Moderators

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

The minute you show your intellectually sharper than the mods

*you're

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

That's a direct quote from myself from the thread in question. I posted that video to provide evidence of what happens when a nation refuses to accept interference by the WTO in their country's financial affairs. You banned me for a week to keep me out of the discussion, as my views regarding the EU are diametrically opposed to your own.

Not even slightly the case - you appear to be successfully ignoring all the other people whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, but who are somehow unbanned. You really need to see this with a sense of proportion - I'm perfectly happy to engage with people with views opposed to my own (the other issue coming up on this thread is that I sometimes overdo it), and I don't see you as any particular challenge in that sense.

I'd be delighted if there was a little more action in the EU forum, but not at the expense of turning it into a copy of the CT forum. I don't mind if your views are based on the idea of an ongoing struggle of whatever kind, but I'm not going to go down the route of having to debate whether the EU is actually a Masonic plot, or a right-wing one, or a left-wing one, or a Catholic conspiracy, or a Satanist conspiracy, all of which others are at least as believable as your particular version.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit: By the way, the title of the thread was "The EU stopped World War Three" or something along those lines. The entire discussion was based on theory from the start.

There's a world of difference between historical analysis and conspiracy theory - that's why they're separate forums. Similarly, the WTO is not the EU - again, unless one believes in the NWO.

demonspawn wrote: »

Edit 2: So when my ban is up, will it be ok for me to break the forum rules as long as I accept those rules apply to me?

Judging by the way you're saying it, probably not, but usually, the answer is yes. Everybody breaks the rules from time to time, and as long as people accept that the rules are there for a reason, and accept that breaking them involves penalties, that's fine. It doesn't mean you have to put up with an unfair infraction or ban, it means that if you think something is unfair you use the dispute resolution procedure, rather than deciding you're not being listened to adequately and pasting your discontent over multiple forums - and then complaining of further oppression when those threads in turn are locked or deleted. Next time that happens, it will be pretty clear that the only sensible resolution of the situation is to apply for a siteban for you, because it will be pretty clear that you just don't see why you should stick by the same rules as everyone else.

The rules aren't handed down from on high, they're an organic expression of the way the boards community prefers to have things work. By deciding they don't apply, you're not challenging authority, you're saying "I don't want to be a member of the community" - which is fair enough, but if you don't want to be, why hang around? If you like posting on Politics, but you don't find the rules of this community congenial, there are other options - politics.ie is the most obvious, but there's also politicalworld.org and a couple of others. Politics.ie is full of people who dislike the moderation of boards.ie, and boards.ie has a good number of people who dislike the free-for-all of politics.ie - politicalworld.org I'm not sure about. I'd say myself that politics.ie has a far lower signal to noise ratio than boards (and moderators I'd consider right-wing or even wingnut), and I'd also say that's the result of the moderation policies on the two sites, but if the moderation here is intolerable, it's certainly worth a try from your point of view. There's no requirement that anyone hang around here bitching, because we're not the only show in town.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

tbh wrote: »

*you're

Wow! Well done! You must be so pleased with yourself! Have a promotion!
I note you didn't contradict my points though?

While you're on the spelling check have a look at this from a mod:

Continue to question/challange moderators disicions on boards and I will ban you.

What does the words in bold mean, Einstein?

Hence my comments on intellect....

tbh

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

What does the words in bold mean, Einstein?

*do

Lenny Lovett

tbh wrote: »

*do

Muppetry in motion... You still didn't contradict my points so I take it you agree!

AckwelFoley

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Wow! Well done! You must be so pleased with yourself! Have a promotion!
I note you didn't contradict my points though?

While you're on the spelling check have a look at this from a mod:


What does the words in bold mean, Einstein?

Hence my comments on intellect....

humour [ˈhjuːmə]

Also called sense of humour the ability to appreciate or express that which is humorous

Sarky

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

Muppetry in motion... You still didn't contradict my points so I take it you agree!

How on earth are you coming to that conclusion?

Lenny Lovett

snyper wrote: »

humour [ˈhjuːmə]

Also called sense of humour the ability to appreciate or express that which is humorous

And your point is?

Sarky wrote: »

How on earth are you coming to that conclusion?

Here's the formula I used: j2+6y/3e x 6h+sv7

Overheal

I dont think you can divide 6 yuppies into 3 emos.

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd be delighted if there was a little more action in the EU forum, but not at the expense of turning it into a copy of the CT forum. I don't mind if your views are based on the idea of an ongoing struggle of whatever kind, but I'm not going to go down the route of having to debate whether the EU is actually a Masonic plot, or a right-wing one, or a left-wing one, or a Catholic conspiracy, or a Satanist conspiracy, all of which others are at least as believable as your particular version.

Care to provide a quote where I said the EU was any of the things listed above? No, I didn't think so. I don't even speak about the EU in CT.

This is yet another example of you jumping the gun due to some perceived notion that anyone who disagrees with the EU is automatically a CTer. I'm not the imbecile you try so desperately to show me as. I believe I'm a rational, intelligent human being for the most part. I'd appreciate being shown the respect that goes with being a rational, intelligent human being.

Edit: I'd appreciate if the moderators didn't attempt to derail this rather serious discussion with pointless posts on grammar and spelling. It's highly disrespectful.

Lenny Lovett

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think you can divide 6 yuppies into 3 emos.

Maybe I can't but an all powerful mod should have the power to... No?

Overheal

No.

demonspawn

Overheal wrote: »

No.

I appreciate your rather weak attempt at humor OH, but it's not really helping moderators' case here considering the subject of this thread. If you wanna joke around, I'm sure there are more appropriate forums to do so.

Lenny Lovett

demonspawn wrote: »

I appreciate your rather weak attempt at humor OH, but it's not really helping moderators' case here considering the subject of this thread. If you wanna joke around, I'm sure there are more appropriate forums to do so.

It merely proves how seriously they take the whole thing.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

Care to provide a quote where I said the EU was any of the things listed above? No, I didn't think so. I don't even speak about the EU in CT.

This is yet another example of you jumping the gun due to some perceived notion that anyone who disagrees with the EU is automatically a CTer. I'm not the imbecile you try so desperately to show me as. I believe I'm a rational, intelligent human being for the most part. I'd appreciate being shown the respect that goes with being a rational, intelligent human being.

Edit: I'd appreciate if the moderators didn't attempt to derail this rather serious discussion with pointless posts on grammar and spelling. It's highly disrespectful.

Perhaps, then, you could explain to me what your perceived point in posting the video on the thread was. How was it relevant to the EU's role in preventing a third major war in Europe? And, one has to ask, why are we only having this discussion now?

As to respect - you get what you give.

cordially,
Scofflaw

coletti

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps, then, you could explain to me what your perceived point in posting the video on the thread was. How was it relevant to the EU's role in preventing a third major war in Europe?

As to respect - you get what you give.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course, the EU's role in preventing a third world war is conjecture. And history is not yet over.

History tells us that wars are often caused when democracy is denied or subverted. There is a perception that the EU is not democratic and that it has worked to manipulate democracy to its own ends. . You'll probably deny that the EU is not democratic, but what is not deniable is that it is perceived to be so.

That worries a lot of people across the EU.

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

Perhaps, then, you could explain to me what your perceived point in posting the video on the thread was. How was it relevant to the EU's role in preventing a third major war in Europe? And, one has to ask, why are we only having this discussion now?

As to respect - you get what you give.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I already explained quite sufficiently why the video was posted.

We are having this discussion now because I'm unable to have it on the politics forum. Pretty ironic, wouldn't you say?

I've shown respect to everyone on the politics forum until given a reason not to. I expect the same in return to be honest.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

I already explained quite sufficiently why the video was posted.

We are having this discussion now because I'm unable to have it on the politics forum. Pretty ironic, wouldn't you say?

Not really. If this is your explanation:

Not all wars are fought with tanks and bombs. There's a global economic war going on as we speak. The WTO has essentially declared war on those countries outside of the WTO. They impose sanctions and unfair trading policies that favor developed nations over developing nations. They enforce those sanctions and policies with the threat of military action. The European Union is also guilty of this to some extent.

In my opinion, the EU was formed to consolidate power and give Europe more ammunition in this global economic war, World War III if you will.

then I'm perfectly happy with my decision, because that's an NWO-style conspiracy theory, clear as day.

demonspawn wrote: »

I've shown respect to everyone on the politics forum until given a reason not to. I expect the same in return to be honest.

I can see that you honestly believe that, but it is normally not considered part of "acting respectfully" to have a hair trigger response to "disrespect", and it is also normal for respect to encompass the rules everyone else is abiding by.

cordially,
Scofflaw

demonspawn

Ok, whatever Scoff. It's painfully obvious that you will refute anything I say with nonsensical claims of CT or whatever. I really can't be bothered with this anymore.

I hope that people who have been reading this have a pretty good idea what your opponents on the politics boards have to put up with every day. Changing or interpreting rules to suit you and your supporters, blatant disrespect for any views that may clash with your own, and unfair use of your moderator status to keep people out of discussions where you or your fan club are having difficulties supporting your opinions and beliefs through intelligent debate.

OutlawPete

Some of the posts from Boards Moderators in this thread are nothing short of disgraceful.

Scofflaw

demonspawn wrote: »

Ok, whatever Scoff. It's painfully obvious that you will refute anything I say with nonsensical claims of CT or whatever. I really can't be bothered with this anymore.

I hope that people who have been reading this have a pretty good idea what your opponents on the politics boards have to put up with every day. Changing or interpreting rules to suit you and your supporters, blatant disrespect for any views that may clash with your own, and unfair use of your moderator status to keep people out of discussions where you or your fan club are having difficulties supporting your opinions and beliefs through intelligent debate.

God forbid I should waste any more of your time. However, be all that as it may, if you persist in posting CT stuff in the Politics forums, you'll be infracted or banned. You've made it clear that you feel you're above the rules, however you prefer to put that for your own peace of mind, but the long and the short of it is, I'm afraid, that you're not.

regards,
Scofflaw

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

God forbid I should waste any more of your time. However, be all that as it may, if you persist in posting CT stuff in the Politics forums, you'll be infracted or banned. You've made it clear that you feel you're above the rules, however you prefer to put that for your own peace of mind, but the long and the short of it is, I'm afraid, that you're not.

regards,
Scofflaw

You're some piece of work, I'll give you that. Don't ever put words in my mouth again. I have never claimed I was above the rules, I only demand that everyone be made to follow the same rules. You've already clearly stated that some posters (FB in particular) are allowed to get away with breaking the rules, don't be a hypocrite on top of being a bold-faced liar.

Edit: And for the record, I'd like you to provide an example where I used the term "NWO". I never have. The WTO is a real organization, so no conspiracy theory there. You don't have a leg to stand on anymore Scoff.

Scofflaw

I have never claimed I was above the rules, I only demand that everyone be made to follow the same rules

According, I might point out, to your interpretation of them. I might as well point out, while I'm typing, that nobody denies the WTO is a real organisation, and only a conspiracy theorist would think that proved something.

happy chemtrails,
Scofflaw

demonspawn

Scofflaw wrote: »

According, I might point out, to your interpretation of them. I might as well point out, while I'm typing, that nobody denies the WTO is a real organisation, and only a conspiracy theorist would think that proved something.

happy chemtrails,
Scofflaw

We can do this silly dance all night long, but I'm pretty tired of it now. The truth is right here for all to see, I don't have to defend myself anymore. You accuse me of things I'm not guilty of and that needs to end right here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Lenny Lovett

demonspawn wrote: »

We are having this discussion now because I'm unable to have it on the politics forum. Pretty ironic, wouldn't you say?

Irony seems to be the main principle that Boards was founded on. I posted a piece on the Radio boards yesterday about Media freedom (and the impending legislation in South Africa to scupper it) and the Mods took it off the main forum and relegated it to a sticky which has far less readers. So freedom of expression is not encouraged in the Radio Mods minds either. Irony or what?? Also sad given that peoples lives depend on the particular issue.

Scofflaw wrote: »

God forbid I should waste any more of your time. However, be all that as it may, if you persist in posting CT stuff in the Politics forums, you'll be infracted or banned. You've made it clear that you feel you're above the rules, however you prefer to put that for your own peace of mind, but the long and the short of it is, I'm afraid, that you're not.

regards,
Scofflaw

A typical boards.ie Mod's response. When they cannot put up a reasoned defence of their stance they threaten you with bans. Their next tactic is tom ask you why you bother to post here if you disagree with how they operate.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Some of the posts from Boards Moderators in this thread are nothing short of disgraceful.

You should see some of the stuff they put in PMs if you think these responses are bad!

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes. And you think that's a sensible way to do it? If the mods make such a decision they should have the reasons (and the balls!!) to back it up. Not retort with threats of bans to kill off the debate.

oscarBravo

OutlawPete wrote: »

Some of the posts from Boards Moderators in this thread are nothing short of disgraceful.

With all due respect, as feedback goes, that's pretty pointless. If you feel strongly about a post, refute it with reasoned argument. As it stands, I have no idea what posts you have an issue with, or why.

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

A typical boards.ie Mod's response. When they cannot put up a reasoned defence of their stance they threaten you with bans.

It may be a difficult concept to grasp, but someone who disagrees with you is not ipso facto wrong, and it's pretty arrogant to think otherwise.

You should see some of the stuff they put in PMs if you think these responses are bad!

If you are unhappy with the contents of a PM, you can report it and the admins will investigate.

Yes. And you think that's a sensible way to do it? If the mods make such a decision they should have the reasons (and the balls!!) to back it up. Not retort with threats of bans to kill off the debate.

Oh, please. That's an utterly childish misrepresentation. Once again, just because someone disagrees with you, they are not automatically wrong. Scofflaw has explained the ban. demonspawn has refused to accept the explanation. The admins have agreed with Scofflaw's assessment.

Now, maybe you feel that we should completely re-think the way we run the forum in order to keep demonspawn happy, but we haven't done that for other people who broke the rules in the past, and we're not going to do it now.

Telling someone that they will be banned if they continue to break the rules isn't "killing off the debate", it's managing the forum.

My name is URL

oscarBravo wrote: »

With all due respect, as feedback goes, that's pretty pointless. If you feel strongly about a post, refute it with reasoned argument. As it stands, I have no idea what posts you have an issue with, or why.

Are you serious? I'm not trying to stir **** here but that is absolute bull. I think anyone with half a braincell could see what posts Pete is talking about. You continue to selectively ignore them though, and allow the thread to descend into a sniping match so it can be closed quicker.. because I don't think there's much point in allowing to continue in this typical direction of mods browbeating users and slapping each other on the back for making snide remarks

oscarBravo

My name is URL wrote: »

Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Which posts was he talking about?

djpbarry

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

So freedom of expression is not encouraged in the Radio Mods minds either.

If by “freedom of expression” you mean “freedom to post whatever the hell I want”, then no, you’re not going to find that sort of thing encouraged anywhere on boards.

If it’s total freedom of expression you’re after, then go start a blog.