Politics

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

Read my posts. I suggested double standards by moderaters and posters alike buying into media "socialization" ( as Chomsky calls it - see my last post). Posters don't have the direct power over other posters though.

In this thread, you made an opening post asking whether or not there was [bias[/i] being shown by moderators.

In a seperate thread, you made the comment about posters and mods alike...and have petitioned here that it be re-opened.

Logically, I concluded that here we were discussing moderator bias, and there you wished to discuss double standards held by posters (something, which frankly, I don't believe is a valid or relevant topic for discussion.

So lets stick to the topic here, and discuss your allegation of bias from moderators. As such, trends amongst posters are irrelevant.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to suggest that moderators and posters are colluding against you in order to engage in some form of propaganda machine, I think we can just stop now, as I've no inclination to entertain flights of fancy which are unsupported by evidence.

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

And again, your wording doesn't rule out the possibility that provocation was at least part of your intent.

I was of the belief that the post would be provocative or solicit anti FF anti Sf and pro WP Labour people to post. That does not mean I posted it to attack them or to prove they would attack me.

Lest you be concerned I'm trying to trap you here...I accept fully there is a distinction between intending a consequence and knowing it would come about.

I don't like referring to people's personal lives if they aren't directly involved and I certain had no intention of personally attacking Gilmore's wife. I respect her and the job she does and that she operated in a legal manner and I have stated that before. One issue was that if one mentioned her they would be attacked but it seemed it was okay to mention Ivor Callely's family or Hanafin's family. Posters would be primarily defending her and saying she was not involved in the Gilmore case but linking the others to FF. i was saying this is part of a wider motif where FF/SF and the like are attacked and Labour are praised or attacked less. I wondered if the media control background of the Workers Party OIRA etc. had and relation to this.

The Politics mods could readily predict the creation of this thread once your most recent thread was closed....but we didn't intend for it to be created. We didn't close the thread to try and provoke you to start this thread. It was not our main aim. It was not a side aim. It was no part of our intent.

Prove it! Can you show where you or any other mod made that prediction before the event?

It is very easy to make predictions after the thing happens. rettofitting with " could readily predict" does not count.

To that end, it concerns me that twice now you've worded around your intent leaving the door open that at least in part your intent was to provoke people.

And given you above say yo are not trying to trap me your unsupported opinions and concerns should be if import because?

You're clearly an intelligent person, with a good grasp of the english language...and it worries me when such people shy away from making clear and unambiguous statements about their intention(s).

I have been quite clear.
I don't resort to ad hominem unless others attack me
I am quite suspicious about an anti FF anti SF pro Labour mindset operating
Posting about the Official IRA history of Labour People might well provoke such people into responding by attacking me as I expected but the intention of the thread is not about the central issue of attacking such people.

Yes, its quite clear that the flak drawn was not about the OIRA, but rather about your inclusion of Gilmore. Which is exactly my point...unless you wanted to associate Gilmore (and specifically Gilmore) with the OIRA for some reason, then one has to wonder why you chose the option which would draw (the most) flak.

I used a well know name
Maybe i should have used Rabbitte but he didn't join the Officials till after the Student Union days.
I am happy to post a slew of other names mentioned in print. I was surprised at some myself that I knew from the NUJ but might be people with the same name so I have to be careful about what I post.
I would have thought others like Stagg or Mac Manus or Michael would also draw flak I believe they opposed going in with FF and I'm not sure about earlier OIRA links.

This is the problem for me. I see someone who's able to understand and even predict reactions to posts, and clearly able to argue their point eloquently when they choose....who then goes and starts a thread in close to the most "flammable" manner I can imagine, and complains about being the injured party when it all catches fire.

I'm not upset at being attacked. I'm upset I had to post anything personal about someone not directly in politics and I'm only complaining because a different set of standards apply to the people posting to the degree that the majority of posters play down one party and play up another.

I'm honestly trying to figure out why you didn't start the thread in a manner less likely to cause aggravation.

I honestly regret I didn't now.

I saw no allegations of you being part of a conspiracy, nor to my knowledge were any reported. Could you report them so I can review them, please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70598636&postcount=12

Is this where FFail are taking this election run up when we need serious resolution to serious issues?

message 25 :Directly on political parties monitoring an replying to this thread

FF in particular need to wake up to the fact that Civil war politics mean nothing to young voters and the same young people have no sense of loyalty to them.

Your comments weren't about a mindset, ISAW, they were about people communicating with each other behind the scenes and posting or not posting based on those communications.

they were about both. I cant prove there were communications between other people.
I can ask you if you had such communications behind the scenes?
Did you?
I can also ask if you are not a support er of the Labour Party?
Are you now or were you ever involved with Labour WP, DL etc. ?
LOL you make me sound like Mc Carthy

Your profile says you live in Switzerland. that is about all it says. maybe you are involved in the Labour movement there?

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

In this thread, you made an opening post asking whether or not there was [bias[/i] being shown by moderators.

In a seperate thread, you made the comment about posters and mods alike...and have petitioned here that it be re-opened.

Sorry for not including the posters as I did in the other thread.
which in the title didn't mention "an other posters"
sorry for not adding it to the title there as well.

Started when I had written a reply to this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056160708

which also was locked.

Logically, I concluded that here we were discussing moderator bias, and there you wished to discuss double standards held by posters (something, which frankly, I don't believe is a valid or relevant topic for discussion.

So lets stick to the topic here, and discuss your allegation of bias from moderators. As such, trends amongst posters are irrelevant.

Indeed that are - if you are going to change the topic to exclude them.
What I asking is to entertain the possibility of buying into the "socialisation of the media"
by mods and posters alike - as I have I hope explained

If, on the other hand, you're trying to suggest that moderators and posters are colluding against you in order to engage in some form of propaganda machine, I think we can just stop now, as I've no inclination to entertain flights of fancy which are unsupported by evidence.

I posted the evidence.

It isn't necessarily against me ( although that has happened in the past and i don't wish to revisit it ) . I realise I am not liked, unpopular, and maybe a thorn in people's sides but I don't post to try to offend or attack people. I accept my posting style may be annoying or ponderous.

As for the evidence - there is evidence of such a culture. I even proposed a way to measure it.

Wolfe Tone

ISAW, if I follow correctly, is saying that if, lets say, Adams wife did something that would be fair game to comment on, yet there is a double standard when it comes to Gilmore, that right?

ISAW

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

ISAW, if I follow correctly, is saying that if, lets say, Adams wife did something that would be fair game to comment on, yet there is a double standard when it comes to Gilmore, that right?

well comments came in about Callelly and Hanafin's family so that is evidence of that
Adams is continually linked to the PIRA there is plenty of evidence of that.

i didnt post to attack Gilmore's family personally nor to show that I would be attacked myself if i posted about "socialists" with family millionaire connections.

I don't think Adams wife or anyone's wife should be commented on but there are exceptions. As I stated if Robinson's wife was not in politics and gave the interview she did to a Woman's magasine about her expensive underwear and her how Peter own's over 500 silk ties Im sure the DUP supporters would find that offensive on both the sexual element and on the austerity proposed to Protestant workers while their leaders live in the lap of luxury. As it happens she was a councillor but even if she wasnt I would think it valid to discuss.

I won't labour the point because I don't view Gilmore myself as living an opulent lifestyle. He and his wife are millionaires though, and and also large amounts of money was made inflated land which I also find ironic. I just find that odd and think if it was more known people before profit would likely get votes Gilmore would get. and I don't support PBP either. I think Labour people don't like that the millionaire aspect of Labour being talked about. But i really don't want to go on about this individual case. the underlying idea is if socialism is about redistribution of wealth, the leaders always seem to end up in the wealthiest circles.

For example Rauri Quinn has a brother who totally legally was is Chair of the board of ESB and was on the Bank of Ireland Board chair of National Gallery etc.

Cousin of Ferghal Quinn who owns about 500 million in Superquinn.

I am suggesting if they were related to a SF or FF person that their might be more criticism about them. It is difficult to say that about Ferghal though since he is in politics anyway. But then we are into - should your non politics business interests be "fair game"?
Which is where we began

I was going to say the media stay away from them and also mention senator Joe O toole whose sister and husband made €30 million in a land deal. then i found Joe's brother in law had also been attacked.

http://www.joeotoole.net/useful-links-page13131.html

dashboard_hula

"1. Please spellcheck your posts. I know that you're typing away at the speed of light there, and you've got family obligations etc to mind as well, but you're only going to attract frustration from other users if you misspell words, put spaces in the middle of words, don't finish words or treat full stops, comma's and apostrophes like confetti.

2. Please preview your posts. Ask yourself if a bog-standard user will be able to glance at your post and quickly and effectively be able to decipher the point that you're trying to make. If not, alter it. It is absolutely possible to do this without taking away from the essence of your personal style, which yes, is pedantic and argumentative. But you can be pedantic and argumentative while still using plain english.

3. Please answer the questions you're asked. In several threads you have avoided answering questions from other users, while answering others with gusto."

I wrote this feedback last night, but then I waited to post it. Thankfully in the meantime your posts have gotten shorter and somewhat easier to understand. But part of the fact that it took something like 4 locked threads, a couple of bans and a hell of a lot of groans and mouse-scrolling to get here was because your posts made my eyes bleed.

I now see what your point is. I completely disagree, but at least I know what the heck you're on about now.

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

Sorry for not including the posters as I did in the other thread.

That's fine. We all make mistakes, and I'm quite happy to accept that you got it wrong.

What I asking is to entertain the possibility of buying into the "socialisation of the media" by mods and posters alike - as I have I hope explained

Your "evidence" has been to show that posters - when taken collectively, in a small number of cases - do not demonstrate a perfectly equal distriibution of opinions, and that one can identify - putting it simply - popular and less popular subjects/entities.

Fine. I accept that a large number of people, when taken collectively, don't demonstrate a perfectly distributed set of likes and dislikes. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone here wouldn't accept that.

I'll also readily accept that people, taken in the general sense, typically apply differing standards to points of view that agree with their predisposition, to points which disagree with those. This is, for lack of a better term, human nature. It is not, in and of itself, evidence of manipulation or subversion. Until it can be shown that the trends diverge from some quantifiable norm that is to be expected, or that they are correlated to some external "driving" factor (and not merely coincident wth it) there is absolutely nothing to suggest it is in any way out of the ordinary.

That said...if you wish to feel that people are exhibiting bias...you go right ahead. Just be very careful that you don't start attacking other posters on Politics on this basis, as attacking other posters is against the charter. It matters not one whit if you believe it to be true...attacking other posters is not acceptable.

As for the mods indicating bias...I'm still trying to figure out where that is shown. In the past few weeks, we've been accused (individually and collectively) of trying to portray FF in a more favourable light, as well as of being pro-new-government. We've had the usual allegations of being anti-Republican, while the vote minisite indicates that, in all probability, Republicans entertain more support here then amongst the voting populace.

its quite common for people to argue that our moderation is biased...that we are "picking on" some ideology, and not others. The evidence is, inevitably, a set of moderator actions hand=picked to be about a common theme. "Oh look...here's my threads about <X> where they took action". Of course, all the other threads about comparable subject matter....they get ignored. All the threads about other subject matter where comparable muppetry was given comparable treatment....also ignored. Its ironic in the extreme that such arguments not only fail to address the concept of bias at all, but that they are - in and of themselves - biased.

ISAW

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

that sounds fair and it could be tested.

Did the same level of antio FF anti SF postings and low criticiam of Lab and no discussion of OIRA exist before 2007 and the bust?

Will criticism of Labour increase when they are in government?

bonkey wrote: »

How does a distribution of what posters choose to talk about add to your case that there is double-standards being shown by moderators?

On double standards you say

your wording doesn't rule out the possibility that provocation was at least part of your intent.

so you can't prove I did it for that reason. You have no evidence but you still alledge I did it for that reason. or that you are suspicious

However If I alledge that I have suspicion s about people conspiring against me or even unconsciously indulging in "groupthink" you suggest that I had better prove these allegations.

Can you prove I posted for the reason you suggest? If you don't have to then why should I have a different standard to attain?

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

I cant prove there were communications between other people.

Good. We're agreed then, that any such allegations would not be appropriate. It is just idle speculation.

I can ask you if you had such communications behind the scenes?
Did you?
I can also ask if you are not a support er of the Labour Party?
Are you now or were you ever involved with Labour WP, DL etc. ?
LOL you make me sound like Mc Carthy

Indeed, and like McCarthy, you'd have the freedom to decide that answers you didn't like weren't trustworthy...that if I was someone who was acting in a biased manner, that would give me a motive to lie to you.

For the record though:

No, I didn't discuss whether to post or not post on any thread, ever, with the exception of discussing and agreeing moderator actions with fellow moderators, and admin actions with fellow admins where I felt that was merited.

I am not a supporter of any political party, either in Switzerland, or in Ireland.

I've never been affiliated to nor connected with any political party, nor (for completeness sakes) any terrorist organisation - associated with a political party or not.

I'm not going to ask you to reciprocate, because - quite honestly - it matters not one whit to me. As a moderator, I will judge people on their behaviour in the forums that I moderate, not their political leanings - claimed or real.

It also matters not one whit to me that we're having this discussion here. It will neither make me inclined to giv you more leeway then I otherwise would have in-forum, nor to be more harsh.

I realise that this doesn't sit too well with the notion that I'm biased. Being in Switzerland and removed from Irish media, I'm also not highly likely to be susceptible to the Irish media.

Wolfe Tone

I've never been affiliated to nor connected with any political party, nor (for completeness sakes) any terrorist organisation - associated with a political party or not.

Damn Bonkey, there goes my theory that you are an "on the run" who escaped to Switzerland!

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

Good. We're agreed then, that any such allegations would not be appropriate. It is just idle speculation.


Indeed, and like McCarthy, you'd have the freedom to decide that answers you didn't like weren't trustworthy...that if I was someone who was acting in a biased manner, that would give me a motive to lie to you.

For the record though:

No, I didn't discuss whether to post or not post on any thread, ever, with the exception of discussing and agreeing moderator actions with fellow moderators, and admin actions with fellow admins where I felt that was merited.

Nor did I. i did mention to one friend who coincidetally called in for a cup of tea when I was posting about the OIRA thing and he was aware of the Book I mentioned. In fact ironically it was him who first mentioned that book to me . so blame him!

I am not a supporter of any political party, either in Switzerland, or in Ireland.

thanks for volunteering that.

I'm not going to ask you to reciprocate, because - quite honestly - it matters not one whit to me. As a moderator, I will judge people on their behaviour in the forums that I moderate, not their political leanings - claimed or real.

that seems quite fair.

It also matters not one whit to me that we're having this discussion here. It will neither make me inclined to giv you more leeway then I otherwise would have in-forum, nor to be more harsh.

that seems fair too. But a claim "im not influenced by other peoples words" is very difficult to believe. I admire your determination to follow fairness and an happy that evidently that admiration will have no effect on you either

I realise that this doesn't sit too well with the notion that I'm biased. Being in Switzerland and removed from Irish media, I'm also not highly likely to be susceptible to the Irish media.

You are probably better off abroad.
I don't read the newspapers here but I occasionally write for them.

I don't think you are biased now but that won't make any difference anyway.

ISAW

bonkey wrote: »

. Being in Switzerland and removed from Irish media, I'm also not highly likely to be susceptible to the Irish media.

Id have to disagree with this. In fact you are part of the "Irish media". Particularly you are a highly influential part of evolving new media and that is significant. That is in fact possibly the main reason why I brought up the issue - that opinion leaders or media people are metacognitive and aware of what media is and does. You should be aware that you are affecting opinion. - Even by saying "I am not going to be influenced" you influence opinion. I suggest you read the "what makes the mainstream media mainstream" piece.

P.S. on my own style - I use "possibly" and "not necessarily" in an exploitative non committal way. this may be to do with my background in science writing. I am loathe to say something is definite unless I am totally sure. While I was suspicious of you, I believe now and am happy to admit that I was wrong about that. However, I am not totally sure other mods or others didn't discuss me and freely admit some paranoia about it. The feedback/dispute process however seems quite fair. I also think it is important that people like me ( i.e. pains in the neck ) test such processes and cause them to be refined.

bonkey

ISAW wrote: »

Id have to disagree with this. In fact you are part of the "Irish media". Particularly you are a highly influential part of evolving new media and that is significant.

Ignoring whether or not I am significant, lets put this in context...

I do not support any political party.
I do not care whether other people support or oppose any given political party.

What, exactly, would you prefer from someone in such an influential position?

You should be aware that you are affecting opinion.

Every poster here is affecting opinion.

Moderators have a tough job, in that our role is, in essence, to intervene when discussion wanders outside certain boundaries of acceptability.

This is tough because those boundaries are not simply one-dimensional. A thread or post may be discussing an acceptable subect in an unacceptable manner...or an unaccpetable subject in an acceptable manner. What constitutes acceptability in terms of subject or manner can - at best - be subjectively and fuzzily defined.

Its natural that some people disagree with the calls made. Its natural that some people will misinterpret the calls made. That, in and of itself, is influence....every bit as much as people correctly interpreting the calls made are influenced.

We don't get every call right. We don't have absolute consistency. From your background in science writing, I'm sure you can understand that it is absolutely certain that there will be inconsistencies and errors...just as there will be differences of opinion, and differences of interpretation.

While I was suspicious of you, I believe now and am happy to admit that I was wrong about that.

Well, either that, or I'm a very convincing liar

The feedback/dispute process however seems quite fair. I also think it is important that people like me ( i.e. pains in the neck ) test such processes and cause them to be refined.

I'm glad you find it fair...and I mean that sincerely. Its not the most lightweight of approaches, nor the most efficient...but we have genuinely tried to make sure that people get a fair hearing.

For what its worth...I have no issue with people questioning my motives. I have no issue taking the time to talk through things with me, so that I have the opportunity to explain how I see things and to having those perceptions challenged. It forces me to re-assess more-or-less continuously. It also gives me the opportunity to understand other people's perspectives somewhat better...which in turn can influence me to approach things slightly differently.

I don't ask anyone to agree with me...merely to try and understand where I'm standing.

eamo12

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have reported a number of posts by ISAW, but I have no idea if what I said determined moderators' actions.

I find it highly objectionable that ISAW repeatedly attacks Carol Hanney (Eamon Gilmore's wife) even though she is not active in politics.

But she did profit from the state by screwing the taxpayer i.e. selling land to schools for inflated and obscene profits. Typical socialist behavior...