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

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

It's an internet pseudonym. I don't think you have to give consent for someone (poster, mod or admin) to state your previous username.

Now, had they disclosed your real name, i think you may be on to something.

Yet, despite all that, there is no actual proof of my previous identity, only speculation based on my posts. "Confirmation", if there is confirmation, as stated by Going Forward, can only come from two possible sources

(1) Me
(2) A mod, looking into where I post from

It certainly hasn't been (1), and I really doubt (2) which would mean a mod would do the investigation and then without telling me, PM Going Forward behind my back?

As I said, anything else is speculation.

dudara

To be fair blanch152, posting style and opinions gives a lot away too. Someone familiar with your previous incarnation could have made the connection.

Alf Stewart.

blanch152 wrote: »

Yet, despite all that, there is no actual proof of my previous identity, only speculation based on my posts. "Confirmation", if there is confirmation, as stated by Going Forward, can only come from two possible sources

(1) Me
(2) A mod, looking into where I post from

It certainly hasn't been (1), and I really doubt (2) which would mean a mod would do the investigation and then without telling me, PM Going Forward behind my back?

As I said, anything else is speculation.

I reckon when you appeared on this very thread stating the main reason you closed your last account was a dead giveaway tbh, and pretty much left everyone (including I)in little doubt as to your last account.

"I closed my account because I'm not allowed to use a certain phrase".... There was very few posters used that phrase you referenced, even less that closed their account immediately after being sanctioned for using it.

1 + 1 = your old username.

But if it helps, I would also like to rule myself out of speculation by pm.

blanch152

dudara wrote: »

To be fair blanch152, posting style and opinions gives a lot away too. Someone familiar with your previous incarnation could have made the connection.

I have no doubt that someone could have deduced my previous identity but.....

Going Forward wrote: »

Excellent, and I've just received a PM confirming that the rereg and I have previously interacted in the IW threads (which would account for them throwing the brickbats straight out of the hatch about those threads that I mentioned earlier) prior to them re registering.

At least now we all know where we stand in relation to past history, levelling the playing field somewhat.

So you see, sometimes it's worth permitting someone to ask an obvious question.

.....only myself or a mod could confirm it.

The only other option is that Going Forward didn't get confirmation, only suggestion.

This thread is like an online version of "guess who"!

Stheno

Lovely Bloke wrote: »

so you make spurious, un-back-uppable claims on a thread where the mod rule states that you can't post claims without back up.

The charter states no such thing, the only thread that currently requires all claims to be backed up is the immigration thread where such a rule applies, and if you have an issue then please report it.

If people report a mod of a forum as not following the rules, that takes longer to go through as it's almost like a regular poster accusing another poster of something and deciding to take action.

We're not online 24 hours a day so if you report a mod post, it will take longer to action.

Going Forward wrote: »

Careful now.

This is feedback, and it's reasonable to raise queries. The normal approach if a poster believes a moderator has ongoing bias is to report it to a CMOD.

It's not something moderators can be expected to make a decision on tbh.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

But if that mod's RL role is influencing their objectivity and thus the direction of the thread, then is it not better to let someone else handle those responsibilities?

I'm not specifically talking about the thread/mod in question either.. there are several fora throughout this site where mods are clearly leaning in one way or another, and this can be seen in their decisions.

In my opinion that's a negative - it hinders objective discussion and adds to the perceptional issues this site has gathered in recent years. I'd agree with the referee analogy. It's fine to be genuinely interested/involved in a topic, but if you have a Mod role, you shouldn't let that colour your responses in that capacity.

I'd say the same as I said above, but it does come back to tribal knowledge in the likes of politics.

Now the approach I take and most of us mods take is that if you are getting riled up in a thread you report the post that is riling you up and wait for it to be actioned.

I certainly know from my perspective that sometimes that can take a while and I find that frustrating.

As a PC mod, I have the ability to raise it in the mod forum, where it might take just as long if it's a day mods aren't around to get a response, so I then pm one or two of my other mods.

No reason why regular posters can't do the same, after a reasonable time, pm a mod and ask what's going on if anything.

On another note, if someone has gotten a red/yellow card, and you want to know why, then click on the red/yellow and you will get taken to a page that will tell you what mod gave the card, and the message they sent to the poster, and the rule that was broken.

Alf Stewart.

I am struggling with the reasons given for locking the commissioner thread if I'm honest.

The reasons given by admin and mods are because they're waiting on legal advice, now obviously i know what "waiting on legal advice" means.

However, they state that because TDs in the Dail have privilege relating to defamation, the site and posters don't.

Why then has there been a thread relating to Catherine Murphy, and what she stated in the Dail, under Dail privilege relating to Denis O'Brien's banking affairs (opened by Dev actually)

And there's also one currently open about what Alan Farrell said about Gerry Adams under Dail privilege?

Why is the commissioner one suddenly a taboo subject, not to be discussed

Either something that is uttered by a TD under Dail privilege, and this is in the public domain is potentially defaming, and boards may be held responsible, or it isn't, and they are not.

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I am struggling with the reasons given for locking the commissioner thread if I'm honest.

The reasons given by admin and mods are because they're waiting on legal advice, now obviously i know what "waiting on legal advice" means.

However, they state that because TDs in the Dail have privilege relating to defamation, the site and posters don't.

Why then has there been a thread relating to Catherine Murphy, and what she stated in the Dail, under Dail privilege relating to Denis O'Brien's banking affairs (opened by Dev actually)

And there's also one currently open about what Alan Farrell said about Gerry Adams under Dail privilege?

Why is the commissioner one suddenly a taboo subject, not to be discussed

Either something that is uttered by a TD under Dail privilege, and this is in the public domain is potentially defaming, and boards may be held responsible, or it isn't, and they are not.

I'm not familiar with the thread about Alan Farrell that you reference Alf, but what we are trying to figure out with the Commissioner thread is the boundaries within which it can be discussed legally.

That statements by Brendan Howlin were that he had been advised that individuals had acted in a manner which may have been prejudicial.

At the moment there is no proof of that.

Discussion on those statements here on boards, may mushroom and lead to people making claims etc, so we are awaiting advice as to what is or is not acceptable to allow in terms of discussion, rather than reopening the thread in haste, then having to redact a load of posts which would equally invite a lot of feedback.

Does that make sense?

Alf Stewart.

Stheno wrote: »

I'm not familiar with the thread about Alan Farrell that you reference Alf, but what we are trying to figure out with the Commissioner thread is the boundaries within which it can be discussed legally.

The thread is in much the same vein, arguably worse tbh, Alan Farell made a claim that he had received some anonymous information that Gerry Adams had certain info on the names of people involved in the Stack Murder.

I would argue that the speculation in that thread (surrounding an allegation of murder) is much more serious than that of a smear campaign.

That statements by Brendan Howlin were that he had been advised that individuals had acted in a manner which may have been prejudicial.

At the moment there is no proof of that.

Howlin is claiming that his source is willing to stand in front of the investigation and speak publicly about what information he or she has.

Farrell isn't giving up his anonymous source.

Discussion on those statements here on boards, may mushroom and lead to people making claims etc, so we are awaiting advice as to what is or is not acceptable to allow in terms of discussion, rather than reopening the thread in haste, then having to redact a load of posts which would equally invite a lot of feedback.

Does that make sense?

Some, but I still don't see how one TDs uttering from his anonymous source trumps another's?

Stheno

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The thread is in much the same vein, arguably worse tbh, Alan Farell made a claim that he had received some anonymous information that Gerry Adams had certain info on the names of people involved in the Stack Murder.

I would argue that the speculation in that thread (surrounding an allegation of murder) is much more serious than that of a smear campaign.

Howlin is claiming that his source is willing to stand in front of the investigation and speak publicly about what information he or she has.

Farrell isn't giving up his anonymous source.



Some, but I still don't see how one TDs uttering from his anonymous source trumps another's?

Ok but you've quoted stuff I've not referenced directly?

What I'm trying to say here is given the events of today, they are pretty much unprecented in potential repercussions and we need to check what we can or cannot allow in discussion purely on today's events?

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I am struggling with the reasons given for locking the commissioner thread if I'm honest.

The reasons given by admin and mods are because they're waiting on legal advice, now obviously i know what "waiting on legal advice" means.

However, they state that because TDs in the Dail have privilege relating to defamation, the site and posters don't.

Why then has there been a thread relating to Catherine Murphy, and what she stated in the Dail, under Dail privilege relating to Denis O'Brien's banking affairs (opened by Dev actually)

And there's also one currently open about what Alan Farrell said about Gerry Adams under Dail privilege?

Why is the commissioner one suddenly a taboo subject, not to be discussed

Either something that is uttered by a TD under Dail privilege, and this is in the public domain is potentially defaming, and boards may be held responsible, or it isn't, and they are not.

It is not as simple as that.

In relation to the O'Brien thread, there appears to be something to the information about O'Brien's financial affairs (whether it is anything other than normal business practice remains to be seen, as well as whether there is any genuine public interest issue, but we shall see). Probably worthy of a thread until something comes of it.

However, the abuse of privilege by Mary Lou to slander Des O'Malley and others is different. Not worthy of a second thought, let alone a thread.

This one is interesting, now that the Commissioner has gone on the record, the thread can probably be opened. Incidentally, she has now put her career on the line with the statement. Any shred of truth to the journalist statement, and she is gone.

blanch152

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

The thread is in much the same vein, arguably worse tbh, Alan Farell made a claim that he had received some anonymous information that Gerry Adams had certain info on the names of people involved in the Stack Murder.

I would argue that the speculation in that thread (surrounding an allegation of murder) is much more serious than that of a smear campaign.

Howlin is claiming that his source is willing to stand in front of the investigation and speak publicly about what information he or she has.

Farrell isn't giving up his anonymous source.

Didn't Gerry give a personal statement to the Dail? Surely that allows it to be discussed?

As for the other two mentioned - Ellis and Ferris - as they have already been convicted of IRA membership, saying they are or were involved in IRA activity isn't slander or libel.

Stheno

blanch152 wrote: »

It is not as simple as that.

In relation to the O'Brien thread, there appears to be something to the information about O'Brien's financial affairs (whether it is anything other than normal business practice remains to be seen, as well as whether there is any genuine public interest issue, but we shall see). Probably worthy of a thread until something comes of it.

However, the abuse of privilege by Mary Lou to slander Des O'Malley and others is different. Not worthy of a second thought, let alone a thread.

This one is interesting, now that the Commissioner has gone on the record, the thread can probably be opened. Incidentally, she has now put her career on the line with the statement. Any shred of truth to the journalist statement, and she is gone.

Can you link the jouralist statement you are referring to?

Stheno

Actually this is probably better discussed in a politics fora once it is approved, so I'll stop

blanch152

Stheno wrote: »

Can you link the jouralist statement you are referring to?

My mistake, RTE was only reporting Brendan Howlin on the journalist statement:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0208/851189-garda-whistleblower-dail/

"Mr Howlin told the Dáil a journalist alleged to him this morning that Commissioner O'Sullivan had made very serious allegations of sexual crimes about Garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe to journalists in 2013 and 2014."

O'Sullivan going on record on the allegations probably is enough to allow the issue to be discussed on here.

"In her statement this evening, Ms O'Sullivan said she "notes with surprise" the comments made by Mr Howlin.

She said the comments made under Dáil privilege relate to allegations of the most serious nature against her and members of the force.

She said she "refutes in the strongest terms the suggestion that she has engaged in the conduct alleged against a serving member of An Garda Síochána"."

Going Forward

blanch152 wrote: »

I have no doubt that someone could have deduced my previous identity but.....



.....only myself or a mod could confirm it.

The only other option is that Going Forward didn't get confirmation, only suggestion.

Rewind a little.

I didn't say anyone PM'd me your identity.

Remember, you came in here announcing you're a rereg and throwing digs about those who post in the Irish Water threads?

blanch152 wrote:

Just wander into the Irish Water thread for a few pages and you will find the same posters just quoting themselves and congratulating each other on their latest nugget of information that twisted appropriately confirms their conspiracy
theory. Anyone with any sense or perspective has abandoned the thread.

Naturally I had wondered if we had previously interacted in those threads.

The PM said we had interacted.

And I accept it as being correct.

And lets be absolutely clear right now, I'm not asking you anything here, I'm just telling you something.

I say that because I'm not trying to drive you into denying or confirming anything.

That would be your own choice, just as it was to start throwing a few cuts about other posters in your opening gambits here.

Going Forward

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

But if it helps, I would also like to rule myself out of speculation by pm.

Correct.


And it didn't take Sherlock Holmes to come up with the answer it contained, going by the commentary on it from high up and low down

And naturally, I won't be divulging the source.

Stheno

Guys did any of you check my post addressing some of your concerns about mods modding their own threads and how you can see who has actioned a post?

Special Circumstances

Stheno wrote: »

Guys did any of you check my post addressing some of your concerns about mods modding their own threads and how you can see who has actioned a post?

Does it apply to mobile?

Would it resolve the issues that led to 44 sanctions for me on one thread because people thought I was winding them up rather than pointing out a valid issue at my own expense?

Would any of it solve the issue of mods who just want to sanction sanction sanction as a first resort even when a reasonable conversation has been had to discuss the issues and the whole thing could be resolved like grown ups.... LCC and For Reals know what I'm talking about here.

Phoebas

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Would it resolve the issues that led to 44 sanctions for me on one thread because people thought I was winding them up rather than pointing out a valid issue at my own expense?

If you're getting 44 sanctions on one thread :eek:, then its probably not them; its probably you.

Special Circumstances

Phoebas wrote: »

If you're getting 44 sanctions on one thread :eek:, then its probably not them; its probably you.

I may have been counting PMs (are we still allowed acknowledge their existence???) to and from 3 higher beings in t hat count.

"the true measure of whether there is any value in taking my constructive criticism before the grand high wizards of Feedback is this: do the various mods who have sanctioned me here want to keep my bothersome posts in this thread for the sake of having strikes against me or could they be whisked away to feedback and the sanctions lost in transit?

Yes, I'm asking if ye would prefer to have a grown up discussion or just hand out as many sanctions as ye can to posters who aren't card carrying sycophants."

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

I think what we're seeing in America is something resembling tribalism. Escalating tensions between the Blue Tribe (left wingers, democrat voters, social liberals, globalists, multiculturalism advocates etc.) versus the Red Tribe (right wingers, republican voters, social conservatives, civic nationalists and ethno-nationalists etc.). Of course, there are some people who don't consider themselves to be belonging to either group but they'll be forced to pick a side if a civil war breaks out.

The Red Tribe's preferred candidate is in the white house and the Blue Tribe is angry (to say the least). These two tribes only trust media outlets belonging to their tribe and so they push the term "Fake News" to undermine the outlets of the other tribe. I believe the Red/Blue tribe thing can also be applied to the rest of the English speaking world too because the world has plenty of people who share the values of one tribe or the other.

DredFX wrote: »

"Chief Androgynous, trigger warning, a wave of fascist riders led by War Master Contrarian have struck the village of San Diego and absconded with two herds of liberal-arts professors, trigger warning."

"We will strike back at the next call of the rooster with firelighters and Lady Gaga."

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I thought this poked fun at both "tribes". I thought it was funny. It might not fly in politics politics forum but I thought it would have been OK in the café.
So - not in a questioning mod decision way, but in a "help me out here so I don't commit the same mortal sin tomorrow" way ... what fatwa led to the yellow for this?

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Might I suggest making it obvious to people how/where/who to ask, and the approved manner in which to ask, how to play by rules that are not obvious to you.

Again, as above I think I am pointing out a shortcoming in how boards works, especially on mobile, rather than questioning anyone.

Last night I saw a yellow card on someone else's post. On mobile at least there was zero indication of who what where when why. If it's not acceptable to ask for more info on thread, who should I ask and where? Tom "PM me your snowflake requests lol" Dunne?

In a week when the grand high wizards have said you need a clean record to be considered credible round here I have a yellow for asking a genuine question I hoped I had worded neutrally enough not to be seen to be questioning a mod.

A warning for telling somebody you could always pee on a frozen car lock to defrost it.
A ban for accurately quoting a third party with relevant and on topic information for another poster.
A warning for suggesting "don't drive in limerick" as a safe driving tip even though the company running the competition rate/charge limerick as twice as dangerous as the rest of the country.

Some of these were flippant. Mostly they were inconvenient truths that didn't suit a boards sponsor or a boards agenda. In the case of this thread it was a genuine question so as to avoid making the same mistake as the carded poster in the genuine absence as i see it of any obvious alternative place or person to ask.

I guess it's safe to say I won't be modding anything. And any future dispute resolutions will reference my "appalling record" before being locked without giving me any last chance for comment.

#Mod Note#
People are responsible for becoming familiar with the forum charter. The place to discuss Moderation is in feedback, DRP or by PM.
Any member getting sanctioned receives notification explaining the issue.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I have explained very clearly in terms even a mod/admin should be able to understand that there is no obvious person to PM to ask how to avoid making the same mistake.

Pick a random mod/admin? Keep going till I find the anonymous card issuer?

Ask the sanctioned person to reveal the contents of a PM from a mod? I thought PMs were in the process of being made more secret than diocesan child abuse reports.

Start a thread in feedback about a random other persons yellow? Jesus I've had warnings for quoting in a third party into an unrelated thread. Starting an actual thread on somebody else is surely ban worthy by that logic (assuming any consistency or indeed actual logic).

Very simple. For the benefit of others, state the reason on thread for a yellow or whatever else. I still can't see what the original post I asked about did wrong.

This is constructive criticism rather than a wind up. Still ban worthy I guess. A very sad state of affairs that constructive criticism can't be handled in an adult manner.

Mod note

The place to discuss Moderation is in feedback, DRP or by PM

Wheeliebin30

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

Is Enda involved in politics?

Does enda having a black eye and numerous jokes been made about it belong in a politic forum?

Special Circumstances

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Does enda having a black eye and numerous jokes been made about it belong in a politic forum?

Cafe or real deal?
Why do we have a cafe if the light hearted stuff still gets sanctioned there ..... if you're outside the wagon circle that is...

Little CuChulainn

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

I am struggling with the reasons given for locking the commissioner thread if I'm honest.

The reasons given by admin and mods are because they're waiting on legal advice, now obviously i know what "waiting on legal advice" means.

However, they state that because TDs in the Dail have privilege relating to defamation, the site and posters don't.

Why then has there been a thread relating to Catherine Murphy, and what she stated in the Dail, under Dail privilege relating to Denis O'Brien's banking affairs (opened by Dev actually)

And there's also one currently open about what Alan Farrell said about Gerry Adams under Dail privilege?

Why is the commissioner one suddenly a taboo subject, not to be discussed

Either something that is uttered by a TD under Dail privilege, and this is in the public domain is potentially defaming, and boards may be held responsible, or it isn't, and they are not.

The Dáil privilege extends solely to reporting of the actual statements made. Anything else you publish about it must have some kind of proof other than the statement made under Dáil privilege. This is the first I have heard about McCabe being accused of sexual assault or of the commissioner leaking that accusation so unless there is something else published or presented in relation to those accusations all you can publish about them is their content.

Here's the thing, people accuse me of bias because I don't like McCabe. one poster even went looking for a quote to prove it. I wouldn't have denied it. But I also dislike Garda management and have never said a nice word about the current commissioner yet people were quick to forget that because it was part of the group think. People seem to be ignoring the fact that Howlin made two accusations. He made a claim against the commissioner but he also by proxy made a claim of sexual assault against McCabe, a claim we know nothing about. We have no way of knowing if any of what Howlin said is true. We could be commenting on an ongoing investigation with a victim and not even know it or we could be commenting on a false allegation of a sex crime and giving it wings. Both things can ruin lives.

The thread was closed because people did not want to follow my request to not speculate about the truthfulness of the claims and I believed the risk of defamatory or prejudicial statements was too high. So I locked it and asked for legal advice.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Does it apply to mobile?

Would it resolve the issues that led to 44 sanctions for me on one thread because people thought I was winding them up rather than pointing out a valid issue at my own expense?

Would any of it solve the issue of mods who just want to sanction sanction sanction as a first resort even when a reasonable conversation has been had to discuss the issues and the whole thing could be resolved like grown ups.... LCC and For Reals know what I'm talking about here.

You kept discussing moderator action on thread despite being told not to, That's why I infracted you. Nothing to do with winding people up. However I will try to remember to sign off when I leave a note on someones post.

LCC

Special Circumstances

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You kept discussing moderator action on thread despite being told not to, That's why I infracted you. Nothing to do with winding people up. However I will try to remember to sign off when I leave a note on someones post.

LCC

That or a "ping all mods and admins" button when an anonymous mod has taken action for an unspecified reason.

Whichever is the blindingly obvious, professional, polite, common sense solution in yer celestial sphere.

Wheeliebin30

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Cafe or real deal?
Why do we have a cafe if the light hearted stuff still gets sanctioned there ..... if you're outside the wagon circle that is...

Well why are terms like shinnerbots and blueshirts banned in the cafe?

Surely it's a lighthearted as personally slagging enda off?

Alf Stewart.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Does enda having a black eye and numerous jokes been made about it belong in a politic forum?

Yes.

He's our head of state, and appeared on our national television news with a black eye, that pretty much went unacknowledged by the commentator of the story.

Not only did he have a black eye, but he looked somewhat s shook up, and rather weary looking.

If it was donald trump that appeared on the news with an unexplained injury, Merkel, or Theresa May, would you not expect to see similar questions being asked?

Special Circumstances

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well why are terms like shinnerbots and blueshirts banned in the cafe?

Surely it's a lighthearted as personally slagging enda off?

Your question is the same as mine so, but in a different way - why do we have a cafe at all? It's certainly not "lighthearted" unless you are reading from the approved script. You could write actual bots to just bounce soundbites off each other within the limited but not openly acknowledged "rules of engagement" there.

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The Dáil privilege extends solely to reporting of the actual statements made. Anything else you publish about it must have some kind of proof other than the statement made under Dáil privilege. This is the first I have heard about McCabe being accused of sexual assault or of the commissioner leaking that accusation so unless there is something else published or presented in relation to those accusations all you can publish about them is their content.

Here's the thing, people accuse me of bias because I don't like McCabe. one poster even went looking for a quote to prove it. I wouldn't have denied it. But I also dislike Garda management and have never said a nice word about the current commissioner yet people were quick to forget that because it was part of the group think. People seem to be ignoring the fact that Howlin made two accusations. He made a claim against the commissioner but he also by proxy made a claim of sexual assault against McCabe, a claim we know nothing about. We have no way of knowing if any of what Howlin said is true. We could be commenting on an ongoing investigation with a victim and not even know it or we could be commenting on a false allegation of a sex crime and giving it wings. Both things can ruin lives.

The thread was closed because people did not want to follow my request to not speculate about the truthfulness of the claims and I believed the risk of defamatory or prejudicial statements was too high. So I locked it and asked for legal advice.



You kept discussing moderator action on thread despite being told not to, That's why I infracted you. Nothing to do with winding people up. However I will try to remember to sign off when I leave a note on someones post.

LCC

It's not "sexual assault", its reported as sexual misconduct/crimes.

If i understand it, these "sexual crimes" are related to the missing computer of a pedo priest that they already accused him of and it has been well reported on that it was just a smear against him and that he had nothing to do with it.

I doubt anyone would give much credence to anything the GCs said about MacCabe at this stage anyway, afaic this story reflects more on the brass than him. They've already tried everything to discredit him and hes batted away the lot with forward thinking and diligence, it wouldnt surprise me one bit if he produce a recording of one telling him they were going to stitch him up.

Please reconsider opening, anything discussed is already out there, fair reporting applies, and there are plenty of us there to report anything that is off limits, same as for every other subject we discuss.

Wheeliebin30

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Your question is the same as mine so, but in a different way - why do we have a cafe at all? It's certainly not "lighthearted" unless you are reading from the approved script. You could write actual bots to just bounce soundbites off each other within the limited but not openly acknowledged "rules of engagement" there.

Exactly.