Red card for commenting on a posters politics

James Brown

This is my post:

I didn't bother responding to you last post and your quality of discussion has degenerated further with this.
You insist on defending every aspect of this FG government. It's tiresome and not believable as genuine unbiased commentary. That's what you do regardless of the issue. That's fine but pointless in dealing with you. I am not calling you a FG supporter. I would not personally insult you in such a manner. Just calling it as it is.
I've a genuine lack of faith in Harris or any minister who 'didn't know' or 'just found out' what their department knew or had being dealing with for some time. You should really take that with a pinch of salt if you disagree but both yourself and Andrew are like dogs with a bone, which I would find very odd from any casual folk.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110769137&postcount=1407

This is the reasoning:
<snip>

"Had it been established which party pays Matt Barrett to post here 24/7?

SF or FF?

Just asking sorry if it’s been answered before."

Mod warning

Just saw this now, so sorry for the late response. Posters are entitled to anonymity. You are free to ask them if they support another political party, but this kind of post is not acceptable.

It's clear that the warning is in regards of my being asked which party pays me to post.

In my post which I gained the infraction for I pointed out that the poster, who himself has stated previously is a Green party supporter, always defends the Fine Gael government. This is a statement of fact, not an accusation. I even went so far as to state I wasn't calling him a Fine Gael supporter.
He consistently takes the side of the Fine Gael government in every discussion.
So where am I ignoring the Mod warning here in pointing that out? The point of the post was my explaining the futility in engaging with him further given his long recorded stance.

Thanks.

James Brown

Hello,
Been nearly a week.
I was red carded for pointing out a poster always defends FG. I'm not sure how we can discuss anything in any forum if we can't reference a posters long recorded opinions. It's a fact not an inference.

Thanks.

Spear

I've given the cmods a nudge to get this a response.

Faith

Hi Matt,

Apologies for the delay - this fell through the cracks. Before I can go any further in dealing with this, can you confirm that you have attempted to discuss this via PM with the Politics mods, and what their response was?

James Brown

Faith wrote: »

Hi Matt,

Apologies for the delay - this fell through the cracks. Before I can go any further in dealing with this, can you confirm that you have attempted to discuss this via PM with the Politics mods, and what their response was?

Yes it still stands.
The claim is I inferred the poster was a Fine Gael supporter, when I pointed out that I accepted he was a Green supporter. I pointed out he always backs the FG government.
The Mod warning previously posted was regarding a post calling someone (me actually) a paid poster. I never made a similar claim.
The poster supports the Greens and always backs the FG government. I can show this. Its recorded fact. Not seeing where I warranted a red card.

Thanks.

Faith

Thanks Matt. Can you forward on all the PMs of your discussion of this issue with the moderators to me please? Once I receive those, I’ll look into it and aim to get a response to you as quickly as I can.

James Brown

Will do.
Just in case you are looking at my record, I was once carded for mentioning the politics forum had FG supporters in it's number. Although I never named anyone I was done for 'personal insult'. The CMOD said he didn't think it was warranted but the Mods wouldn't back down unless I promised to tone down my posts on government. I refused so it stood.


Thanks.

Faith

Great, thanks. I’ll look into this and get back to you as soon as I can.

Faith

Hi Matt,

I've had a look into this. As you've quoted, the mod warning issue states:

Posters are entitled to anonymity. You are free to ask them if they support another political party

It seems to me that the red card was issued because several times after the mod instruction you insinuated that other posters weren't being transparent in their political affiliations, rather than directly asking them about it, and the post that was carded was the straw that broke that camel's back.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'm curious. I see posts and threads I've little to no interest in or disagree with the posters conclusion without feeling the need to get on them over a period of days. What's your skin in this game?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You seem to disagree, which is fine, but you're putting an awful lot of energy into it, why?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You insist on defending every aspect of this FG government. It's tiresome and not believable as genuine unbiased commentary. That's what you do regardless of the issue. That's fine but pointless in dealing with you. I am not calling you a FG supporter. I would not personally insult you in such a manner. Just calling it as it is.
I've a genuine lack of faith in Harris or any minister who 'didn't know' or 'just found out' what their department knew or had being dealing with for some time. You should really take that with a pinch of salt if you disagree but both yourself and Andrew are like dogs with a bone, which I would find very odd from any casual folk.

None of those bolded are statements of fact, and neither are they direct questions about a poster's political affiliation. The mod warning issued was in relation to lola85's post that did the same thing, so it follows that your post, which was in the same (albeit less direct) vein, would be considered ignoring moderator instruction.

For this reason, I would uphold the red card in this instance.

However, the moderators of the Politics forum are a good bunch, and they've agreed to downgrade it to a yellow card if you agree to stop insinuating that other posters have ulterior motives in the same vein as above. What say you?

James Brown

Faith wrote: »

Hi Matt,

I've had a look into this. As you've quoted, the mod warning issue states:



It seems to me that the red card was issued because several times after the mod instruction you insinuated that other posters weren't being transparent in their political affiliations, rather than directly asking them about it, and the post that was carded was the straw that broke that camel's back.


None of those bolded are statements of fact, and neither are they direct questions about a poster's political affiliation. The mod warning issued was in relation to lola85's post that did the same thing, so it follows that your post, which was in the same (albeit less direct) vein, would be considered ignoring moderator instruction.

For this reason, I would uphold the red card in this instance.

However, the moderators of the Politics forum are a good bunch, and they've agreed to downgrade it to a yellow card if you agree to stop insinuating that other posters have ulterior motives in the same vein as above. What say you?

I appreciate the time spent.
The mod warning was issued on the back of my flagging a post aimed at me. I was well aware of the implications.

My claim that particular poster always supports/defends the current FG government is the fact I'm stating. I was asking why they were defending the HSE/Health Department/Harris on this issue.

The context: 'What's your skin in the game?' was regarding the topic at hand. I was asking why he was going to great lengths to support Harris and the HSE. I couldn't understand it. The same for 'you're putting an awful lot of energy into it, why?' Even if a publicly proud FG member and supporter, I still would have asked that question. Simply saying, 'because I support FG' wouldn't have explained it for me. I wanted to know why, what was endearing about the way the Cervical check scandal was being handled?
As my comment that got me here asks, I wanted to know was there any point in engaging further. What was the reasoning for such support for the HSE and Health department on this, so we could discuss it rather than ifs and buts. Turned out I was right in my criticism of the handling but both posters haven't revisited the subject since. Which is not unusual.
There are some posters who don't post unless to defend the FG government, which is fine I suppose. I can't see why anyone should be carded for pointing out a posters record on political opinion in a politics forum. I have been credited, by Mods, Cmods, admins and other posters for my criticism of government policy and that's fine.

It's difficult to function in a politics forum were you cannot reference a posters recorded opinions. It's a kin to a Liverpool supporter always talking up the team and you not being allowed mention that in discussion.
The highlight being a red card for 'personal insult' for suggesting some people in the politics forum would support Fine Gael, the then most popular party in the country.

Thanks.

Faith

I do understand that the intent behind the posts might have been different than how it came across, but I'd have to agree with it looking like ignoring mod instructions on the surface of it. Without your further explanations, as above, the intent isn't clear. Given that the moderators have to go on what's in front of them, and that in your PM exchange you didn't elaborate on your meanings as above, I can't support overturning the infraction in this case. Perhaps elaborating on your questions in the future, such as you did above, may help with avoiding any future uncertainty as to the intent behind your question.

So, to clarify, if you must reference a poster's recorded opinions, then do so in a clear-cut way. To use your example, you could say "You've previously posted about being a Liverpool supporter so of course you always say good things about them" if it's relevant, but you can't just hint at them having an agenda they're not sharing. If the person never specifically stated that they were a Liverpool supported, then it wouldn't be your place to try and get them to admit such either, because they have a right not to share information, as do you.

I'm assuming, given your response, that you don't agree with the compromise offered in my last post? If not, that's grand - the infraction will stand and if you'd like to escalate this for Admin review, just let me know.

James Brown

It might be difficult for Mods who often drop in because of a post being flagged.
I know and the posters knew I was specifically speaking on the topic of the Cervical check scandal, as we had been for a number of pages.
We also know each others politics well. It would be beyond pointless to call the particular poster a Fine Gaeler.

I'm content with having had explained myself. Thanks.

Faith

No problem, are you happy to have this marked as resolved?

James Brown

Faith wrote: »

No problem, are you happy to have this marked as resolved?

Resolved in that I'm not going to pursue it further.
It was wrong IMO to card me at all.
Thanks.