Boards.ie Politics forum is a poor man's Politics.ie

Wolfe Tone

I think people should name names and not be making lists and sending them off without the posters in question knowing.

Darragh

For all the lists of people being talked about, I haven't been contacted with any of them...

meditraitor

yekahs wrote: »

I think a private politics sub forum is the way to go to be honest.

The main forum can continue to function as it is now, and once a poster has demonstrated that they can post civilly, refrain from point-scoring, and put forward well thought out and logical posts they get access to the private forum.

The private forum doesn't need to be some sort of exclusive elite club either. Its just a place where drive-by posters don't just wander in and start "Lets have a revolution!!11!!!" threads and known trouble-makers who just engage in point-scoring and thread spoiling are not granted posting access.

People should still be able to view the forum, just not post, until they have a decent record in the main forum.

And who will decide what posters have access, will the posters with access have a special handshake?

The best way to sort this out is to give a some of the notorious groups their own subsection and they only let there own ilk in..... for example. Back patting sub forums.

SF republican forum

Green activists forum

Far left forum

Far right forum

Fake Libertarian forum

FF supporters (we could have their posting names in bold yellow so people recognise them)

etc etc


Whatever dregs of humanity left after that could post in the open forums

Wolfe Tone

lol



Funnily enough there is a republican private forum.

Yitzhak Rabin

I think who has access should be left up to the current politics mods. I think most people agree they are very impartial, and have a good knowledge of who posts in politics.

GuanYin

Darragh wrote: »

For all the lists of people being talked about, I haven't been contacted with any of them...

With respect to Politics posters Darragh, I would take a list of "troublemakers" as rather subjective and quite possibly relevant only for the definition of troublemakers as "people who disagree with me".

sceptre

The trench-digging on partisan threads is something that concerns me quite a bit at the moment, particularly with the general election coming - and the surge in traffic as a result (and to be honest, the forum was pretty busy before that).

I don't have a problem with people having views which are unlikely to be changed. I don't have a problem with anyone expressing their views in a manner that's conducive to good discussion. I don't think any of us should.

However, there is a significant problem with certain topics in particular whereby some people feel that every single point raised in every post that doesn't comply with their worldview needs to be answered, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with the topic under discussion. In the past few minutes I've moved a significant chunk of one thread to another existing thread due to the reluctance of people to stick near or around a thread topic, despite a clear opening post, a clear thread title and a clear moderator direction. That's one example of a few similar large moves or deletions from today (as another example, a discussion on guy fawkes night in a thread about Gerry Adams is not really on-topic or useful).

Everyone goes off-topic on occasion and topics can easily get expanded to something useful. The difficulty arises when (some) people drive a topic or series of topics into irrelevant inanity due to any of their unwillingness or inability to recognise what the thread is about, fulfilling their own personal hobby horses when they see a key word in someone's post that they can use as leverage to drive a thread into wackyland or, put bluntly, a desire to post stupidly. That's a problem. Frequently, it's the problem.

With the forthcoming general election, this is likely to be more prevalent. However, most people "get it" when you tell them. Most people manage to stop doing it when you tell them. Most people, in particular, manage to stop doing it on the particular thread when they've been rightly warned to do so. The problem, such as it is, arises most frequently when people either ignore that on the same thread (which leads to a simple specific solution - delete, card issue etc) but worse so if it happens on a series of threads.

It's something that we're taking in hand and are discussing. But there's no place around the table for people who blatantly do it. There's no room in the Politics forum for people who recklessly do it. There won't be any posting rights remaining for people who deliberately do it. And there isn't likely to be access remaining for the repeat offenders. So in that regard, if you think you might be doing it, I suggest avoiding it. If you've been previously warned for it, I strongly advise you to avoid it.

I don't believe we need to restrict access to Politics in the manner of a private forum. The case with soccer was that there was significant (and I stress significant) troublemaking from people who were happy to get banned and simply re-register. We don't have that problem, certainly not at a significant level.

There's a longer post from me by the way but due to time problems, it'll be next week when I make it. I'd like to stress though that as one of the Politics moderators, I'm very interested in hearing people's views - please continue making them.

gandalf wrote: »

I am also not going to get into a slagging match between boards and politics.ie. They both are excellent sites and operate in different ways. I read Politics.ie a every now and then but do not feel the impulse to post there because of the more lax moderation they have in place.

Completely agree with that. They have their ethos (I assume), we have ours. Mine is anti-idiocy, as I've stated more than once. I'll happily discuss the boards Politics forum here but I've no intention of slagging off politics.ie.


More to come.

FlutterinBantam

Excellent post Sceptre, agree fully.

One thing I would say, we need to keep the vested interests and single issue dudes in check.


keep up the good work.

later12

I assume that a lot of the ruckus in politics comes quite understandably from the current state of turmoil in Irish politics itself. The country is being bailed out by the IMF, we have just faced a very harsh budget and are still implementing its provisions, there are three more harsh budgets to come, and a hard left republican party (as some would see it) are unhelpfully (as some would see it) rising up on the inside rail. Fianna Fáil are in meltdown. Default. Mortgages. Unemployment. Pat Kenny's wages. Emotions are running high in real life, this is merely reflected on the politics forum.

I would suggest that the difference between politics.ie and boards.ie is that this site's political forum is far more likely to attract the poster with a passing interest in politics due solely to downward trends in his salary and his emerging economic outlook, and all of the real life political turmoil mentioned earlier.
These are probably posters who typically posted in AH, Biz, Biology, Motorsport, or whatever, and now have a sudden surge in interest in politics. Presumably this doesn't extend to posting on p.ie which is a greater political heavyweight, and when they do post in the politics forum, it is probably coming from a non-anorak's viewpoint and may be looked down upon, perhaps, by some posters, for a perceived simplicity.

I say this not as someone who considers himself politically astute, but in fact as someone who was only attracted to boards.ie when Ireland began its most recent belly flop. I actually enjoy that this site has less trenchant a political atmosphere than politics.ie, which as much as I like it, has far too many party hacks defending the party to the bitter end for my taste.

The politics forum shouldn't try to be politics.ie, that market has been cornered. There is, I would suggest, considerable demand for a forum in which regular PAYE workers and public servants and the unemployed and all sorts of people previously uninterested in politics wish to express their political views in light of the deepening crises, and I would tentatively suggest that all you are seeing on the politics forum right now is the manifestation of that demand.

Having said that I still don't fully understand why republicanism is more of an issue over here, although Scofflaw did suggest one credible explanation with regard to politics.ie's NI forum.

FlutterinBantam

Unfortunately, later, some posters like to ram their views down others throats ,laced with appropriate signatures and then a circle jerk appears and the thread disintegrates.

Mods do a great job there trying to keep a balance between the serial members of the ' so-called downtrodden' and those of us who like a bit of balance and fair play.

The single issue fanatics like to try to dominate the debate, and unfortunately sometimes succeed.

twinQuins

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

The single issue fanatics like to try to dominate the debate, and unfortunately sometimes succeed.

Which is why they are banned when they become enough of a nuisance. One would think you'd know such things, having personal experience of it.

Nehaxak

yekahs wrote: »

I think a private politics sub forum is the way to go to be honest. ...

Don't see any reasonable point whatsoever in the politics forum going private, or part thereof either. The whole point of politics is for it to be open to everyone and get their views - even if the odd occasional (which far as I've seen, is fairly rare) drunken or adrenalin induced thread is made. It's the reason I never bother with applying to any private forum, what's the point if the majority of those in the forum are probably of the same view as you anyway ? Would make for very boring or overly one sided discussions imho.

Would prefer to see a zero tolerance stance taken against posters who continually and intentionally derail/spoil/bait/troll threads instead, whatever the subject matter, politics or party involved.

Minor infractions/warnings for first time incidents which are clear as to their intentions. Major and in determined cases, with preferably the majority of mods agreeing to same - longer or even perm bans handed out to people who continually do it, with the ultimate decision on a perm ban being passed over to cat mods for approval with either a list of example posts/reports and backup views from mods concerned provided, if deemed required. You probably all do something like that anyway.

If this was imposed though, I would think it only fair to all involved if a clean slate were given in the first instance, so those that are in the mods/admins bad books - are given a chance to redeem themselves if such rule changes are introduced (I'm not saying this from a personal self serving perspective either, I've only two minor infractions far as I know myself and one of them was for a humorous comment, the other I deserved. Though I couldn't care if I was on any list either, I stand by everything I say and if I'm ever wrong in anything I say or cause unintended insult, I'd always apologise - I don't understand why anyone would be concerned about that either, unless you knew yourself you were pissing about). Anyway, I just think it fair to give people a chance before any stricter rules are imposed, rather than some silly list of "offenders" being banded about. We all lose the temper at some stage, or are tired when posting (some drunk also I guess), or just people are so entrenched in their political side of the fence and can't open their eyes enough to see another persons point of view, or indeed are just baited/trolled and can't resist replying.

It can however all be done in a civil manner without resorting to baiting/trolling/derailment or otherwise for the sake of scoring epeen points.

Would also like to see whatever posts that were deemed as trolling/abusive/derailment/spoil/bait being deleted soon as possible, so as not to entice others to join in and reply on same, or indeed to en-flame others to respond. If action is taken against a poster and a post, either then delete the corresponding post or edit out the offending comments (which for the most part is widely done so most recently, and commendably so).

bonkey

Banning people doesn't resolve issues. As a simple example...the internet seems capable of producing a constant stream of spammers who need banning. This doesn't resolve the problem of spammers, it merely manages it and reduces the disruption it causes.

"Ban-oriented" suggestions aren't solutions...they're management techniques. Remove who you think are the problem-causers of today and even if you get it right its only a matter of time before there's a new generation causing exactly the same or similar problems.

To manage it on an ongoing basis, you need a set of rules. They can be strictly enforced, but they must be fair.

You should not, for example, have rules which discriminate against minority positions. If 10 people are arguing similar points in 5 threads, and there's only 1 or 2 people who hold the opposing view...then those 1 or 2 will be far, far more visible. Its neither fair nor appropriate to punish them for refusing to give "the majority" a free pass in some threads simply by virtue of greater numbers. Then again, they shouldn't be starting a myriad of threads on the same topic...nor dragging threads onto the same topic.

Similarly, it is not a problem per se for someone to be a "single issue" poster. If only threads on one particular issue interest them, then so what?There is a line which gets crossed, of course, when they start turning threads on other topics into this one topic...but the underlying problem there is "dragging thread off topic"...not "single issue poster".

On emotive areas, its also quite often the case that someone new treads on old ground. Its generally not the done thing to tell them we've had this discussion...so the topic arises again. At this point, then, what can we expect? Should the people who've had this discussion before be prevented from joining in? If not, then we're going to end up with the "old" discussion being had once again. Again, though, this is distinct from people dragging new topics back to old ground.

From the above, its probably clear where I'd start...with people dragging things off topic. Make/enforce rules which deal with this, and bear in mind that it takes two to tango. I can't drag a thread off-topic on my own...I need someone to come along with me. Its not about who starts it....its about who's involved.

This, of course, would mean more moderator intervention.

If it were adopted, then regardless of its success, we can expect to see a return of threads telling us that things are being over-moderated...and the inevitable comparisons with politics.ie

Scofflaw

From the above, its probably clear where I'd start...with people dragging things off topic. Make/enforce rules which deal with this, and bear in mind that it takes two to tango. I can't drag a thread off-topic on my own...I need someone to come along with me. Its not about who starts it....its about who's involved.

I have to disagree with that to some extent. When you repeatedly find the same one or two posters at the centre of a tango outbreak, it becomes clear that you have a serial tangoer on your hands - one so attractive as a dancing partner that they can start a tango session wherever they go.

to the limits of analogy,
and beyond!
Scofflaw

NeedaNewName

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to disagree with that to some extent. When you repeatedly find the same one or two posters at the centre of a tango outbreak, it becomes clear that you have a serial tangoer on your hands - one so attractive as a dancing partner that they can start a tango session wherever they go.

to the limits of analogy,
and beyond!
Scofflaw

Indeed. Happy Friday btw.

Sparks

sceptre wrote: »

I'll happily discuss the boards Politics forum here but I've no intention of slagging off politics.ie.

To bring up a point in that case which hasn't been mentioned yet, but which probably has a bearing on the numbers of posters on each site; does anyone think that the adverts taken out in the print media (like the adverts in the Phoenix) have boosted the numbers on politics.ie and would taking out such adverts for boards.ie have a similar effect?

Scofflaw

Sparks wrote: »

To bring up a point in that case which hasn't been mentioned yet, but which probably has a bearing on the numbers of posters on each site; does anyone think that the adverts taken out in the print media (like the adverts in the Phoenix) have boosted the numbers on politics.ie and would taking out such adverts for boards.ie have a similar effect?

Not in respect of Politics, I think - we're not really playing on the same pitch as politics.ie. They aim to be the source and the place for politics online in Ireland in all its chaos, whereas the Politics forum is somewhere for people to have a reasonable political discussion when that's what they feel like doing. In general, we run at about a fifth of their numbers online at any time, rising to maybe half at moments of great excitement like the IMF bailout.

In respect of Boards overall, yes I suspect it would. It is an enormous site, and it has a lot to offer almost anyone. If there were an ad campaign, it wouldn't go in the Phoenix.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Unfortunately, later, some posters like to ram their views down others throats ,laced with appropriate signatures and then a circle jerk appears and the thread disintegrates.

Mods do a great job there trying to keep a balance between the serial members of the ' so-called downtrodden' and those of us who like a bit of balance and fair play.

The single issue fanatics like to try to dominate the debate, and unfortunately sometimes succeed.

If a poster bothers somebody that much, ignore them. There are a couple of posters on certain topics I just don't or very rarely engage, because it is pointless, it isn't a discussion, it's a soap box.

There are other posters who often post on very limited areas but you can have a discussion or a debate with them, they are willing to take on counter points. They probably will never see things the way I see them, but you can have an interesting debate. I get the impression that they take points on board though no doubt, a month later, we'll be back having a similar thread on the same "sides". The difference is, one is a pleasure to waste a couple of hours on the internet pointlessly arguing, the other is a waste of anybodies time and effort. It isn't that hard to guess who they are.

So, in essence, it comes down to a posters judgement. Same goes with many posters who complain about NI, Palestine, Public Service pay etc. threads, if you respond in a reasonably respectful way, you can have endless hours of discussion with like minded posters. If you are constantly in "battles" with a few posters, well, 90% of the problem is yourself for engaging!

As for mods, they can only do so much, they can't baby sit posters.

Politics.ie is a fantastic source of news on politics, I'm subscribed to their RSS feed. That's far as I go. See the first page and usually end there as it's the same, same old after that!

Boards does suffer from that to an extent, but not as badly. I haven't been on p.ie much in the last couple of weeks so it may have improved in that regard.

To me p.ie is even more personal as their thanks or karma or whatever system showed. A total nightmare with 20% of posts being about "why did you neg rep me?" or whatever. I'll thank a well put together post or one with a good point and that doesn't mean it necessarily agrees with my view. As for cliques thanking each other, yep it happens, but come on, it's a thanks button on the internet. If it is the same posters thanking each other on say a NI thread, it's pretty worthless thanks. There's more to be worrying about and making an issue of tbh.

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not in respect of Politics, I think - we're not really playing on the same pitch as politics.ie. They aim to be the source and the place for politics online in Ireland in all its chaos, whereas the Politics forum is somewhere for people to have a reasonable political discussion when that's what they feel like doing. In general, we run at about a fifth of their numbers online at any time, rising to maybe half at moments of great excitement like the IMF bailout.

In respect of Boards overall, yes I suspect it would. It is an enormous site, and it has a lot to offer almost anyone. If there were an ad campaign, it wouldn't go in the Phoenix.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You'd have a lot of posters on AH with an interest in politics as well, maybe not as interested in day to day politics but they do have an interest when something topical come up.

P.ie would cater for both IMO.

tbh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I think people should name names and not be making lists and sending them off without the posters in question knowing.

I've been travelling for the last 26 hours, so I'm only catching up with this thread now. I won't be sending any lists, my opinion is irrelevant. I'd have no problems naming names in public but again, I'm neither a poster nor a regular there, so I don't see what relevance my opinion would have.

tbh

Nodin wrote: »

.......such respect that you earned a permaban for disrupting threads on everything from the Corrib Gas Line to West Papua....



....

Exactly the crap I'm talking about btw. Purely someone taking an opportunity to have a dig at someone they don't like, ironically nodin exactly what you seem to have a real problem with when fb does it.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to disagree with that to some extent. When you repeatedly find the same one or two posters at the centre of a tango outbreak, it becomes clear that you have a serial tangoer on your hands - one so attractive as a dancing partner that they can start a tango session wherever they go.

Well, yes, to an extent.

Lets stretch the analgy further.

If there's only one or two girls at this dance hall, and a lot of guys, then its pretty inevitable that the tangoing is always going to involve the same one or two girls.

As I said, I think it takes two to tango. If you clamp down on dancing, then consider what happens. If its the same people on both sides getting onto the dancefloor each time, then they repeatedly get in trouble....which leads to harsher treatment.

If its not the same people on one side or the other, then they're still shown that is unacceptable, and don't get into repeated trouble.

Make the practice unacceptable, and the repeat-offenders will take care of themselves.

The alternate is to define some sort of nebulous threshold that will almost-certainly lead to cries of bias or victimisation (a new for the Politics mods, eh!)...that X wasn't doing it any more then Y was, but one got banned and the other didn't, and its because you don't like what X is saying, but what Y is saying was fine.

Think back to Lisbon. Threads were repeatedly dragged off their original topics to discuss the same old allegations time and time again. It wasn't always the same people making the claims, but there was a very small handful (yourself included) who had the energy to repeatedly answer them.

That small group were repeatedly in the middle of off-topic discussions...but I doubt that either you or I would suggest that they were a problem worthy of banning.

Change from Lisbon to something else emotive, where someone holding a less-popular opinion is also behaving in the same manner...where they are repeatedly in the thick of things, as they have the energy to repeatedly answer the same claims. Are they a problem by virtue of what they believe in? If they are less eloquent then your good self...does that make them a problem?

At what point does repeated engagement in the same old same old cease to be an acceptable practice and start to be a problem? I certainly can't define that point...as I suspect it to be highly subjective.

For the record...I'm commenting here as an interested party with some experience and not as an admin in any, way shape or form.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

Well, yes, to an extent.

Lets stretch the analgy further.

If there's only one or two girls at this dance hall, and a lot of guys, then its pretty inevitable that the tangoing is always going to involve the same one or two girls.

As I said, I think it takes two to tango. If you clamp down on dancing, then consider what happens. If its the same people on both sides getting onto the dancefloor each time, then they repeatedly get in trouble....which leads to harsher treatment.

If its not the same people on one side or the other, then they're still shown that is unacceptable, and don't get into repeated trouble.

Make the practice unacceptable, and the repeat-offenders will take care of themselves.

The alternate is to define some sort of nebulous threshold that will almost-certainly lead to cries of bias or victimisation (a new for the Politics mods, eh!)...that X wasn't doing it any more then Y was, but one got banned and the other didn't, and its because you don't like what X is saying, but what Y is saying was fine.

Think back to Lisbon. Threads were repeatedly dragged off their original topics to discuss the same old allegations time and time again. It wasn't always the same people making the claims, but there was a very small handful (yourself included) who had the energy to repeatedly answer them.

That small group were repeatedly in the middle of off-topic discussions...but I doubt that either you or I would suggest that they were a problem worthy of banning.

Change from Lisbon to something else emotive, where someone holding a less-popular opinion is also behaving in the same manner...where they are repeatedly in the thick of things, as they have the energy to repeatedly answer the same claims. Are they a problem by virtue of what they believe in? If they are less eloquent then your good self...does that make them a problem?

At what point does repeated engagement in the same old same old cease to be an acceptable practice and start to be a problem? I certainly can't define that point...as I suspect it to be highly subjective.

For the record...I'm commenting here as an interested party with some experience and not as an admin in any, way shape or form.

The problem, though, is that we're not really talking about people who tango in the dance hall - we're talking about people who brawl in it. That's an activity that also requires more than one person (barring really special cases), and it's noticeably different from dancing.

To step out of the analogy for a moment, what I'm saying is that neither I, nor anyone else, have any objection to the same handful of posters being involved in responding on a particular topic - except where that response isn't discussion but trench warfare. Can we tell the difference? Obviously we can, since we don't have any complaints relating to the involvement of a small number of posters in the former, while we have at least a couple of threads concerned about the latter.

So I'm afraid I have to dismiss your point as being irrelevant to the problem.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

what I'm saying is that neither I, nor anyone else, have any objection to the same handful of posters being involved in responding on a particular topic - except where that response isn't discussion but trench warfare. Can we tell the difference? Obviously we can, since we don't have any complaints relating to the involvement of a small number of posters in the former, while we have at least a couple of threads concerned about the latter.

What is the difference? That people complain?

Its a genuine question, because I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If someone is refusing to discuss a topic, thats already covered in the charter. If they're engaging in brawling to the extent that they are not respecting other posters...again, thats already covered in the charter.

So clearly we're talking about behaviour that the charter doesn't say is unacceptable...but that people are complaining about. This behaviour is being defined as "trench warfare", but what is it?

If its the case that <discussion on topic X> always degenerates to the same players arguing the same points...is it a case that they are shouting down people who hold a similar opinion to themselves, or is it a case that they are the only ones actually interested in putting their perspective forward?

I suspect the latter. In such a situation, the alternative for the "minoity supporter" is to allow a viewpoint that they disagree with to go unchallenged. If someone starts a discussion about how one side in a conflict is committing this that or the other atrocity....do you genuinely expect someone who supports that side to hold their peace rather then argue their corner, on the basis that they'd already posted in enough threads on that topic recently?

We seem to agree that its not unreasonable for them to defend their position, but so far there seems (to me) to be some ineffable point at which that becomes "trench warfare".

Surely if you're going to moderate this type of behaviour, it needs to be better defined then "we know it when we see it".

So I'm afraid I have to dismiss your point as being irrelevant to the problem.

That's entirely your perogative

I'm offering a perspective mostly to provoke discussion and to perhaps provide food for thought....not trying to argue that I'm right.

Nodin

tbh wrote: »

Exactly the crap I'm talking about btw. Purely someone taking an opportunity to have a dig at someone they don't like, ironically nodin exactly what you seem to have a real problem with when fb does it.

I have a problem with a banned offender using a politics thread on Feedback to continue try and justify the onslaught they were banned from politics for in the first place. Having foxes comment on henhouse security is generally frowned on, or so I thought.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

What is the difference? That people complain?

Its a genuine question, because I'm not sure I understand the distinction.

If someone is refusing to discuss a topic, thats already covered in the charter. If they're engaging in brawling to the extent that they are not respecting other posters...again, thats already covered in the charter.

So clearly we're talking about behaviour that the charter doesn't say is unacceptable...but that people are complaining about. This behaviour is being defined as "trench warfare", but what is it?

If its the case that <discussion on topic X> always degenerates to the same players arguing the same points...is it a case that they are shouting down people who hold a similar opinion to themselves, or is it a case that they are the only ones actually interested in putting their perspective forward?

I suspect the latter. In such a situation, the alternative for the "minoity supporter" is to allow a viewpoint that they disagree with to go unchallenged. If someone starts a discussion about how one side in a conflict is committing this that or the other atrocity....do you genuinely expect someone who supports that side to hold their peace rather then argue their corner, on the basis that they'd already posted in enough threads on that topic recently?

We seem to agree that its not unreasonable for them to defend their position, but so far there seems (to me) to be some ineffable point at which that becomes "trench warfare".

Surely if you're going to moderate this type of behaviour, it needs to be better defined then "we know it when we see it".

Fair enough - we have, naturally, been trying recently to come to exactly such a definition. And it is undeniably hard to do so, because it's a relatively nuanced area, just as the distinction between putting forward a particular viewpoint and soapboxing is. Indeed, the two are related, since trench warfare is essentially a case of both sides soapboxing simultaneously.

Part of the disctinction is encapsulated quite neatly in two contrasting phrases that GY came up with:

"The IRA believed the woman to be an informant who put their numbers at risk and hence executed her"

"The woman was a tout and and traitor and they shot her in the back of the head for it"

Both of those are justifications of the actions of the PIRA in respect of Jean McConville. The first is stated as the justification offered by the PIRA, is factual and neutral, the second says, loud and clear, "she deserved to die". The first might provoke a debate on whether the PIRA has/had the right to justify its own actions by its own lights - the second is a take it or leave it statement of dogmatic support for the view that they undoubtedly did, couched in emotive and combative language.

Similar statements:

I dont care if Adams ordered the death of a tout in 1972 no.

I already said I dont care either way, how does it matter? Its a non issue for me, so what if he dead? Ordered the killing of a tout? Hardly the worst thing that happened.

That's not arguing a position on the PIRA, it's an in your face statement that the poster doesn't give a flying fsck about anybody else's opinion.

Here's another statement, again in respect of Jean McConville, again by someone who supports the killing:

Hold it now, it is well known in the nationalist community that she was a traitor and an awful a lot of people feel sick that she put her young family in danger after being warned the first time for a few pound instead of working for it properly- mother of the year condender

she was a selfish mother of ten, who didn't know the meaning of birth control or loyalty

This is not political discussion - this is flinging taunts and denigration of the dead. There is no opening there for discussion - there is only a brick wall. One position is utterly right, and the other is so utterly wrong that it sickens people.

On the same thread we have other posters defending the republican position without resorting to this kind of verbal stonewalling. I don't have the same issues with them at all, even though they too are justifying the same set of actions. Maybe they're just as completely convinced of the rightness of their views, but the way they go about it at least acknowledges that holding opposing views isn't a mark of idiocy or treason.

If we didn't know the posters in question are entirely sincere in respect of their positions - that they're not simply making these points to seek a reaction, as would a troll - this behaviour would indubitably be classed as trolling, and treated as such. I'm inclined to say that sincerity should not be a defence here, since the results, from the forum's point of view, are indistinguishable from trolling.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Nodin wrote: »

I have a problem with a banned offender using a politics thread on Feedback to continue try and justify the onslaught they were banned from politics for in the first place. Having foxes comment on henhouse security is generally frowned on, or so I thought.

Wouldn't the appropriate action, then, to be to report the post rather then to respond to it?

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

I have a problem with a banned offender using a politics thread on Feedback to continue try and justify the onslaught they were banned from politics for in the first place.

A ban from politics is not a site-wide ban, but you are suggesting some sort of selective extension. That's not feasible.

Having foxes comment on henhouse security is generally frowned on, or so I thought.

They tend to know something about the subject.

tbh

Nodin wrote: »

I have a problem with a banned offender using a politics thread on Feedback to continue try and justify the onslaught they were banned from politics for in the first place. Having foxes comment on henhouse security is generally frowned on, or so I thought.

None of your business what he was banned for, surely, or have I missed something? Was your pop at bantam intended to be constructive in a way that's gone over my head, or was it indeed what it appeared at first, a pointless jab that adds nothing to the discussion?

Wolfe Tone

tbh wrote: »

None of your business what he was banned for, surely, or have I missed something? Was your pop at bantam intended to be constructive in a way that's gone over my head, or was it indeed what it appeared at first, a pointless jab that adds nothing to the discussion?

With all due respect what does this add to the discussion?