A&A Feedback

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

[...] trolled back to our batcave [...] end the libertarian scourge [...] now being penalised [...] atheists with left-wing political leanings [...] Robindch's soapboxing rights [...] tolerate the Atlas Shrugged threads [...]

Unfortunately, robindch has been too busy over the last ten days to debunk this kind of chin-scratching, huffy-puffy, head-shakey nonsense properly.

In summary, though, just because some views you or anybody else holds dear are held up as daft, doesn't mean that they're not daft to start with. Nor does it mean that the person or their views fit into the teeny, tiny little political pigeonhole that's been created to restrain them.

Anyhow, a little more introspection on your part, together with a little less of the religious-style persecution complex, would probably make your viewpoint look much more secure, well-informed and well-balanced than it currently appears.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KahBoom

KyussBishop here; closed my account last month, but stopping by briefly to comment (apologies to those I was in PM conversations with before - needed immediate time away, which I'll be continuing shortly).

Really no sense of irony/hypocrisy from many of the posters taking issue, in how so many of their own arguments apply to themselves - Libertarians and many of the more vocal 'free-market' supporters, routinely have the lowest standards of argument on the entire website - using lists of logical fallacies as a guide on how to argue, rather than as something to avoid (often being routinely disingenuous/uncivil in argument too), and using this to create only a pretense of a real argument, when it is almost all soapboxing.

You can see it right in this thread, with the quality of argument, and how it seems to be aimed at ignoring all opposing arguments, and engaging in nitpicking/lawyering over mod actions, to try and create the appearance of persecution.
Ideally, posters should always be given benefit of the doubt, and presumed pure in motives - but really, out of everyone watching the standard in argument in this thread, I doubt many are lacking in cynicism about the motives/honesty of the posters taking issue here - I'm not convinced, and I doubt many others have been...


The persecution tone to the argument, is pretty silly as well: All over Boards, economic discussions are pretty much dominated by right-wing/NeoLiberal austerity-leaning arguments, and discussing alternatives to that is probably the single most doggedly shouted-down set of arguments on any political topic - with many of the posters claiming persecution here, being the worst offenders in using the most uncivil/lowest-standard quality of argument, to participate in that - it's no surprise to see them try to stir up trouble with mods/admins, in a place where their quality of argument gets short shrift, in an attempt to influence moderation of the forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

coffee_cake

KahBoom wrote: »

routinely have the lowest standards of argument on the entire website -

You must be absolutely joking.
You go into threads where no lib has yet posted and rant about why you hate them.

You go around repeating nonsense about how libertarians want slavery
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83298097&postcount=75
The 'slave underclass' a Libertarian society would like to impose

and authoritarianism
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87045814&postcount=69
spouting conspiracy theory accusations + poisoning the well
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85135325&postcount=127
post condescending sh!te about how libs are only libs because they've been fooled
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85428887&postcount=80
go into completely unrelated threads about feminism, of all things, and use those as another soapbox about how much you hate libertarians
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89253230&postcount=764


And *we're* the ones with the worst arguments?
Get out of it.



This forum is a free for all. I like it that way. I get tired of robin ranting about an author whose books he hasn't read, so I don't read those posts. I don't post about politics here particularly after the last "regulation must be working because of laws against murder" fiasco and I don't have patience for arguing it anymore anyway.
I like jokes about biscuits and wrong threads.
I think the jank issue should have been dropped with Dades' and robin's posts in Feedback as the last word which postdated the discussions in this thread. Clean slates, and less modding as part of an argument.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A user gets banned or warned for trolling or being a dick...regardless of what their beliefs are.

You seem awful paranoid about why people get banned, people don't get banned for their political beliefs. They get banned or warned for being dicks or trolling.

Plenty of posters on boards.ie have different views, yet funnily enough they can post for years without any bans or warnings. Why? Because they don't act like dicks or trolls.

Bottom line is, regardless of what forum the person is posting in...if you don't want to be banned then don't be a dick.
:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Czarcasm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear I've been following this thread for a while now since you came in and launched a blistering personal attack on Robindch (and that's exactly how it came across, and is still coming across, despite all the hand shakey stuff on the last page, like you got a second wind!), but your posts come across more like a personal axe to grind rather than any feedback that might improve the forum.

I think Robindch summed it up rather well with this -

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, a little more introspection on your part, together with a little less of the religious-style persecution complex, would probably make your viewpoint look much more secure, well-informed and well-balanced than it currently appears.

I mean, of all the examples you could pick, you picked a poster who has had numerous Moderator actions in a forum where because the Moderators are so lenient almost to a fault, that infractions are rarely handed out.

I think this is one of the most free-flowing forums because of that, and I've never been made to feel unwelcome in here. If we have to apply labels I'm a Roman Catholic Libertarian Conservative Capitalist (there's a mouthful!). The thing I've always tried to keep in mind though, is that it's not just what you say, but how you say it, and in a forum where your opinion is usually in the minority, well, you have to respect the ethos of the forum.

This forum was created as a place where people who identify as Atheist and Agnostic could discuss ideas, it doesn't necessarily mean that people should only discuss Atheism and Agnosticism. I think it says a lot about how accommodating the forum really is when you've spent the last five or six pages playing rules lawyer with the wording of the charter when you know full well that any charter is only a guideline, and Moderators will make judgment calls in more specific cases. Moderators shape the forum and try and help posters become better posters. In a recent thread Turtwig stepped in to calm things down because when myself, Pilliger and Dan get into it, things get heated, and while we might see it as robust discussion, Turtwig who knows the forum better will want all posters to up their game, because posting below standard is hard for anyone to read, let alone want to contribute to the discussion.

It's been said here in this thread time and again, and I don't know if you'll ever get it, but if you have a different opinion or want to challenge opinion, then you have to make a compelling argument, and that requires putting a bit of thought into your posts rather than just letting fly with the first thing that comes into your head, disregarding the ethos of the forum just to have your say, and then complain when your opinion is challenged or you're challenged to explain your opinion.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You talk about pushing agendas but the funny thing is you've been pushing an agenda ever since you started posting in this thread,.

You did attack on Robindch and since you've been pulled up on that you are now claiming moderator/admin/cmod (without naming specific people) bias towards people of certain political alliances instead.
:rolleyes:

Again I'll repeat what I said before, people get warned/banned for trolling and being dicks. Not for their beliefs.

If people got banned for their beliefs every muslim and catholic/christian posting in this forum would be perma banned already.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

In all honesty your posts have turned farcical at this stage,

Your claiming the persecution card on this one and since people pulled up on the unjustified personal attacks on one moderator you've now changed tact and decided to just keep things general and not mention any names but still claim the persecution card from mods in general.

but just because you haven't been made feel unwelcome doesn't mean that that's true for everyone!

The problem here isn't picking on certain posters or bullying, its something that occurs on every forum.
There will always be some users who....wait for it....act like dicks sometimes and others will just decide to troll for reactions.

This applys to regular and drive by posters on both sides of the political/religious beliefs, hell almost everyone acts like a dick at some point. It might be by accident (heat of the moment) or it might be their actual plan. But claiming persecution is just silly.

If users are getting regularly banned, infracted or warned they need to look at their posting style.

You clearly have some very big concerns about the forum as a whole and you clearly think mods in the forum are bias as hell. So why aren't you taking it to a admin?

You could blow the whole conspiracy wide open man!
:rolleyes:

Obliq

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because of his pain-in-the-backside tendencies towards constantly derailing arguments with whataboutery? Very little to do with his right-wing views, IMO. Also, the criticising of Irish people was so vague it was applicable to any country. Didn't merit the argument that ensued (as with so many of his posts).

Yes, and as someone who identifies as atheist, I would love to discuss ideas here without being attacked because I also identify as libertarian. Unfortunately, that has proved to be impossible. As Valmont notes, this forum comes across as being for left-wing atheists only.

It's your views that are attacked, not you. If people disagree with your views then they are entitled to present you with an opposing opinion. It's just unfortunate for you that most people posting here on A&A hold different views to you, but such is life. Can I humbly suggest that you get over it? I don't mind reading your views, and would never suggest you stop posting them, but this is NOT a conspiracy against you. Far from it.

KahBoom

bluewolf wrote: »

You must be absolutely joking.
You go into threads where no lib has yet posted and rant about why you hate them.

You go around repeating nonsense about how libertarians want slavery
w.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83298097&postcount=75
The 'slave underclass' a Libertarian society would like to impose

You're pretty much proving my point bluewolf, by selectively quoting me, so you can cherry-pick part of a quote to make it look like an unbacked accusation - and you provide a gish-gallop of similarly unbacked accusations, where you misreprsent what I say each time - to try and turn this into a point-by-point rebuttal, with me on the defensive.

Selective quoting (something another Libertarian poster was repeatedly called out for in this thread) and smearing like that, is precisely one of the most frequently used methods of dishonest argument, that many Libertarians in this thread use.

Take each of your accusations, and quote me in full to prove them - not selective quoting of sentences - you know you are deliberately leaving out context from all of my posts, and misrepresenting them.

bluewolf wrote: »

go into completely unrelated threads about feminism, of all things, and use those as another soapbox about how much you hate libertarians
w.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=89253230&postcount=764

You completely lied about and exaggerated my post in a hyperbolic way there - warping the briefest mention of Libertarians.

What you seem to have a problem with in many of those above posts, is me pointing out the likely real-world effects of actually implementing Libertarian policies, instead of blindly believing the utopian promises made by supporters.


*snip*

coffee_cake

I'll deal with this via PM but leaving a post here to say I shouldn't have brought it up & sorry





The rest of the post stands. You don't get to constantly post ridiculous accusations and nonsense and then claim it's everyone else who has bad arguments.

KahBoom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Good luck finding anyone who targets those groups, getting away with the kind of posts jank gets away with, on a routine basis - I've debated with him a lot, and the incivility/extreme-condescension, is among the worst I've encountered from a poster on Boards - and I get into a lot of heated argument with a variety of posters.

The response to a criticism about another posters standards of argument, should not be a 'tu quoque' anyway, as that just comes across like an attempt to justify low quality of argument.

Bannasidhe

Valmont wrote: »

Or we would like to discuss atheism and religion in this forum but are trolled back to our batcave by posters like Nodin who seems to think God placed him on this earth the end the libertarian scourge in every single thread, regardless of topic. The fact that Jank is now being penalised with Nodin seemingly taking time off work to volunteer as a moderating assistant simply gives credence to our perception of this forum as for atheists with left-wing political leanings only, which is also evidenced by Robindch's soapboxing rights. Heck I could even tolerate the Atlas Shrugged threads if they even remotely approached the admittedly low standards of the political theory forum!

Really?
Now it's 'Nodin is bullying us'?

You have, I take it, examples of such 'bullying' and have reported each and every instance to the C Mods/Admins as you believe the mods are biased?
You have opened a thread in Help Desk?
Have you taken any action at all bar fling accusations?

I cannot help but wonder about the apparent lack of any appeals to a higher authority. One could argue that from a Libertarian ideological point of view this lack of appeal to 'big government' (i.e. Admins) makes sense as Libertarians do not support the concept of 'big government' laying down rules and regulations that impede personal liberty and the market (i.e. posters in the forum) finds its own balance. That would make sense...

But that is not what is happening. I find it incredibly ironic that two Libertarians have appeared in here insisting that a forum known for it's lassaiz-faire attitude and light touch regulation is not rigorous enough in enforcing rules, engaging in rule lawyering, and advocating that 'laws' should be introduced which actively protect some ideologies rather than let the 'market' deal with them as it sees fit.

For some unknown reason it seems as if the majority of regular posters in A&A are currently left-leaning - that's just the way it is and could change at any time as the demographic changes - but now a theory worthy of the Conspiracy forum in being constructed by a small right wing minority who espouse an ideology based on individualism and lack of 'big government' to justify calls for more regulation and protectionism...

You couldn't make this up.

coffee_cake

There's a difference between voluntarily being part of something with regulation and especially self regulation, and one group of top-down in charge of everything with no alternative

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KahBoom

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Quote a single line of 'hatred' or 'venom' - and quote it with full sentences, and surrounding context - because that's hypbolic nonsense. It shows exactly the kind of low-quality arguments you like to engage in, where you smear posters.

That's something mods had to call you out on before as well remember: Deliberately lying-about/smearing me.

robindch

KahBoom wrote: »

That's something mods had to call you out on before as well remember: Deliberately lying-about/smearing me.

No unparliamentary language, please.

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

There's a difference between voluntarily being part of something with regulation and especially self regulation, and one group of top-down in charge of everything with no alternative

Hence the construction of the original 'fifedom/cohort' argument which we both know is tosh and nonsense as evidenced by the utter lack of any sign of those who complain loudest taking the appropriate steps via the available mechanisms to 'rebel' against Rob's 'dictatorship'.

It is now looking like some people do not want to voluntarily be part of something that self-regulates where they are in the vast minority and are demanding special protections being put in place just for them and are calling for top-down in charge to enforce these protections but with a different mod(s) as they do not 'like' the current crew.

Miss Jean Brodie springs to mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear - please do not try and rewrite history. You initial posts were an direct attack on Rob and insulting to all regular A&A posters who you implied are being 'led' by Rob and his anti- right agenda. Fiefdom/cohort - those were your words.

It has being pointed out that the poster you claim is being 'singled' out has, in fact, received more infractions in Politics - is this also due to his political beliefs? Are you posting helpful feedback there too where you attack the mods for bias?

I haven't accused you of trying to 'wrest control' - I have pondered why you are not taking the appropriate official steps to ensure this biased moderation you insist exists is dealt with. Why is that?

It's not that difficult..I have done it myself in the past. One opens a thread in Help Desk. Lays out one's argument and provide the evidence. I found such things are taken very seriously by the Admins.

Power grab? Via a Feedback thread? Seriously?

You would buy boards? I'm sorry but LOL - tell me, in your Libertarian boards would there be light touch regulation or would some beliefs be beyond criticism?

Dades

Permabear, you're going around in circles now.

First, you were using jank as an example of the political bias that goes on here. Then it was pointed out that the majority of his bans have come from Politics and related forums, and you switch to complaining about the general attitude to certain viewpoints here. When it was pointed out that there was nothing one can do about a pervasive viewpoint in a forum except allow This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]How was he hauled over the coals by mods and admins? He didn't even get a card for that post.

A subsequent Feedback thread has dealt with this post and posts of the same time with some degree of stepping back in the form of recognising his had a legitimate gripe and an apology. You'd be doing him a favour leaving jank out of this, tbh.

Cabaal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

:rolleyes:
Seriously, at this point just stop posting...you're showing yourself up

Czarcasm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Respectfully, I remain unconvinced. As Cabaal has pointed out, you've now widened your scope to make broad, sweeping generalisations about all posters who don't happen to share your opinion, perceiving Moderator actions as a personal slight, when they are really anything but.

Again, my feedback is that the forum would be improved if the mods did not give the appearance of encouraging and participating in political attack threads directed against libertarians and conservatives.

But that would mean the forum would become very quiet, very quickly, to accommodate a minority of posters who rarely ever contribute to these threads, and when they do, it's rarely ever to challenge the main thrust of the thread, but more to complain about people taking the mickey out of their political and social leanings. They make it personal.

If the forum is so lenient that infractions are rarely handed out, why is one of the very few right-wing posters singled out and threatened with bans -- with the centerpiece of the mod/admin grievance being a post where he criticized Irish people for their negativity?

He wasn't singled out, you singled him out to use him as an example of a person being persecuted for their difference of opinion, when the reality is that they are one of numerous posters who have a history of infractions as long as my arm not for their opinions, but for the way in which they convey their opinions, and the way they continue to convey their opinions after being asked numerous times to review their posting style.

That's great, but just because you haven't been made feel unwelcome doesn't mean that that's true for everyone!

By that same token, just because you haven't been made feel welcome, doesn't mean it's true for everyone, and the fact is that it's not true for everyone when from all their posts in A+A you can only pick one single post to say "Look he came good here in this one post and you still warn him", because you're ignoring the context in which his post is normally taken, and his posts aren't a criticism of anything, they're just a negative, distracting rant most of the time full of broad, sweeping generalisations.

Yes, and as someone who identifies as atheist, I would love to discuss ideas here without being attacked because I also identify as libertarian. Unfortunately, that has proved to be impossible. As Valmont notes, this forum comes across as being for left-wing atheists only.

It's your views are attacked. There's no need to take it personally. I don't take it personally when posters start giving it welly about sky fairies, superstitions and Jewish zombies - I expect that, so it doesn't surprise nor offend (in fairness some of the stuff in the funny side of religion thread is classic, depends on your sensibilities I suppose, the more fundie you are, the less you're going to appreciate a bit of ripping the piss).

If you find it impossible to discuss your Libertarian views, the problem isn't you personally, the problem is your inability to form a constructive and coherent argument supporting your views.

Indeed, they do. And that was exactly my point when I objected to a moderator launching political attack threads against libertarians and conservatives. This shapes the tone and rhetoric of the forum, and invites other posters to participate in political mobbing.

One of the most common issues in the Feedback forum is Moderators not contributing to their own forums. I think it's great to see Moderators starting threads and getting posters involved and discussing ideas, that's the point of any forum and it's one of the reasons why this forum is one of the most popular and busiest forums on Boards beyond After Hours. That's an achievement that is a testament to the Moderators and their moderation policy. Depends on how you look at it I suppose.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd like you to back up that hard claim of bias with hard evidence from the public record of cards and bans.

If the evidence you produce does not support your claim, then I would like you to retract it, here in this thread, where everybody can see your retraction. If you refuse, or otherwise fail, to provide adequate evidence, then by the rules of polite debate, your claim will be accepted by everybody as false.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.