Over zealous, and inconsistent modding on the politics cafe forum.

Alf Stewart.

Phoebas wrote: »

Do you have skin in the game?

It's a fairly common tactic in the Café and in other forums on the site.

From your own link.

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

Quite telling to see how posters on this thread are being called out for being re-regs by mods, with multiple references to their past posting histories. But there's other posters on this thread who are blatant reregs that get protection from mods over any slight reference to their past history, and are quite happy to hammer the report button if their past is ever mentioned.
But no double standards at play at all.....

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

Quite telling to see how posters on this thread are being called out for being re-regs by mods, with multiple references to their past posting histories. But there's other posters on this thread who are blatant reregs that get protection from mods over any slight reference to their past history, and are quite happy to hammer the report button if their past is ever mentioned.
But no double standards at play at all.....

I'll just leave this here.

Blanch152 first ever post on boards.

blanch152 wrote: »

I am one of those who left fed up with the way the Cafe is run and moderated. Won't be back until things change.

Ouch. That's awkward.

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite, I reckon you're just looking for something to be outraged about.

While there's a clear rule that goes against either speculating reregistered accounts, or naming old accounts and linking them to new ones theres nothing in the charter or site rules about a user declaring themselves as a rereg.

I don't get the whole (I assume) buzz about speculating which account belongs to a now closed account myself, I mean I personally know of about a dozen accounts of prolific posters in the caf which are reregs.

Big deal.

The option of closing your accounts, and opening a new one is there for anyone to avail of.

If you can't put up a coherent argument to counter someone's points without indulging in what I can only assume is some imaginary, false sense of victory by naming an old account, well then your obviously of poor form anyway.

Stheno

blackwhite wrote: »

Quite telling to see how posters on this thread are being called out for being re-regs by mods, with multiple references to their past posting histories. But there's other posters on this thread who are blatant reregs that get protection from mods over any slight reference to their past history, and are quite happy to hammer the report button if their past is ever mentioned.
But no double standards at play at all.....

I think that's extremely unfair given that the poster involved openly admitted they were a rereg, referenced their prior opinions and that they would be sticking to them

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you think you may contribute more as a result?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

Alright guys, getting back on topic, and considering the feedback from here, I posted the following warning on the Donald Trump thread last night.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=102509974&postcount=1555



Would ye agree with this as a basis for the PC in the future?

Repetitive or Flip Flop debating is not allowed. Nobody wants to wade through pages of the same posts being repeated ad nauseam. If your point was not heeded on the second posting why would it be on the tenth?

On repetitive posting, either I have never seen this being enforced, or it doesn't happen?

What I'm saying is, wasn't that always in the charter?

Either it's not being enforced or the Mods (to their credit) are happy to allow points to be teased out; and I think it would be very difficult to decide who to infract in such a case.

How is that to be decided?

How is one to know when it's going to start being enforced?

I cant ever recall seeing even a warning on this specific point where I post, and if there is, unless there's going to be some form of Mod intervention making some effort at proving that the person they are infracting is "in the wrong" it's going to lead to allegations of biased modding because it can come across as shutting down discussion for unknown reasons or reasons that don't have to be explained.

What is Flip Flopping?

Is that when someone denies saying something they've said?

And shouldn't that type of thing be acted on by Mods? It's all part of keeping posting standards high.

As it stands, the poster pointing it out is liable to end up in the soup for example by calling the other poster a liar for guess what? Lying.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well actually one poster was permabannned for repetive posting.

Flip flop posting is claiming x is y then that x is a

Report posts and contritbute, we do actually take note of reported posts

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That would be good.

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

I can't see that as it's behind a paywall

Your posting on this issue in the past has led to thread closures due to your posting.

If you are going to refrain from posting in such an inflammatory manner then that would be appreciated.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/martin-denounces-sinn-fin-as-undemocratic-and-run-by-ira-35425949.html

"Sinn Féin is "a centrally controlled undemocratic party" and its strategy is still determined by the IRA army council, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said."

"He said the way Michelle O'Neill was appointed party leader in the North was clear evidence of that party's undemocratic nature. "One would expect that the parliamentary leader would be elected by the parliamentarians or by the party membership. In this case she was appointed by Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others we don't know about," Mr Martin told RTÉ's 'This Week' programme."

It seems that my banned opinion is becoming more mainstream.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/martin-denounces-sinn-fin-as-undemocratic-and-run-by-ira-35425949.html

"Sinn Féin is "a centrally controlled undemocratic party" and its strategy is still determined by the IRA army council, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin has said."

"He said the way Michelle O'Neill was appointed party leader in the North was clear evidence of that party's undemocratic nature. "One would expect that the parliamentary leader would be elected by the parliamentarians or by the party membership. In this case she was appointed by Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others we don't know about," Mr Martin told RTÉ's 'This Week' programme."

It seems that my banned opinion is becoming more mainstream.

But that's a pure lie....she was elected by ard comhairle??

Who's membership is widely known.....un less your to take the opinion of Michael Martin above those who are members of SF? ??
and involved in the process??


Presumabky he can provide proof of this...bearing on mind,absence of evidence is not enough to prove guilt???

blanch152

tomwaterford wrote: »

But that's a pure lie....she was elected by ard comhairle??

Who's membership is widely known.....un less your to take the opinion of Michael Martin above those who are members of SF? ??
and involved in the process??


Presumabky he can provide proof of this...bearing on mind,absence of evidence is not enough to prove guilt???

I am not going to debate that issue, as currently putting forward the idea that SF and the IRA continue to be intrinsically linked is not allowed in the Cafe.

I am only posting in Feedback the evidence that this is not just my belief in an effort to have that restriction lifted. If the restriction is lifted at some time, then I am happy to debate the issue. Until then, the only time that I will post about SF and the IRA in current terms is through Feedback.

Phoebas

tomwaterford wrote: »

But that's a pure lie....she was elected by ard comhairle??

That's a discussion better suited to the Café, but now I'm unclear - are there certain subjects that are verboten in the Café?

Little CuChulainn

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a discussion better suited to the Café, but now I'm unclear - are there certain subjects that are verboten in the Café?

I've been a mod there for quite a short while but nobody said anything to me about topics that are off limits or view points that should be blocked. As far as I am aware everything that is off limits is in the charter.

blanch152

Phoebas wrote: »

That's a discussion better suited to the Café, but now I'm unclear - are there certain subjects that are verboten in the Café?

That is my understanding based on the following Cafe mod posts which while not directly responding to my post below are in reference to it.

Stheno wrote: »

As you yourself have posted you have a very specific opinion based on nothing factual in relation to SF and the IRA. .

Stheno wrote: »

Your posting on this issue in the past has led to thread closures due to your posting.

If you are going to refrain from posting in such an inflammatory manner then that would be appreciated.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is good to have had clarity on the use of the SF/IRA abbreviation.

The main reason I closed my previous account was because of the clampdown on its use.

Whether some people like it or not, there is still a sizeable minority of people in this country who believe that the IRA have not gone away and that there are still active links between SF and the IRA. It isn't confined to conspiracy theorists, there are newspaper articles in the mainstream media from time to time who mention it, let alone what the tabloids say. There was an official report from the PSNI last year that stated that former IRA members believed that the IRA still controlled Sinn Fein. With the appointment of Michelle O'Neill as leader without a vote or selection process, there has been guarded references to backroom Belfast decisions. Unfortunately I cannot post links.

The clampdown on the use of SF/IRA by the moderators in the Cafe, while it may be denied that it is politically motivated, it appears to have been driven by the volume of reported posts, which are politically motivated.

It is a legitimate political view that the IRA is still controlling SF with evidence to support it as I have outlined above. Clamping down on its use is therefore a political move to suppress certain points of view. It isn't anywhere near as controversial as some of the views expressed on immigration.

Neither is it as unsubstantiated as other views allowed in the Cafe. For example, we have had numerous threads on Irish Water where the view that it was always intended to privatise Irish Water is reliant on one paragraph from one letter from Eurostat taken out of context.

I don't agree with the ban on the contemporary references to SF and the IRA being linked, but I have accepted the mods' decisions on the subject. It is much better to have clarity on the issue than to be getting cards out of the blue for referring to it.

It would seem to me that if the ban/clampdown is to be changed, it can only be done through a Feedback thread, as posting directly in the Cafe about SF/IRA would lead to the type of response by tomwaterford above and subsequent sanctions. Of course, I won't be constantly posting about it in Feedback, but when something new comes along, such as today's statement by Micheal Martin, I will draw attention to the incongruity of statements being made in public by mainstream politicians and the refusal to allow similar statements in the Cafe.

Alf Stewart.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've been a mod there for quite a short while but nobody said anything to me about topics that are off limits or view points that should be blocked. As far as I am aware everything that is off limits is in the charter.

Not topics that would.be forbidden/blocked, just certain names or phrases that could be considered derogatory or used for baiting.

E.g. Shinners, SF/IRA, Blueshirts, SJW, fascists etc etc.

ThisRegard

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As far as I am aware everything that is off limits is in the charter.

Ahem.

Little CuChulainn

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Not topics that would.be forbidden/blocked, just certain names or phrases that could be considered derogatory or used for baiting.

E.g. Shinners, SF/IRA, Blueshirts, SJW, fascists etc etc.

I would consider them to be under Rule 6

Vilification of groups will not be tolerated. If you are incapable of having a discussion without resorting to defaming others then maybe this forum, or site, is not for you

They serve no purpose other than to try damage the other persons point through stereotype and I've only seen them actioned when used for that purpose.

ThisRegard wrote: »

Ahem.

Here you go

LuckyLloyd

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'd be guilty of using the SF/IRA one myself and I'll hold my hands up and say it adds nothing to the discussion, it's a point scoring tactic and nothing else, and banning the use of such phrases is fair enough in my opinion.

On saying that, the cafe, and all other discussion arenas are facing a much bigger problem, extremist and entrenched views are becoming normalised, more and more people want echo chambers instead of debate, and I can't think of any mod action that can counteract this.

This is probably the best post in the thread. I commend you for admitting to looking to score points as part of political "discussion". The reality is that most high volume posters in the Politics Cafe are not interested in discussing / debating topics to reach a shared understanding or enhance their own knowledge on a topic. They're there to push a political agenda. It's more mudslinging and warfare than a debate down the pub with your friends.

The general issue you note in your second paragraph is exacerbated by the behaviour of our own politicians. At a major crisis point in the North Kenny is going to meet the Stack family to score points; the statement referenced above from Martin is point scoring politics. Politicians are aware of how social media works; how people interact with news and increasingly form views of the world and they are manipulating same. From a politics perspective we are living in a post Statesman era. When you're no longer speaking to everyone through centralised media channels and modes, you don't need to seek middle ground and a way forward on a topic.

I fear the mod team will be fighting a losing battle, but they are trying. And disciplining discussion somewhat and insisting upon civility and progressive discussion is definitely the place to start.

Quin_Dub

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not going to debate that issue, as currently putting forward the idea that SF and the IRA continue to be intrinsically linked is not allowed in the Cafe.

I am only posting in Feedback the evidence that this is not just my belief in an effort to have that restriction lifted. If the restriction is lifted at some time, then I am happy to debate the issue. Until then, the only time that I will post about SF and the IRA in current terms is through Feedback.

That's not really what's at issue though..

What is at issue is bringing that particular point up in every single thread that even mentions SF in passing and then repeating it over and over.

This is not any different to those that want to throw a dig in at IW or Enda Kenny in every single thread on the Ireland or lately to use some abusive terminology to describe the new US President etc.

Our fundamental aim here is to try and get people to actually debate rather than simply look to score cheap points over their perceived "opposition", or to browbeat a dissenting voice until "your side" wins.

Sadly it would seem that the implementation of the relatively blunt instrument of banning certain terms/phrases etc. is one of the few tools left to us to try to address this.

As other have mentioned , this challenge is not unique to Boards , sadly it is a society wide issue...

tomwaterford

"blanch152 wrote: »

It would seem to me that if the ban/clampdown is to be changed, it can only be done through a Feedback thread, as posting directly in the Cafe about SF/IRA would lead to the type of response by tomwaterford above and subsequent sanctions. Of course, I won't be constantly posting about it in Feedback, but when something new comes along, such as today's statement by Micheal Martin, I will draw attention to the incongruity of statements being made in public by mainstream politicians and the refusal to allow similar statements in the Cafe.

Perhaps the conspiracy theory forum would be a better place until sonethibg approaching substancial proof comes along?

Phoebas

tomwaterford wrote: »

Perhaps the conspiracy theory forum would be a better place until sonethibg approaching substancial proof comes along?

I don't think we should be afraid of discussing opinions that we might not like in the Café.
This is a mainstream opinion, not a CT - held by Michael Martin last week and was a finding made by the report commissioned by Theresa Villiars just 15 months ago.

Again, this isn't the place to discuss the bones of it, but I'm glad to see that it isn't a banned topic per se.

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

I think that's extremely unfair given that the poster involved openly admitted they were a rereg, referenced their prior opinions and that they would be sticking to them

Please do not speculate on previous accounts or re-reg's, use the report post function with any concerns.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057591263

We are forbidden to openly speculate, yet someone can openly rereg and enjoy protection from speculation about their prior identity as long as they openly admit it, but "concerns" can be reported?

What "concerns" exactly?

Speculation is prohibited, so can I ask the rereg in question to share their previous identity with us now that they have admitted to being a rereg, and isn't it incumbent upon them to openly answer, being so open in their admission?

If not boards is descending into pure charades.


The rereg has the upper hand, pretending to be "someone else" on one topic whilst simultaneously pretending not to be "someone else" on a different topic.

blackwhite

Going Forward wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057591263

We are forbidden to openly speculate, yet someone can openly rereg and enjoy protection from speculation about their prior identity as long as they openly admit it, but "concerns" can be reported?

What "concerns" exactly?

Speculation is prohibited, so can I ask the rereg in question to share their previous identity with us now that they have admitted to being a rereg, and isn't it incumbent upon them to openly answer, being so open in their admission?

If not boards is descending into pure charades.


The rereg has the upper hand, pretending to be "someone else" on one topic whilst simultaneously pretending not to be "someone else" on a different topic.

There's more than one poster on this thread that's a very obvious re-reg - and there's been mod actions taken to protect them from any references to their past identity.

But again it seems that different rules are applied depending on who the poster is.......

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

Speculation is prohibited, so can I ask the rereg in question to share their previous identity with us now that they have admitted to being a rereg, and isn't it incumbent upon them to openly answer, being so open in their admission?

Think you'll find it's Data Protection and Privacy laws rather that come into play here, rather than any Boards policy

Alf Stewart.

blackwhite wrote: »

There's more than one poster on this thread that's a very obvious re-reg - and there's been mod actions taken to protect them from any references to their past identity.

I assume this is me that you're referring to?

I'm a rereg, i don't get your fascination on it tbh. Perhaps if i was a banned user, circumventing a ban, you may be on to something, but as it stands, i just used the close account function and opened a new one.

My choice to close my previous account wasn't to do with a ban, or a protest act etc etc, I closed my account and opened a new one simply because i could. (So can you, if you wish)

Now, considering i opened a new account, posted in exactly the same forums, in the exact same style with the exact same opinions, i was hardly ever trying to disguise the new identity?

So, simple question.

If you think you have discovered my old account through some form of brilliant undercover investigation work, considering it (my old account) wasn't serving a ban, or perma-ban, and also considering that I never tried to disguise my new account/relevant to a new one.

Why do you care or why is it relevant?

There s a rule in the charter about rereg's, and it gets upheld when it's broken?

If I break other sections of the charter, I get sanctioned.

Call someone a troll? Sanctioned.
Call someone a shill? Sanctioned.
Personally abusive? Sanctioned.
Advise someone of being a rereg? Sanctioned.

Why the outrage? Why the fascination? I could name prob twenty new accounts and link them to their old ones, but i can't think of any reason why i would ever want to, unless it's a banned poster.


You seem to have a bit of an infatuation on me. Stop it.

But again it seems that different rules are applied depending on who the poster is.......

Such as?

Going Forward

Beasty wrote: »

Think you'll find it's Data Protection and Privacy laws rather that come into play here, rather than any Boards policy

It might be against the law if they divulge their previous boards username?

Really?

LuckyLloyd

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think we should be afraid of discussing opinions that we might not like in the Café.
This is a mainstream opinion, not a CT - held by Michael Martin last week and was a finding made by the report commissioned by Theresa Villiars just 15 months ago.

Again, this isn't the place to discuss the bones of it, but I'm glad to see that it isn't a banned topic per se.

This is a fine example of where things descend into point scoring. Yeah there was a report and yeah southern politicians are still referencing it in a superficial, tone deaf manner. There was a thread here that robustly rebutted the headlines with posts such as:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97451627&postcount=57

But we clearly achieve no resolution through discussion on here. The report existed, was misinterpreted for political point scoring purposes, and the twisted one note summation will get referenced hereafter every time SF come up in political conversation for ever more. Just as the same stuff about Gerry McCabe, Bank robberies and other pre GFA events gets referenced over and over unless the mod team step in to try and keep conversation on topic and moving forward.

A mature political culture wouldn't reference a flawed October 2015 report when discussing the historic appointment of a new SF political leader in February 2017 (historic because she has no ties to pre GFA Paramilitary activity). But our political culture is not mature, and our posters ape that immaturity.

I don't know how you fix the issue of topic 'amnesia' of course. But that is a big part of what kills discussion - i.e. posters proceeding through the same points scoring checklist on a thread by thread basis.

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

It might be against the law if they divulge their previous boards username?

Really?

No, but it might be to "require" them to do so, which you were suggesting was "incumbent" on them