Mods need to step up in Politics Forum

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Is that a historical fact though? Was the exploitation of workers caused by the political system or something else? Etc. I agree it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but if it is dismissed out of hand well then that's obvious to everyone and I hope people know who to take seriously.

Short of posting the relevant primary source documents on child labour, work conditions, wage levels, housing conditions here (I am quite willing to do so in the context of a debate on Laissez Faire) etc you'll have to take my word for it .

P.S - I didn't say 'caused' I said 'enabled'.

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Short of posting the relevant primary source documents on child labour, work conditions, wage levels, housing conditions here (I am quite willing to do so in the context of a debate on Laissez Faire) etc you'll have to take my word for it .

P.S - I didn't say 'caused' I said 'enabled'.

Caused is far more interesting than enabled.

You still need to show more than correlation though. Not trying to start an argument, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Bannasidhe

nesf wrote: »

Caused is far more interesting than enabled.

You still need to show more than correlation though. Not trying to start an argument, just playing Devil's Advocate.

Absolutely!
Demonstrating Cause and Effect - the lifeblood of the historian :cool:

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely!
Demonstrating Cause and Effect - the lifeblood of the historian :cool:

Historians suck at it.

Now economic historians...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duke Leonal Felmet

nesf wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What I thought.

My issue here is that in one thread I was discussing the implications of Laissez Faire as a political system and that lack of governmental regulation of employment practices enabled horrendous exploitation of workers (historical fact) only do have this dismissed out of hand ( paraphrasing slightly as it was a while ago) 'the same old Dickensian Crap being trotted out' by one of the most vocal Libertarian advocates for greater enforcement of the charter rules on this thread.

I do think that if people practised what they are preaching here the standards would rise - lead by example and all that.

Is that a historical fact though? Was the exploitation of workers caused by the political system or something else? Etc. I agree it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, but if it is dismissed out of hand well then that's obvious to everyone and I hope people know who to take seriously.

No different a problem to a discussion on the soccer forum, and yet, the mods there appear to have a handle on the place....

nesf

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No different a problem to a discussion on the soccer forum, and yet, the mods there appear to have a handle on the place....

They have a much stricter system. We can implement such, but do we really want that? Was discussed a few pages back.

Duke Leonal Felmet

nesf wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No different a problem to a discussion on the soccer forum, and yet, the mods there appear to have a handle on the place....

They have a much stricter system. We can implement such, but do we really want that? Was discussed a few pages back.

It depends on whether you think a problem exists. I post on both forums. In Politics I get dragged into all sorts of arguments with trolls (and troll-back myself) and I get ****loads of warnings and bans. In Soccer I never, ever get attacked by trolls and thus never feel the need to retaliate. I have no bans or warnings and I like posting there. Really nice atmosphere there. You can make critical points, get criticised yourself, but it's all good sport (pun intended).

IMO, Politics should be like that.

nesf

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It depends on whether you think a problem exists. I post on both forums. In Politics I get dragged into all sorts of arguments with trolls (and troll-back myself) and I get ****loads of warnings and bans. In Soccer I never, ever get attacked by trolls and thus never feel the need to retaliate. I have no bans or warnings and I like posting there. Really nice atmosphere there. You can make critical points, get criticised yourself, but it's all good sport (pun intended).

IMO, Politics should be like that.

It should, the question is how. A closed access forum has been suggested, do people want this?

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope sorry- it was about two months ago and frankly life is too short to go trawling through either your or my extensive post history.

Duke Leonal Felmet

nesf wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It depends on whether you think a problem exists. I post on both forums. In Politics I get dragged into all sorts of arguments with trolls (and troll-back myself) and I get ****loads of warnings and bans. In Soccer I never, ever get attacked by trolls and thus never feel the need to retaliate. I have no bans or warnings and I like posting there. Really nice atmosphere there. You can make critical points, get criticised yourself, but it's all good sport (pun intended).

IMO, Politics should be like that.

It should, the question is how. A closed access forum has been suggested, do people want this?

Perhaps put it to a vote? How are these things normally decided?

coffee_cake

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope sorry- it was about two months ago and frankly life is too short to go trawling through either your or my extensive post history.

Isn't the search function magic?
Doesn't look out of hand to me, does look misquoted:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75223335&postcount=637

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ed2hands

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No, it does not. It was a regrettable response to a smart comment from Supenova. And that wasn't the first ad hom that came my way at that stage. Another one today from Supernova.
So the muck is not all flying in one direction it seems..
Anyhoo let's not drag up each others finer moments on boards shall we?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Strawman.
Funny you should say that though, because i have been trying to up my game, discussion wise, with a poster on the Libertarianism thread at the mo, but they're proving quite unwilling to answer some of my questions..
Don't think they like me or my line of questioning. Ah well.

Permabear wrote: »

They merely sling mud, heckle, make hysterical accusations, engage in rampant ad hominem, and hope by sheer volume and persistence of posting to turn the thread into a trainwreck. Generally, they succeed.

Strawman. Was not trolling.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Would nod my head in agreement, but can't move for straw around here..

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Forgiven. Didn't bother me overly.
Happens to the best of us.
And ditto.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Isn't the search function magic?
Doesn't look out of hand to me, does look misquoted:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75223335&postcount=637

The exact quote was

and so out comes the usual Dickensian script.

- IMHO that is an example of being dismissive out of hand while adding little to the actual debate. The implication of that throw away dismissal being that the conditions Dicken's described did not exist - and while Dickens may be guilty of playing the emotional card, he did under play conditions like 'phossy jaw' to spare his readers sensibilities.

The next day, Annie Besant went and interviewed some of the people who worked at Bryant & May. She discovered that the women worked fourteen hours a day for a wage of less than five shillings a week. However, they did not always received their full wage because of a system of fines, ranging from three pence to one shilling, imposed by the Bryant & May management. Offences included talking, dropping matches or going to the toilet without permission. The women worked from 6.30 am in summer (8.00 in winter) to 6.00 pm. If workers were late, they were fined a half-day's pay.

Annie Besant also discovered that the health of the women had been severely affected by the phosphorous that they used to make the matches. This caused yellowing of the skin and hair loss and phossy jaw, a form of bone cancer. The whole side of the face turned green and then black, discharging foul-smelling pus and finally death. Although phosphorous was banned in Sweden and the USA, the British government had refused to follow their example, arguing that it would be a restraint of free trade.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUmatchgirls.htm

Permabear just thanked a post in Irish Economy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75999542&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post75999542 # 24 which described someone as a 'complete dufuss' - is that not an ad hominem comment and precisely the sort of thing we are complaining about?

Why is calling the speaker on one youtube clip a meathead actionable but calling the speaker on another youtube clip a dufus ok ? I would have little time for either comments but cannot help but feel that to advocate action being taken against one offender while thanking another smacks of double standards.

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why is calling the speaker on one youtube clip a meathead actionable but calling the speaker on another youtube clip a dufus ok ?

Who said it was ok? Did you report the post?
You seriously can't cry double standards if you don't report it and if a mod hasn't indicated somehow that they've seen it.
Furthermore, part of the reason the other posts were actioned was because there were two mod warnings on the thread already warning about that kind of posting on that thread.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

Who said it was ok? Did you report the post?
You seriously can't cry double standards if you don't report it and if a mod hasn't indicated somehow that they've seen it.
Furthermore, part of the reason the other posts were actioned was because there were two mod warnings on the thread already warning about that kind of posting on that thread.

Was on the point of reporting when I had to take a phone call - since been reported.

My point remains people should practice what they preach.

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

Who said it was ok? Did you report the post?
You seriously can't cry double standards if you don't report it and if a mod hasn't indicated somehow that they've seen it.
Furthermore, part of the reason the other posts were actioned was because there were two mod warnings on the thread already warning about that kind of posting on that thread.

Seeing as the mods are intent on using this "If you dont report you have no right to complain" argument I'd like To show a post I did report and just as the others there was 2 mod warning on the thread to cut out the crap at the time it was posted.

Why did this not result in an infraction while the others did ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75623644&postcount=78

nesf

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Permabear just thanked a post in Irish Economy http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75999542&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post75999542 # 24 which described someone as a 'complete dufuss' - is that not an ad hominem comment and precisely the sort of thing we are complaining about?

Was there several warnings by a mod in that thread already about standards? Was the post reported? Etc.

I agree that we want to get rid of it from all sides but I'm very much of the mind to warn first, infract second here at least until people get used to the rules.

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Seeing as the mods are intent on using this "If you dont report you have no right to complain" argument I'd like To show a post I did report and just as the others there was 2 mod warning on the thread to cut out the crap at the time it was posted.

Why did this not result in an infraction while the others did ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75623644&postcount=78

That's criticising a party. It's fundamentally different.

coffee_cake

MungBean wrote: »

Seeing as the mods are intent on using this "If you dont report you have no right to complain" argument

I'm not using it as an argument except that you can't expect us to see every single post on every single thread. And if you have a problem with a post, there is absolutely no point complaining about double standards if we haven't even seen the post to have a standard or not.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

That's criticising a party. It's fundamentally different.

It was made in a thread about Clare Daly. Along with a raft of other crap like "A two faced, moaning liar. The second moaniest politician in Ireland behind Sir Boyd-Barrett-Boyd."

Nothing to do with politics and everything to do with attacking people and namecalling. Seeing as the mod took the time to say

By all means feel free to criticise Ms Daly's policies and views, but lets have no more of this cheap and petty namecalling nonsense.

Either make your point in a reasonable and adult fashion, or find somewhere else to make it

Twice before this how is that in anyway a valid post?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not using it as an argument except that you can't expect us to see every single post on every single thread. And if you have a problem with a post, there is absolutely no point complaining about double standards if we haven't even seen the post to have a standard or not.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear (and yes, the post has been reported).

My point is if one is going to come on here and complain about standards not being upheld in the Politics forum while simultaneously thanking ad hominem comments in the Politics forum then that is a case of double standards.

Does it matter if warnings have already been issued in that particular thread? - The forum rules don't change from thread to thread do they?
Is it a case of play the Ref or abide by the rules?

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

It was made in a thread about Clare Daly. Along with a raft of other crap like "A two faced, moaning liar. The second moaniest politician in Ireland behind Sir Boyd-Barrett-Boyd."

Nothing to do with politics and everything to do with attacking people and namecalling. Seeing as the mod took the time to say


Twice before this how is that in anyway a valid post?

I'm not saying it's a valid post I'm saying it's criticising a party which is different.

Criticising parties is normal, I'd prefer if the criticisms were more cerebral but that's not high on my list at the moment of things to fix immediately. Sorry.

MungBean

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm not using it as an argument except that you can't expect us to see every single post on every single thread. And if you have a problem with a post, there is absolutely no point complaining about double standards if we haven't even seen the post to have a standard or not.

But regardless of that actual post (although I get your point) I and others have seen these types of posts accepted in the forum. So I may not bother to report it because its in line with the standard of the forum. I agree that for it to be 100% valid it needs to be reported before you cry double standards but in my eyes I see it all over the forum, I see mods active in those threads and I have reported some and not seeing them acted on.

Its at the point now where someone infracted for that type of thing seems over the top.

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Does it matter if warnings have already been issued in that particular thread? -

Yes
if you defy a mod warning, that's extra on top of whatever the first problem with the post was.
And arguing with a mod on thread generally earns a ban.

MungBean wrote: »

Its at the point now where someone infracted for that type of thing seems over the top.

Call someone who writes an article an idiot in an OP, and I'll probably lock it if it's just ranting and tell them not to do it again.

Call someone in a youtube video an idiot or insult PS workers (for example, as I dealt with that recently), and I'll give you a yellow or post on thread saying cut it out.

Call someone in a youtube video an idiot or insult PS workers etc after you've specifically been warned to stop doing it, and I will be harsher.

I'm sorry you feel there is inconsistency in the mods dealing with things. I think that much may be food for us to discuss. In the meantime, please keep reporting.

MungBean

nesf wrote: »

I'm not saying it's a valid post I'm saying it's criticising a party which is different.

Criticising parties is normal, I'd prefer if the criticisms were more cerebral but that's not high on my list at the moment of things to fix immediately. Sorry.

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 ?

nesf

MungBean wrote: »

Its at the point now where someone infracted for that type of thing seems over the top.

Context is everything.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I disagree with 'not especially' - but note you agree that the comment was dismissive to an extent. Dismissive is dismissive - be it especially so or not.

As a matter of fact, I thanked the rest of the post, which even the poster of the video in question also did. It's not as if the sum total of Denerick's contribution was "complete dufus." You are displaying a remarkable ability to read selectively here.

You thanked a post that contained an ad hominem - that is what the reader sees - that is not selective reading.