Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

So the mod who posted the warning was wrong ? Petty name calling is ok as long as its directed at politicians ?

Would this be acceptable discussion of Enda Kenny and FG policies ?

"Who gives a fcuk what Kenny says he's nothing only a lying sack of shít"

Ok by you nesf yes ?

In an attack thread against a party **** is going to be thrown. I'm less worried about that now than personal attacks made on posters. The context is key here, if the thread is about attacking FG there's a lot more leeway than if the thread isn't about attacking FG.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

In an attack thread against a party **** is going to be thrown. I'm less worried about that now than personal attacks made on posters. The context is key here, if the thread is about attacking FG there's a lot more leeway than if the thread isn't about attacking FG.

Then why is an attack thread allowed when its designed solely to throw shít ? Why do mods bother to post warnings if they cannot follow up with action ?

You basically allowed all that to happen. You allowed people to create a situation that would degrade the forum, you allowed them to post petty nonsense and then allowed them to get away with doing it after repeated warnings to stop.

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Then why is an attack thread allowed when its designed solely to throw shít ? Why do mods bother to post warnings if they cannot follow up with action ?

You basically allowed all that to happen. You allowed people to create a situation that would degrade the forum, you allowed them to post petty nonsense and then allowed them to get away with doing it after repeated warnings to stop.

Sure. And we can deal with it later. Right now I want to focus on other problems in the forum.

We need to have a serious and separate debate about whether attack threads are allowed and what should be allowed in them anyway before making any changes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

Sure. And we can deal with it later. Right now I want to focus on other problems in the forum.

We need to have a serious and separate debate about whether attack threads are allowed and what should be allowed in them anyway before making any changes.

Fair enough, I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion on attack threads. My point was that after two mod warnings to stop name calling someone kept name calling. Just as the other poster in this thread was told that he was warned repeatedly to stop so too was this guy. But only one got infracted.

My overall point was that I reported this guy for his post and it wasnt infracted. He like the other poster was name calling. Dismissing someone by calling them a meathead is no different to me that dismissing them on the grounds you see them as moany self righteous twats.

It was just to show the "double standards" and how a poster can become unsure as to whats valid and not. I wouldnt have reported Richie as what he said seems in line with plenty thats said in the forum. If you allow people to name call in regards to politicians it will crop up in other areas and argument.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Sure. And we can deal with it later. Right now I want to focus on other problems in the forum.

We need to have a serious and separate debate about whether attack threads are allowed and what should be allowed in them anyway before making any changes.

I have no problem with thread which 'attack' i.e criticise particular political ideologies, party policies etc but I don't think these need to contain personal attacks against any individual - be it the poster or a public figure.

So, for example, if we were discussing the last days of the FF/GP government I think that given the allegations voiced over the last year about Cowen's fondness for a pint or three and his reliance on a coterie of drinking buddies and whether, if true, it impacted on his leadership would be a valid discussion.

However - to simply state that Cowen was a useless fecking drunk would not be ok. It is a personal attack based on allegations, adds absolutely nothing to a debate of either his leadership abilities, policies or actions.

P. Breathnach

People are not allowed to attack me personally because I am a member here.

Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland, they are often subject to personalised attacks on Boards, even when the attack is not linked to their public role. That is by no means limited to the Politics forums. Perhaps politicians should be advised to join Boards, and claim members' privilege of immunity from personal attack; or perhaps Boards might recognise that people should all be accorded equal respect, whether they are members here or not.

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups? Or should we seek an adult standard of discourse?

[Bannasidhe's post was made while I was still constructing mine. We seem to be on the same page.]

The Corinthian

Personally I find that there are increasingly too many clueless soapboxers posting in both Humanities and Politics. It's quite disconcerting because you could be having a stimulating discussion and then one of them will appear to come out with some rant that is based upon some dubious facts. It's difficult not to get sucked into arguments with these people and all too often you realize that there's no point to doing so, but by then you've wasted your time engaging them and the discussion is spoiled.

It's reached a point where mentioning the PD's in a purely academic fashion is going to get someone's started.

Perhaps the time has come to set minimum post criteria to these boards; at least then the most clueless would be kept out. Or perhaps abandon these boards to the mob altogether and move discussion to private Humanities and Politics boards.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People are not allowed to attack me personally because I am a member here.

Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland, they are often subject to personalised attacks on Boards, even when the attack is not linked to their public role. That is by no means limited to the Politics forums. Perhaps politicians should be advised to join Boards, and claim members' privilege of immunity from personal attack; or perhaps Boards might recognise that people should all be accorded equal respect, whether they are members here or not.

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups? Or should we seek an adult standard of discourse?

[Bannasidhe's post was made while I was still constructing mine. We seem to be on the same page.]

excellently put and quite close to my own thoughts on the matter tbh. Of course, even the most sane of us will occasionally blow a fuse, thats normal.

I have a serious hatred for this sort of pettiness, and I try ( i know the others do too) to stamp on it as much as is possible, no matter who is the side getting the grief. It's one thing I'd love to see totally eradicated from the forum tbh.

K-9

P. Breathnach wrote: »

People are not allowed to attack me personally because I am a member here.

Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland, they are often subject to personalised attacks on Boards, even when the attack is not linked to their public role. That is by no means limited to the Politics forums. Perhaps politicians should be advised to join Boards, and claim members' privilege of immunity from personal attack; or perhaps Boards might recognise that people should all be accorded equal respect, whether they are members here or not.

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups? Or should we seek an adult standard of discourse?

[Bannasidhe's post was made while I was still constructing mine. We seem to be on the same page.]

Mehole Martin was quite funny the first time I seen it but after 500 times from about 5 posters, it looks stupid and puts me of a post!

The personal slur stuff really is for AH and even AH has lines on that.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no problem with thread which 'attack' i.e criticise particular political ideologies, party policies etc but I don't think these need to contain personal attacks against any individual - be it the poster or a public figure.

So, for example, if we were discussing the last days of the FF/GP government I think that given the allegations voiced over the last year about Cowen's fondness for a pint or three and his reliance on a coterie of drinking buddies and whether, if true, it impacted on his leadership would be a valid discussion.

However - to simply state that Cowen was a useless fecking drunk would not be ok. It is a personal attack based on allegations, adds absolutely nothing to a debate of either his leadership abilities, policies or actions.

This is along my thoughts on the matter. But I'm not sure if it's as urgent as other problems in the forum.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

This is along my thoughts on the matter. But I'm not sure if it's as urgent as other problems in the forum.

Possibly not - but its so good to see our disparate voices reach a consensus on something!:D

Sand

@P.Breathnach

People are not allowed to attack me personally because I am a member here.

Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland

I dont like bitter, hateful, personal attacks on public figures. Not because I have the same regard that you have for public figures, but because I feel such attacks diminish the person making them.

However, given when somebody chooses to participate in public life ( by which I mean a leadership role in the state's governance and political life) then they must expect criticism. Because they are no longer J. Doe, they are J. Doe, Minister for Finance of the Republic of Ireland...If they dont understand the difference, then they shouldnt be Minister for Finance of the Republic of Ireland. The same goes for J.Doe, Civil Servant.

When you participate in the discourse of boards.ie you are not participating in public life - quite the opposite given the annonymous aspirations of user names. Hence the rules that apply to you as a private user, and a public figure who is in the employ of the state are different, and should never, ever be confused.

I feel myself that the view that politicians and civil servants are "just the same" as anyone else is a race to the bottom in the terms of standards of public life. A dishonest husband hurts his wife and his family. That is a private and limited hurt. A dishonest Minister or Civil servant hurts his country and his nation - that is a public and widespread hurt. Ministers and Civil Servants should be held to higher standards - we shouldnt look to be ruled by people who align with the worst common denominator, we should look to people who align with the best.

Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups?

Yes, absolutely.

The converse is that its acceptable for public servants to make mistaken, inaccurate, obfuscated or contestable claims using the prestige of their office to lend weight to those claims. It leads to a damaging cynicism around public figures where they can lie free of challenge - oh wait, thats modern Ireland where no one has any faith in the political system.

Least of all the civil servants.

Christ knows, the civil service and the government horde all information so they have a duty to get it right. If a poster on the Politics forum makes a claim thats at the very least contestable then there is an expectation on them to provide objective evidence to support that claim. So if we're going to offer public figures the same protection as private posters, then we need them to provide the same evidence for their claims. As Noonans recent rants about a referendum "No" leading to a Euro exit imply, that isnt a standard they are capable of reaching.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

@P.Breathnach


I dont like bitter, hateful, personal attacks on public figures. Not because I have the same regard that you have for public figures, but because I feel such attacks diminish the person making them.

However, given when somebody chooses to participate in public life ( by which I mean a leadership role in the state's governance and political life) then they must expect criticism. Because they are no longer J. Doe, they are J. Doe, Minister for Finance of the Republic of Ireland...If they dont understand the difference, then they shouldnt be Minister for Finance of the Republic of Ireland. The same goes for J.Doe, Civil Servant.

When you participate in the discourse of boards.ie you are not participating in public life - quite the opposite given the annonymous aspirations of user names. Hence the rules that apply to you as a private user, and a public figure who is in the employ of the state are different, and should never, ever be confused.

I feel myself that the view that politicians and civil servants are "just the same" as anyone else is a race to the bottom in the terms of standards of public life. A dishonest husband hurts his wife and his family. That is a private and limited hurt. A dishonest Minister or Civil servant hurts his country and his nation - that is a public and widespread hurt. Ministers and Civil Servants should be held to higher standards - we shouldnt look to be ruled by people who align with the worst common denominator, we should look to people who align with the best.

You snipped my post so as to make it easy for you to disagree with me. Let me restore:

they are often subject to personalised attacks on Boards, even when the attack is not linked to their public role

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups?

Edit: I see some of what you omitted came back in your edit. Not enough for your comments to be fairly-based on what I said.

Sand

@P. Breathnach

You snipped my post so as to make it easy for you to disagree with me

I focused on what I disagreed on - As I noted, I dont like bitter, hateful, personal attacks on public figures. Not because I think Mary Harney cares all that much if shes called fat by people on Boards.ie, but because those people offering that sort of criticism on a Politics forum embarrass themselves.

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups?

What you seem to be attempting to do is to try equate "a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says" with "a politician's appearance" to try and negate any personal accountability on the part of a politician for what they say as a public figure...

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

@P. Breathnach

First bid of feedback: by using this form of address, discussion of a point is cast as a one-on-one debate rather than the setting out of a point of view in a discussion between a number of participants.

I focused on what I disagreed on - As I noted, I dont like bitter, hateful, personal attacks on public figures. Not because I think Mary Harney cares all that much if shes called fat by people on Boards.ie, but because those people offering that sort of criticism on a Politics forum embarrass themselves.

So you disagree with "Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland"!

What you seem to be attempting to do is to try equate "a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says" with "a politician's appearance" to try and negate any personal accountability on the part of a politician for what they say as a public figure...

It would be better if you let my words represent my views rather than your interpretation. I reject your interpretation of what I said.

I would be happier if you decided to go and annoy somebody else.

Sand

@P. Breathnach

First bid of feedback: by using this form of address, discussion of a point is cast as a one-on-one debate rather than the setting out of a point of view in a discussion between a number of participants.

Duly noted - I however use it to help users comments so its understood whose comments I'm responding on. Imperfect, but it meets the requirements.

So you disagree with "Yet when somebody participates in public life in Ireland"!

No, I disagree with the view that an annonymous nobody with an opinion on the internet and a Minister of the Republic of Ireland can be treated as one and the same when considering what constitutes a personal attack.

As I've noted, an annonymous poster doesnt have an army of civil servants, tame reporters and exceptional powers and briefings, nor are they given legal immunity from making libellous claims in the Dail. Yet they are expected to provide objective evidence to support their claims and views, and are disciplined where they fail to do so.

Public figures clearly do not adhere to this requirement when making their claims. Equally they are not entitled to the same protection as a poster on the forum - they are public figures, salaried and empowered above and beyond some annonymous nobody on the internet. It is their actions and claims which are there to be discussed.

In so far as their public actions go, their motivations and machinations are up for debate and the judgement may not always be pleasant reading for the public figure in question. They may be caught out as liars, as being deceitful or making ridiculous claims which any reasonable person would know was at best deluded.

It would be better if you let my words represent my views rather than your interpretation. I reject your interpretation of what I said.

I would be happier if you decided to go and annoy somebody else.

Heres your words:

In what way is it a good or defensible thing to allow nasty comments on things such as a politician's appearance? Is it fair to allow somebody focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar? Should posters be allowed express hatred of individuals or groups? Or should we seek an adult standard of discourse?

So we have adult standard of discourse on the one hand, and on the other hand comments on a politicians appearance/focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfuscation or contestable claim/expressions of hatred. With no differentiation.

I dont disagree regarding politicians appearance or expressions of hatred. I disagree on trying to slip "focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfustication or contestable claim in something a politician says, and call that politician a liar" in there as an equivalent offence.

Anyway, I've made my view on that clear so if it annoys you then I'll leave it at that.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
So we have adult standard of discourse on the one hand, and on the other hand comments on a politicians appearance/focus on a mistake or inaccuracy or obfuscation or contestable claim/expressions of hatred. With no differentiation....

I listed three quite different instances of the sort of things that people do. In three separate sentences.

It is wrong that you misrepresented my position. It is even more wrong when I rejected your interpretation of my position that you refuse to accept that.

I can now give a fourth example of a type of misbehaviour that should be tackled in the politics forum: the distortion of a poster's words in order to contrive an unnecessary disagreement. That, inter alia, can draw people's attention away from whatever the substantive issue happens to be.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That, inter alia, can draw people's attention away from whatever the substantive issue happens to be.

Like this thread which has been derailed from any useful purpose in the last 10 replies.

P. Breathnach

nesf wrote: »

Like this thread which has been derailed from any useful purpose in the last 10 replies.

Six?

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Six?

I was guesstimating, tis early, sick child etc.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote: »

Like this thread which has been derailed from any useful purpose in the last 10 replies.

Look, can't we all just agree that the problem lies with international Jewry?



11 now (or seven)...