over but to see through my anger to the underlying point is quite admirable.

And to Zounds: The right I think is being curbed is the right to freely express an opinion, what this rule does is allow you to ban somebody for expressing an opinion without first agreeing to state another position. It seems to defend those who might not see bias in everything anyway and not be able to discern it from somebody's statements, in the hope of revealing vested interests which are everywhere anyway and which you think still invalidate an opinion.
The defence made is that the admins are against obfuscation, which is quite fair, that somebody, be they candidate or supporter, will deliberately mislead is despicable(though I don't intend to discuss whether that should be a bannable defense either) . If somebody says something about a candidate which borders on the sycophantic you ask them if they're campaigning for that person and if they lie you ban them then, you can't filter discourse because it would make that weeding out somehow easier.

Zounds

Antagonist wrote: »

With regards to 1: Admittedly there is a difference between private ballot and the right to freely express an opinion.
With regards to 2: So what? That is hardly a justification.
With regards to 3: No you did not, you provided a link to where this was discussed four years ago without giving any hint as to what the link might have contained. Because linking makes things easier and the tread has never really amused me http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055494789&page=2
With regards to 4: You managed to discern atleast three points in it worth answering in some fashion, in what world does that 'nonsense' make?

To Raphael: Thank you, that is very humble. Admittedly my tone was not likely going to win you over but to see through my anger to the underlying point is quite admirable.

And to Zounds: The right I think is being curbed is the right to freely express an opinion, what this rule does is allow you to ban somebody for expressing an opinion without first agreeing to state another position. It seems to defend those who might not see bias in everything anyway and not be able to discern it from somebody's statements, in the hope of revealing vested interests which are everywhere anyway and which you think still invalidate an opinion.
The defence made is that the admins are against obfuscation, which is quite fair, that somebody, be they candidate or supporter, will deliberately mislead is despicable(though I don't intend to discuss whether that should be a bannable defense either) . If somebody says something about a candidate which borders on the sycophantic you ask them if they're campaigning for that person and if they lie you ban them then, you can't filter discourse because it would make that weeding out somehow easier.

You have no rights on boards.ie, you express your opinions at the pleasure of the owners and under whatever restrictions they deem fit. What you have effectively done here is show up in a culture and, without any knowledge of its laws or customs, made gross and - as I read - arrogant claims asserting that we're doing it wrong and you know better. If I were you I would be quick in educating yourself and apologising.

Antagonist

Zounds wrote: »

You have no rights on boards.ie, you express your opinions at the pleasure of the owners and under whatever restrictions they deem fit. What you have effectively done here is show up in a culture and, without any knowledge of its laws or customs, made gross and - as I read - arrogant claims asserting that we're doing it wrong and you know better. If I were you I would be quick in educating yourself and apologising.

Perhaps you might consider putting that "You have no rights..." bit at the top of the board so that those entering your community might be aware of the enlightened attitude of your contributors, though I doubt you would still have anybody come.
What is the "it" that you think I assert you are doing wrong? Is it facilitating civilised discourse? Because if it is I hardly see how my knowledge or lack there of of your "culture" and/or its laws/customs have any bearing. Unless you think the society on boards.ie is radically different to western society in general in which case yes my approach might be alien but I hardly think that you are making the case that the post-enlightenment mindset has no priveleged place in the history of reason or authority on matters of discourse. So if you would, please clear up what I should educate myself on, and please oh please don't tell me it's "how we roll 'round here".

Time Magazine

Antagonist, I think I am in love with you. You're actually taking this thing seriously! (Mods: I was pointing out your slight problem that I could say I have no allegiance whatsoever but be running for President... and you'd have no idea.)

Biases: I think Kimberley Foy is kinda hot. More importantly I think that guy running for SU President looks a bit like Mary Robinson.

33% God

Antagonist wrote: »

Perhaps you might consider putting that "You have no rights..." bit at the top of the board so that those entering your community might be aware of the enlightened attitude of your contributors, though I doubt you would still have anybody come.
What is the "it" that you think I assert you are doing wrong? Is it facilitating civilised discourse? Because if it is I hardly see how my knowledge or lack there of of your "culture" and/or its laws/customs have any bearing. Unless you think the society on boards.ie is radically different to western society in general in which case yes my approach might be alien but I hardly think that you are making the case that the post-enlightenment mindset has no priveleged place in the history of reason or authority on matters of discourse. So if you would, please clear up what I should educate myself on, and please oh please don't tell me it's "how we roll 'round here".

It's a privately owned message board. You can only say whatever the moderators decide you can say. Rightly or wrongly that's how it is. If Raphael wanted he could simply have removed your posts and banned you.

Internet != Serious business.

Antagonist

33% God wrote: »

It's a privately owned message board. You can only say whatever the moderators decide you can say. Rightly or wrongly that's how it is. If Raphael wanted he could simply have removed your posts and banned you.

I'm not doubting that is so. But do the members not believe that the moderators will behave fairly without being dictatorial or arbitrary. I mean members of your community have been banned for this, but you're not outraged, do plain old ethics not apply?

33% God

Antagonist wrote: »

I'm not doubting that is so. But do the members not believe that the moderators will behave fairly with being dictatorial or arbitrary. I mean members of your community have been banned for this, but you're not outraged, do plain old ethics not apply?

No, I couldn't care less to be honest. If they don't obey the rules then they will be banned.

There has to be an element of honesty in these discussions to avoid people coming on and pretending to be impartial when really they are a candidate. You can't get away with that IRL so I don't see why you should get away with it here.

Antagonist

33% God wrote: »

No, I couldn't care less to be honest. If they don't obey the rules then they will be banned.

There has to be an element of honesty in these discussions to avoid people coming on and pretending to be impartial when really they are a candidate. You can't get away with that IRL so I don't see why you should get away with it here.

Your first statement is tantamount to the cliche "might makes right", I'm hardly going to ask if you think that is the case, but why do you think it is acceptable here and not elsewhere (ie. in the real world) it can't simply be because the site is privately owned, you don't really believe moderators have no accountability do you?

Your argument about impartiality is a strawman, that is not what is being discussed, the rule assumes that everybody is a candidate or similar until they state otherwise so people are being banned not for pretending but for going about how they usually would.

sceptre

Chunks of the last page definitely remind me of my last few SU executive meetings. Well done there.

Antagonist

sceptre wrote: »

Chunks of the last page definitely remind me of my last few SU executive meetings. Well done there.

I've tried very hard not to use the word "fallacy" for just that reason. I'm sorry, this argument doesn't really have room for eloquence, big ideas or sweaping tracts of poetic prose, it's a dirty little argument which should never really need to take place.

Économiste Monétaire

Their site, their rules. The accountability mechanism, for which you appear to be searching, is Help Desk.

Antagonist

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Their site, their rules. The accountability mechanism, for which you appear to be searching, is Help Desk.

Sure, but this precludes saying that you think they are wrong? I am not looking for an accountability mechanism, though i do find the idea of a delineated area of dissent rather disturbing, the accountability i referred to was only because one member of the Trinity above was making as I said a "might makes right" argument.

But is that how things work here then, you can only complain in certain forums and not in the one where your complaint arises? If that is the case would the forum of choice not be Feedback: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=82

Économiste Monétaire

No, that's your interpretation of an apparent presupposition. What I really think is: storm in a tea cup. I simply reiterated a basic tenet of the site, which is by now ubiquitous. I'd recommend, as a lowly user myself, Help Desk over Feedback; especially, as you appear to have a problem with a particular Mod's decision. The response you're likely to get in Feedback is, "fight the powah."

Antagonist

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

No, that's your interpretation of an apparent presupposition. What I really think is: storm in a tea cup. I simply reiterated a basic tenet of the site, which is by now ubiquitous. I'd recommend, as a lowly user myself, Help Desk over Feedback; especially, as you appear to have a problem with a particular Mod's decision. The response you're likely to get in Feedback is, "fight the powah."

My interpretation? No it is clearly pure unadulterated fact, if there were a scale of the most objective facts this would be top of the scale, this is so factual it trancends facticity, it lies in the realm of the superfactual! What I mean is, of course it's my inerpretation, what the bloody hell else could it be.
Perhaps this is a storm in a tea cup, I'd probably think so too if I were pressed, still a storm though. I agree a particular Mod's decision might be the focus, but I've tried to grab at the broader issue.

33% God

Antagonist wrote: »

Your first statement is tantamount to the cliche "might makes right", I'm hardly going to ask if you think that is the case, but why do you think it is acceptable here and not elsewhere (ie. in the real world) it can't simply be because the site is privately owned, you don't really believe moderators have no accountability do you?

I think it's ok here because it's, you know, an internet forum. Most internet forums are full of arbitrary rules. It's not a big deal because, as I stated before: Internet =/= Serious Business

Your argument about impartiality is a strawman, that is not what is being discussed, the rule assumes that everybody is a candidate or similar until they state otherwise so people are being banned not for pretending but for going about how they usually would.

The rule has to assume that. If you get banned you can be unbanned by complying with the rule. No big deal.

Time Magazine

Today on boards.ie, a UCD Arts student becomes agitated as he feels his freedom of expression is being restricted.



Today in the real world, Ireland faces a budget deficit of €5,000 per citizen. Meanwhile 5000 children in sub-Saharan Africa died as a consequence of not having adequate water supplies.

aequinoctium

so now that my ban has been lifted, as i refused to PM my allegiances if any or none to a mod as some people did, and since the election is over, may i or anyone else now comment on the SU elections and results without "fear" of a further banning and/or bannishment???

Stabshauptmann

Antagonist wrote: »

The right I think is being curbed is the right to freely express an opinion

There are two reasons why freedom of expression, as you interpret this right, does not apply on boards.ie

Legally, when something is published on boards.ie it is the site and not the user that is held liable. That is, if I said X is a kiddie fidler, X could sue boards.ie

Secondly, the point of boards.ie isnt to allow you say what ever you want. This is not indymedia looking to give voice to the little man. The point is to facilitate discussion, thats why we have moderators to stop people posting spam, abuse, etc.

Now in the spirt of open debate and discussion, the Admins hate shilling. Basically shilling is pretending to be impartial or just an average bystander when in actual fact you have a vested interest. The Admins want their site, which they built and pay for, to have a reputation for honest and reliable information. Boards is a company and has implemented policies to protect its brand.

Now if you have a fight the power problem with companies impinging your rights remember this: you do not have a right to access boards.ie
It is a service provided by a privately owned company.

Stabshauptmann

haha. All you had to do was not post on the SU elections!

I shouldnt laugh. I voiced my objections to the allegiance thread too. My point was that being an SU councillor was not a bias when it came to discussing candidates and there were many greater biases which people weren't being asked to declare.

And wouldnt you know it, the mod at the time banned me for saying that "I read [a particular candidate's manifesto]: Boo, Liar. He promises free grinds in core subjects, I dont believe he has any intention or capability of fulfilling that promise. "

This was obvious, and thats what happened (or rather didnt happen). I dont think I opened boards up to a defamation suit for a myriad of reasons.

Was it a bias that the mod happened to be that candidate's friend and classmate?