Politics: Double standards b y moderators??

ISAW

This thread on double standards

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70398766&postcount=1

Was locked by a mod and it claimed it was "soapboxing". I asked what was meant by that and the mod refused to discuss it.

I specifically started the thread to point out how relatives of a FF politician are dragged into a thread an a string of anti FF abuse follows and all sorts of innuendo linking the relative or family to corruption or vice versa

Then when it is pointed out that Eamon Gilmore's wife made a half million on inflated property this is deemed "not connected to Gilmore"

this is clearly double standards and biased in favour of Labour and against FF.
I seriously doubt the same posters would be posting the same comments if FF were in opposition and Labour in goivernment or if a Labour TD's mother fell down the stairs.

I make the case that I would be against any such bias if FG or whoever else was in government.

The thread was locked.

Then this happens:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70476872&postcount=1

In which the mother of a FF politician is linked to the idea that the politician is part of a corrupt movement and that this is only more of the same!

How can you have it both ways?

addendum:
I now have another moderator in politics accusing me of bringing in issues from another thread

The thread is clearly about the mother of Mary hanafin making a claim

How can such issues only apply to Ivor Or mary's family menbers and not to Eamon Gilmore's family members?

Nehaxak

ISAW wrote: »

...

How can such issues only apply to Ivor Or mary's family menbers and not to Eamon Gilmore's family members?

Issues are unrelated.

Ivor C allegedly claimed expenses he wasn't due and furnished false invoices from a defunct and liquidated company in some cases to backup his expenses claims. Personally I would prefer to see the whole lot referred to the Gardaí to investigate but FF decided not to do this for some strange reason.
Legit issue for political discussion.

Mary's mother slipped/tripped or whatever and sued for damages, rather than pick herself up off the ground and walking off either laughing or embarrassed like the vast majority of other people would do. Would prefer to know the full facts of the case regardless as she might have been pushed or maybe Enda ran out in front of her and squirted fairy liquid under her feet, who knows...
Thread was probably better suited to AH than politics imo though it's an election and could be seen as an election issue as in "another dodgy dealing from FF and those friends/family around them" - still though, not really a serious discussion for politics though I don't think that was the main gist of what the OP had intended either, merely linking the story which mentioned same in regards incidental expenses.
Question has to be asked though, why didn't her daughter ask her mother not to make a claim in the first place ? Or did she, as other FF'ers have done, see Leinster house as a soft touch, open season, grab all you can ladies, we're out of here for good soon enough !

Both are separate instances but both relate to FF, both are also well known scams in their own right and not just in political circles. Neither have anything to do with Gilmore's wife selling property on for a profit though - which is not really a political discussion either.

There's plenty of discussion in regards SF, actually, the majority of discussion in regards some SF candidates is related to stuff not directly linked to them or that they were involved in themselves directly, though it never stops people bringing it up either, including from yourself at times in the past.

ISAW

Nehaxak wrote: »

Issues are unrelated.

Ivor C allegedly claimed [snip]
Legit issue for political discussion.

Read the OP!
The issue is not about Ivor or Mary but about Ivor's WIFE and Mary's mother and Eamon's Gilmore's wife making money having nothing to do with a political issue.

Mary's mother slipped/tripped or whatever and sued for damages, rather than pick herself up off the ground and walking off either laughing or embarrassed like the vast majority of other people would do.

Whatever, Issue is = mary's mother and not mary.

why is it acceptable to post about Ivor's wife or mary's mother and not Eamon's wife?

Why is it only significant when someone is related to a FF TD?

could be seen as an election issue as in "another dodgy dealing from FF and those friends/family around them"

Exactly! Why not Labour leaders wife makes 500k in inflated property deal and snubs local school?

why only FF people's families?

Question has to be asked though, why didn't her daughter ask her mother not to make a claim in the first place ? Or did she, as other FF'ers have done, see Leinster house as a soft touch, open season, grab all you can ladies, we're out of here for good soon enough !

Exactly! Why is Eamon Gilmore's wife making over 500 k on property which she originally agreed to sell when it was worth under 100k and which only went up to 500k because of FF policy that Gilmore's party were criticising (while personally profiting from it) and who then charged another 10k for car parking space while working class people did cake sales to raise that 10k?
Why isn't that acceptable to discuss and Ivor's wife's business or Marys mother's business is acceptable to discuss?

Both are separate instances but both relate to FF, both are also well known scams in their own right and not just in political circles.

Exactly!
Ivor's wife and son and Mary's mother were not involved in any scams political or otherwise to my knowledge!
But they were related to FF people and that makes it acceptable.
Being related to Labour people however makes the topic off limits.
Double standards!

Neither have anything to do with Gilmore's wife selling property on for a profit though - which is not really a political discussion either.

His party were objecting to people making money selling land to schools when Gilmore's wife was doing the same thing. She made 500k out of land sold to a school. 500k of public money. So why can't that be discussed and other people's family can. Hint: The difference being other people are FF and not Labour.

Nehaxak

Generally I'd agree with nearly everything you've said there in reply in fairness.
It is however only something the mods can reply to you on in regards their reasoning.

Also, nepotism is seen these days as taken for granted with FF and inextricably linked with the dealings, dodgy or otherwise of FF since, well since forever really. So whenever a story involving a family member of a FF'er is in the news, immediately people will assume "Uh huh, here we go again" and generally speaking, they're right to think that way going on the past dealings and carry-on of FF.

Doesn't explain or answer the points you're making however.

GuanYin

No ISAW, I didn't refuse to discuss it, I refused to enter a game of semantics and pedantry on the nature of soapboxing when you asked for a definition.

You have also posted in the wrong place, If you have a problem, the place is the dispute resolution process.

The cynical part of me thinks you posted here so you could continue your debate and discussion on the actual issue, seeing as I told you via PM to bring it to the Dispute Resolution Forum and you agreed that you would (yet have posted in Feedback).

With that in mind, I would ask the Admins to move this thread to the DRF to avoid a derailment from the issue (me closing the thread and informally warning the poster) into a political discussion.

ISAW

GuanYin wrote: »

No ISAW, I didn't refuse to discuss it, I refused to enter a game of semantics and pedantry on the nature of soapboxing when you asked for a definition.

Are you happy for me to post your Pm's in which you stated:

I've told you the viewpoint, its stands, it's not up for debate or discussion. If you want to take it further, do so in the dispute resolution forum.

Now did you or did yo not state " it's not up for debate or discussion" in relation to the Gilmore/Callelly issue?

Quite clearly you DID refuse to discuss it!

I have no intention of discussing the issue with you if you are not going to admit you stated the callelly /Gilmore/ double standards issue was "not up for debate or discussion"

If i am going to be heard on this issue I dont want you hjaving any hand act or part in the decision made. This because of any personal grievance but because it suggests bias on your part to be involved questions about your own moderation.

Are you involved in PMs with any other moderators on this issue?
I would suggest they too bar themselves from inputting or PM to whomsoever is looking into this matter as it suggests undue influence and/or bias.

You have also posted in the wrong place, If you have a problem, the place is the dispute resolution process.

I look at that forum but thought people could not post opinion. I had noticed a mods request about a politics thread on this forum for suggestions as to dealing with problems in the politics forum.


I had considered complaining about your ruling and disputing it but I thought it was not about me and let it go. then I find yet again a post about Mary Hanafin's mother and making it into an issue about Fianna Fail corruption! double standards!

The cynical part of me thinks you posted here so you could continue your debate and discussion on the actual issue,

And the paraniod part of me thinks you are posting unsupported allegation as if to suggest it is actually true. I am only interested in discussing Gilmore's wife as an issue because of the double standards. If people stated Ivor's wife and Mary's mother are not really related to politics then I would think differently. But apparently one can discuss FF and the business interests of their family members but not Labour and the money made by millionaire members of their family.

The issue is one of bias in the politics forum. the Gilmore's wife element is only symptomatic of it. I am sure If I look i can find another example
Actually in writing this I thought of the brother of an independent Senator who made about 20 million I think in a property deal. good look to him. Nobody accused him or his brother of being involved with a corrupt FF regime.

I havent bothered to list the posters or the mods concerned I am only suggesting the case exists that if a FF or SF representative posts something about Labour then it is considered not allowable but the same can be posted by a Labour person about FF or SF.

This isn't specifically a dispute about your judgement it is a post about double standards. I didn't even mention your name. whether or not you believe you are enforcing double standards the facts are there. Obviously you don't wish to not probably should not discuss them.

seeing as I told you via PM to bring it to the Dispute Resolution Forum and you agreed that you would (yet have posted in Feedback).

No no! I informed YOU that I would being objections about YOUR decision to that forum.
And I may well do so. Probably after this discussion here is exhausted since the evidence and opinions gained may be valuable to that resolution.
I find it unfair that you post the last line of a post from me and leave out the fact that you called me a liar in your opening words where you stated you didn't believe for a second what I stated.

You reitterated several times you don't wish to discuss the matter with me.
Fair enough don't discuss the personal matter. This discussion is about double standards in the politics forum.

How can a standard be applied to TD's from one political party and not applied to other parties? the fact that it happens to involve me you Ivor Callelly, Mary Hanafin, Joe O Toole or Eamon Gilmore is only relevant in so far as IC and MH are FF people and treated in one way and non FF people are treated in another way.

With that in mind, I would ask the Admins to move this thread to the DRF to avoid a derailment from the issue (me closing the thread and informally warning the poster) into a political discussion.

As I under stand it non mods wont be able to input into a thread in the dispute resolution forum. If not them please move it.

The discussion is a meta discussion about bias (whether intentional or not) in the politics forum.

LoLth

y'know, if you didnt post quotes alledgedly from PM between you and a moderator I would be almost inclined to agree that this is a discussion on the meta-issues of possible double standards in the politics forum.

However, seeing as you have obviously discussed this with a moderator, via PM, and you refer to that discussion as a way of making your point, I would have to conclude that this is an overspill of a disagreement between you and a moderator, in which case ==> DRP is the way to go and a thread should be started there.

I'm not going to move this thread. Instead I'm going to delete it. either you want to discuss possible double standards in a general way and have feedback from other posters (here) or you want to air a grievance with a particular mod (DRP) either way, feedback is not a place to continue political debates once the politics forum takes an action you dont agree with.

This thread will be locked until tomorrow evening. Once an alternative thread has been posted in the Dispute resolution forum or a proper feedback thread has been posted here, I'll delete this one.

and ISAW: posting what appear to be quotes from a PM is still posting details of a PM. Unless the PM was made in a mod capacity and not as par tof a covnersation between yourself and the mod as user, its not on. Even so, posting of mod PMs is to be done as part of the dispute resolution or, if you find a pm to be offensive, reported to the admins. Posting parts of a PM out of context is unfair to the other party and strikes me as an attempt to rally support under possibly false pretenses. (there is no way for a standard user to verify the truth behind your "quotes" and no way for anyone other than you or the other party to know if they are verbatim quotes or a loose paraphrase. Nor is there any way to know in what context the quoted text was meant.)