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

Wheeliebin30

Alf Stewart. wrote: »

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?

Ah come on as if anyone cared how our leader got the black eye.

It was just another excuse for the usual people to have personal and humourous digs at enda even talking about his wife in some of them.

It was nothing more than a thread dedicated to mocking him.

Satriale

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah come on as if anyone cared how our leader got the black eye.

It was just another excuse for the usual people to have personal and humourous digs at enda even talking about his wife in some of them.

It was nothing more than a thread dedicated to mocking him.

You wouldn't get away with that malarkey in North Korea!

Wheeliebin30

Satriale wrote: »

You wouldn't get away with that malarkey in North Korea!

The point is certain things are allowed but others aren't in the cafe.

Satriale

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The point is certain things are allowed but others aren't in the cafe.

I wouldnt be for banning those terms either, afaic you cant police "lighthearted", but the reason for that is winding up each other. If enda need special protection all he has to do is open up an account here and he can achieve snowflake status with the click of a button, i'd say he has a tougher neck than that though. He'll be grand.

Going Forward

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah come on as if anyone cared how our leader got the black eye.

It was just another excuse for the usual people to have personal and humourous digs at enda even talking about his wife in some of them.

It was nothing more than a thread dedicated to mocking him.

I was quite surprised to see him appearing injured on the news and even more surprised that the 'news' report didn't mention it.

If he appears sporting a mohican haircut and a tatoo on his forehead this weekend, how should it be handled?

Pretend en masse that we don't see it?


Should they rename this place as the Politically Correct Café?

blanch152

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.

To be fair, if you are being sanctioned by both LCC and For Reals, it is hardly because of political bias, given my understanding of their respective political views.

Alf Stewart.

Going Forward wrote: »

If he appears sporting a mohican haircut and a tatoo on his forehead this weekend, how should it be handled?

Pretend en masse that we don't see it?

That's all I could think of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5hEyTjsrbs

Alf Stewart.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ah come on as if anyone cared how our leader got the black eye.

Are you actually serious

I would bet my very mortgage that there's plenty would care had he received it after sustaining a thump from a pj wearing, player smoking, Dutch gold drinking tracksuit wearer on mickey money day.

As it was, he received it on his bike. (20k grant aside)

Little CuChulainn

Satriale wrote: »

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..

And this is exactly the kind of speculation that I was talking about.

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And this is exactly the kind of speculation that I was talking about.

It's not speculation, it's been widely reported.

You turned it into a "sexual assault" fairly fast, where's your link?

Quin_Dub

Howlin Dail Privilege Statement

All - Still working on this one.

As I understand it , this is the position apropos discussion of Statements under Dail Privilege.

Scenario - Bob Murphy TD stands up and says "I have information that John Smith is a bank robber"

The kind of thing we can say -

"Bob Murphy said John Smith is a Bank Robber"
"I wonder what's going to happen now , will there be an investigation?"
"Apparently the Minister for Justice has asked the Gardai to investigate"

The kind of things we can't say -

"I knew it , always knew that John Smith fella was dodgy"
"I heard he used a gun and a knife!"
"Sure, I heard that before myself from a lad in the Pub"
" I was told he robbed thousands!!"

Now - This is how I currently understand it and we are working to clarify if that is the correct viewpoint..

Once we've clarified exactly what we can/cannot say (if anything) we'll re-open the thread..

Little CuChulainn

Satriale wrote: »

It's not speculation, it's been widely reported.

You turned it into a "sexual assault" fairly fast, where's your link?

That was my mistake, I misread it. You are speculating that the sexual crime Howlin referred to is merely an evidential matter. There is nothing at all to support this. You've completely discounted the possibility that it refers to a false allegation of a sex crime or indeed an actual sex crime without any evidence at all.

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That was my mistake, I misread it. You are speculating that the sexual crime Howlin referred to is merely an evidential matter. There is nothing at all to support this. You've completely discounted the possibility that it refers to a false allegation of a sex crime or indeed an actual sex crime without any evidence at all.

Yea, damn straight i've feckin discounted it. You should be more careful.

Little CuChulainn

Satriale wrote: »

Yea, damn straight i've feckin discounted it. You should be more careful.

I will be. I take it you don't agree with me though. As far as I can see you've discounted all possibilities based solely on your own bias with no evidence to support your own theory. You aren't focusing on the individual incident but trying to make it part of a bigger incident. It's a reasonable assumption but it is still only an assumption. But what if you are wrong?

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I will be. I take it you don't agree with me though. As far as I can see you've discounted all possibilities based solely on your own bias with no evidence to support your own theory. You aren't focusing on the individual incident but trying to make it part of a bigger incident. It's a reasonable assumption but it is still only an assumption. But what if you are wrong?

Well, if i'm wrong (as i frequently am) it will err on the side of his good name. And yes i am biased, and i have no problem admitting it.

Little CuChulainn

Satriale wrote: »

Well, if i'm wrong (as i frequently am) it will err on the side of his good name. And yes i am biased, and i have no problem admitting it.

And if the commissioner decides to sue you and boards for defamation because you erred on the side of McCabe?

Satriale

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And if the commissioner decides to sue you and boards for defamation because you erred on the side of McCabe?

What has the Comissioner done? And why would she sue me or Boards?

Beasty

Satriale wrote: »

What has the Comissioner done? And why would she sue me or Boards?

The whole point is we don't know what she has (or indeed has not) done. If posters speculate on this site she may sue for defamation. Hence Boards will err on the side of caution on such matters, particularly as I suspect their finances could not sustain a potential loss in court

Now it may be that similar scenarios have slipped through the net in the past, but that is no defence in the current situation

Hence it may well be that the higher ups are checking out further exactly what, if anything, can be allowed, to protect the site from exposure to damaging or potentially "fatal" costs (and to be clear I am not privy to any such discussions, so that itself is speculation on my part, but not of a form that potentially defames someone)

STB.

Nobody has actually said anything as the thread is closed. The laws of libel and defamation apply to all threads not just one supposedly involving Police Commissioners.

Personal opinion is not defamatory once people don't make bald statements that have no factual base. Commenting on statements made under Dáil privilege may be personal opinion and perception, once they are phrased as such. At the first sign of any malice I am sure the mod can step in.

I wasn't going to get dragged any further into this, but the LCC's on page defence has prompted me to reply.

As it is and the big problem I see in the case of that thread is that there is an attitude of defence by a contributor who now moderates that thread. The subject matter may be a little close to home, so it becomes personal. Nothing wrong there but my comparison in this case, having read the first 7 pages of the thread, is that one poster now a mod has very narrow view of one of the whistleblowers in general. I got the impression that it was akin to the omerta that was held by cyclists of not peeing in the soup.

TBH, not that I agree with it, but there are no go areas regarding remaining apolitical in the PS, so I am surprised people haven't just taken a step back.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And if the commissioner decides to sue you and boards for defamation because you erred on the side of McCabe?

It could be suggested that your own stated views on the Whistleblower, as outlined throughout that thread, might also fall into that category.

Satriale

Well, It's an argument that could be made for any thread. 99.9% of us have been knocking around long enough and have common sense not to defame anyone, the other .1 will get reported and deleted immediately and they'll do it regardless of legal advice or mod warnings, and we'll still report them. If we can manage to discuss the most litigious man in the country without the sky falling in we can surely discuss this.

I do understand the reasoning but I just believe it's over being over cautious.

Roll on the legal eagles. Better late than never I guess.

Little CuChulainn

STB. wrote: »

Nobody has actually said anything as the thread is closed. The laws of libel and defamation apply to all threads not just one supposedly involving Police Commissioners.

Personal opinion is not defamatory once people don't make bald statements that have no factual base. Commenting on statements made under Dáil privilege may be personal opinion and perception, once they are phrased as such. At the first sign of any malice I am sure the mod can step in.

I wasn't going to get dragged any further into this, but the LCC's on page defence has prompted me to reply.

As it is and the big problem I see is here that there is an attitude of defence ala moderation in that thread, because its a little close to home. Nothing wrong there but my comparison in this case, having read the first 7 pages of the thread, is that one poster now a mod has very narrow view of one of the whistleblowers. I got the impression that it was akin to the omerta that was held by cyclists of not peeing in the soup.

TBH, not that I agree with it, but there are no go areas regarding remaining apolitical in the PS, so I am surprised people haven't just taken a step back.

It could be suggested that your own stated views on the Whistleblower, as outlined throughout that thread, might also fall into that category.

Fortunately the statutory defence of honest opinion allows me to form a personal opinion on someone and my claims on his actions are straight out of the Guerin and O'Higgins reports.

Satriale wrote: »

Well, It's an argument that could be made for any thread. 99.9% of us have been knocking around long enough and have common sense not to defame anyone, the other .1 will get reported and deleted immediately and they'll do it regardless of legal advice or mod warnings, and we'll still report them. If we can manage to discuss the most litigious man in the country without the sky falling in we can surely discuss this.

I do understand the reasoning but I just believe it's over being over cautious.

Roll on the legal eagles. Better late than never I guess.

I think when it comes to "sex crimes" there should be extra caution. As I said before, false allegations in these matters can ruin lives. If Howlin subsequently reveals that he was referring to the case you cited then that's a different matter because as you said, it has already been widely reported on.

STB.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Fortunately the statutory defence of honest opinion allows me to form a personal opinion on someone and my claims on his actions are straight out of the Guerin and O'Higgins reports.

I think you need to re-read what you posted in the first few pages of that thread. I am not going to quote them as that's not my style.

Given your everyday role, modding a political discussion forum whilst trying to remain impartial and apolitical is going to be very difficult, especially in the threads that have that certain subject matter. And that's not meant as a dig. And to prove it, I'll bow out incase somebody reads it as anything else other than a view.

Dyr

Lads, that was a cracker of a thread that I started and I'm none too happy that the entire thing was collapsed by one of the commissioner rank and file while similar topics based on dail privilege were allowed carry on their merry way.


All a bit banana republic.
Very poor.

Going Forward

Zaph wrote: »

I said that we recommend that mods refrain from moderating threads they're participating in, but they are not expressly forbidden to do so.

When was the last time someone "actively participating" in a thread was made a moderator?

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

When was the last time someone "actively participating" in a thread was made a moderator?

In any thread on the forum they were made mod in?

Going Forward

Stheno wrote: »

In any thread on the forum they were made mod in?

In a thread in the politics cafe.

Stheno

Going Forward wrote: »

In a thread in the politics cafe.

Don't know tbh, but I know when I first became a mod in work and jobs, I was posting in a lot of threads on a daily basis. Probably the same for the cafe.

blanch152

Going Forward wrote: »

When was the last time someone "actively participating" in a thread was made a moderator?

The previous appointee? For Reals?

Beasty

Going Forward wrote: »

When was the last time someone "actively participating" in a thread was made a moderator?

It happens all the time. Mods are generally chosen because they have an interest in the underlying topic and have contributed in a positive fashion to the forum in question

The point Zaph was getting at is once modded we should try and avoid modding a thread we are actively participating in. That's particularly in scenarios where mod judgement is called for. However sometimes there are no other mods available and the relevant mod has to make another judgement call on whether to intervene or not. In some cases it may be better to actively mod regardless to try to avoid issues escalating (and yes sometimes this can backfire, but that does not automatically mean the mod has exercised their judgement inappropriately - sometimes we simply cannot anticipate how things will turn out)

Stheno

Beasty wrote: »

It happens all the time. Mods are generally chosen because they have an interest in the underlying topic and have contributed in a positive fashion to the forum in question

The point Zaph was getting at is once modded we should try and avoid modding a thread we are actively participating in. That's particularly in scenarios where mod judgement is called for. However sometimes there are no other mods available and the relevant mod has to make another judgement call on whether to intervene or not. In some cases it may be better to actively mod regardless to try to avoid issues escalating (and yes sometimes this can backfire, but that does not automatically mean the mod has exercised their judgement inappropriately - sometimes we simply cannot anticipate how things will turn out)

I know in the past I've chosen to close threads as I had no other mods around to action them, and closing them has led to criticism but has also led to threads not escalating.

It can be a lose lose situation.