Fine Gael bots on Boards

mods, release the list!!!

Mortelaro

Back in the day in a previous life,when I used mod politics, the OP would have had a heart attack as they were very popular despite Enda
Bonkey used to say when you're getting it in the neck from all sides nodding you're probably getting the balance right

Post in a public forum and you will get opposing opinions
That's what discussion is
Some people are more thick skinned than others and will post their opinions regardless of what comes back
That's fine
If any poster is losing sleep at night over all this,they need a break from boards,Twitter, journal etc

*Disclaimer I'm FG friendly myself and make no apologies
I do think they're a bit amateurish at times though

James Brown

PeadarCo wrote: »

If varied opinions are welcomed why the thread?

As others have mentioned if FG are employing people they are doing a terrible job given the number of threads criticising them on both CA and politics. That's to a large degree that's expected given they are the party in government and have held that position for a long time.

Calling people who support/defend FG policies bots is asking for an echo chamber. Remember they even now based on opinion polls attract a substantial amount of support. You would expect a considerable amount of poster's posting in their defence as a result.

As I mentioned in a previous post one of the achievements of the mods in politics that they have created an environment where pro brexit posters can still post. It would be very easy for pro brexit posters to be hounded out of the threads.

What you seem to be calling for is FG supporters to be banned from the various threads. I would be fairly confident that any genuine bots of any party/belief would be picked up by mods and actioned.

Read the OP.

James Brown

Chips Lovell wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, I see no evidence whatsoever that any of those three people are FG bots.

If you don't agree with me, MR. E has also offered to review the list. As an Admin, he can overrule any assessment I make as a Politics mod and can also look at posters site wide.

No worries. I appreciate the time taken.

James Brown

Mortelaro wrote: »

Back in the day in a previous life,when I used mod politics, the OP would have had a heart attack as they were very popular despite Enda
Bonkey used to say when you're getting it in the neck from all sides nodding you're probably getting the balance right

Post in a public forum and you will get opposing opinions
That's what discussion is
Some people are more thick skinned than others and will post their opinions regardless of what comes back
That's fine
If any poster is losing sleep at night over all this,they need a break from boards,Twitter, journal etc

*Disclaimer I'm FG friendly myself and make no apologies
I do think they're a bit amateurish at times though

You didn't read or understand the OP obviously.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I happen to see it a bit differently.

Say, a poster happens along and starts a thread saying that Fine Gael are wasting €1 billion a year on TD's pay and expenses and it's a disgrace.

I might come along and say, well actually, it's more like €20-25m for TD's pay and post a link to back up my statement. OP counters that I am only attacking him and not offering an opinion and what's my opinion on the crazy waste of money on TD's pay.

[Note: these are not real figures, just for illustrative purposes]

Now, I am under no obligation to offer an opinion on the OP's crazy conspiracy theory other than to point out the absurd factual basis of the OP. I might well share the OP's opinion, or I might not, but in my view, if people are going around posting unsubstantiated facts such as €1bn is wasted on TD's pay or "Nobody has owned a free/subsidised house ever in the history of the state", then I do feel, that for the debate to at least be based on facts, the record needs to be corrected.

It is not possible for the mods to clamp down on every factual misstatement, and there are many, but there is nothing wrong with other posters pointing out where a poster has got their facts completely wrong, especially when those other posters provide links to back up their statements. That doesn't require them to subsequently post an opinion on the subject, all they are doing is correcting the record.

Have you ever started a comment with an opinion of your own, ever?
Aside from refuting any negative FG news items, you add nothing. Even then you post false dishonest tripe. I caught you out on the 'Eoghan' claim of your last comment to me. Now it's like you never made that lie.
You posted in the Maria Bailey threads yet never gave an opinion on it. In this 24 hour old thread you've inferred I'm homophobic and sexist.
So cut the baloney. Maybe you have Russian Pee tapes on some high up folk but you get away with murder on a daily basis none the less. Nobody buys the happy go luck social commentator with a Green Party vent. We may disagree, (I don't know your opinion on anything TBF) but I'm honest.

Mortelaro

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You didn't read or understand the OP obviously.

Oh I did
I fully understand your tone in this thread which is why I offered some standard advice

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Read the OP.

As I mentioned in a previous post I did and the meaning I took from was that you think anyone who defends/supports FG is a bot.

That's obviously crazy. Even accounting for how long FG have been in power based on opinion polls they are the best supported party in Ireland. If boards is anyway representative of the Irish public(it never will completely representative and will be biased towards certain demographics) you will naturally have people defending not just FG but all major political parties in Ireland.

If we were to use the same measures you mentioned in your OP it would be equally fair to accuse you of being a bot for some opposition party. Obviously I don't think you are a bot. However just because you end up in trench warefare with other posters doesn't mean those posters are any more a bot than you are.

I appreciate you don't like FG it's a position that you are entitled to hold and based on opinion polls isn't uncommon. However FG obviously have supporters and on a discussion site like boards you will naturally encounter them. That's life you can't go around trying to silence opinions you disagree with.

Beasty

Deleted User wrote: »

mods, release the list!!!

never realised he was in Prison.....

Beasty

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you ever started a comment with an opinion of your own, ever?
Aside from refuting any negative FG news items, you add nothing. Even then you post false dishonest tripe. I caught you out on the 'Eoghan' claim of your last comment to me. Now it's like you never made that lie.
You posted in the Maria Bailey threads yet never gave an opinion on it. In this 24 hour old thread you've inferred I'm homophobic and sexist.
So cut the baloney. Maybe you have Russian Pee tapes on some high up folk but you get away with murder on a daily basis none the less. Nobody buys the happy go luck social commentator with a Green Party vent. We may disagree, (I don't know your opinion on anything TBF) but I'm honest.

Give it a rest Matt - you can give as good as you get in some of these areas

Any questions, PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

KyussB

All major political parties have a presence on social media - including Boards - and not all of it is as blatant as paid PR trolls, it would be quite stupid to approach things that way, as the entire purpose of effective PR is to make it look genuine, and to maintain plausible deniability.

Outing it and banning it all is difficult to the point of impossible - but there should not be doubt as to whether or not it happens in the first place.

Beasty

KyussB wrote: »

All major political parties have a presence on social media - including Boards - and not all of it is as blatant as paid PR trolls, it would be quite stupid to approach things that way, as the entire purpose of effective PR is to make it look genuine, and to maintain plausible deniability.

Outing it and banning it all is difficult to the point of impossible - but there should not be doubt as to whether or not it happens in the first place.

TBH if they did on this site they have been doing a pretty bad job of it

Now I have little doubt they monitor sites like Boards, and I know of politicians who have quite openly posted on the site. However they would have to go out of their way to get their political messages across in any way that would be beneficial for their respective parties without being found out

Jinglejangle69

https:// www.sinnfein.ie/sfos

“The internet and social media are transforming politics around the world and here in Ireland. Never before has there been so many ways that you can help influence and make change happen through this global online community we live in.

Thousands of people from every walk of life have already signed up from across Ireland and beyond to become Online Supporters for SINN FEIN.

We are asking you to take the step today to become a Sinn Féin Online Supporter and join our campaign to reshape politics in Ireland and in doing so usher in an era of radical change that puts the interest of our citizens at the heart of all we do.

It’s time to sweep away the conservative parties which have dominated life on this island for far too long.

By becoming a Sinn Féin Online Supporter, you have the opportunity to stand up and play your part in shaping the future of a new republic”

Beasty

Clearly posters of all political persuasions are on this site. Clearly they will look to support the aims of their respective parties. I am sure they will openly look to canvas support on sites such as Facebook

However the anonymity of posters on this site is, in my view, beneficial to avoiding it happening here. Indeed if any party did try and coordinate anything like that I really cannot see them doing so in any hope or expectation they will not be discovered. Plenty of people are prepared to leak this sort of stuff and plenty of posters on this site will see right through it

The only way they can get away with this sort of stuff in this day and age is to be completely open about it and we will not allow them to advertise (unless they are prepared to pay and be fully open about it)

EmmetSpiceland

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Funny you should say that.

What was the point in you posting stuff like this ?

Gotta ask.

Sorry, J, only seeing this one now. Yeah, I bumped the thread that you, and your “cohort” had been flogging to death.

Your lot let it drop off the front page and no one had posted their own “personal” insurance grievance or random link to an insurance related topic.

I noticed this and thought it was extremely odd so I got it back into the first page, it has been nearly a whole day and, honestly, I didn’t want anyone “behind the wire” getting into any trouble.

And, to Matt Barrett, I’d just like to say, your thread is a joke and your “username” is nothing short of a thundering disgrace.

You should be ashamed.

Jinglejangle69

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Sorry, J, only seeing this one now. Yeah, I bumped the thread that you, and your “cohort” had been flogging to death.

Your lot let it drop off the front page and no one had posted their own “personal” insurance grievance or random link to an insurance related topic.

I noticed this and thought it was extremely odd so I got it back into the first page, it has been nearly a whole day and, honestly, I didn’t want anyone “behind the wire” getting into any trouble.

And, to Matt Barrett, I’d just like to say, your thread is a joke and your “username” is nothing short of a thundering disgrace.

You should be ashamed.

Creepy. Bordering on obsessed.

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

TBH if they did on this site they have been doing a pretty bad job of it

Now I have little doubt they monitor sites like Boards, and I know of politicians who have quite openly posted on the site. However they would have to go out of their way to get their political messages across in any way that would be beneficial for their respective parties without being found out

Controlling discussion on social media is about narratives and class interests, not party messages.

All the posters out there you see who specifically argue in Bad Faith to pursue an agenda or block productive discussion of certain issues, that's precisely the crowd of (likely primarily legitimate) posters that social media disrupters/shills, blend into perfectly.

It's not just political party stuff either - the Libertarians yaars ago were some of the worst for this on Boards - and disrupted economic discussion in a way that was pretty beneficial to the current party and related class interests, at the time.

Some of the economic views AOC/Sanders have put into the mainstream today, were all but banned on Boards. The browbeating level of opposition to those views, the heated discussion they'd generate, and the (at the time) mod response to that - effectively got discussion of it all but ended for half a decade.

Beasty

KyussB wrote: »

Controlling discussion on social media is about narratives and class interests, not party messages.

You were the one mentioning it as a political party issue

Mortelaro

Regarding boards and anonymity and supporting parties,the nuances are more subtle here due to that

You get a lot of But I voted for X party and am disgusted with it so I'm considering voting for Y who funnily enough might be polar opposite of x (surprise surprise (I dont think))
Followed by variations of Y can do no wrong it's all X"s fault

I'm not sure whether the people using that tactic are aware its see through or if they care
Personally I evaluate what they say paying no attention to how they describe themselves and If I think its rubbish,say so(if I'm minded to do so at the time that is)

KyussB

Beasty wrote: »

You were the one mentioning it as a political party issue

Yes what I described is how the political parties would have a presence.

Chips Lovell

KyussB wrote: »

All the posters out there you see who specifically argue in Bad Faith to pursue an agenda or block productive discussion of certain issues, that's precisely the crowd of (likely primarily legitimate) posters that social media disrupters/shills, blend into perfectly.

It's not just political party stuff either - the Libertarians yaars ago were some of the worst for this on Boards - and disrupted economic discussion in a way that was pretty beneficial to the current party and related class interests, at the time.

Some of the economic views AOC/Sanders have put into the mainstream today, were all but banned on Boards. The browbeating level of opposition to those views, the heated discussion they'd generate, and the (at the time) mod response to that - effectively got discussion of it all but ended for half a decade.

On the one hand you rail against posters arguing in bad faith and then immediately do the same yourself by claiming some economic views "were all but banned on Boards".

This is not correct. As I pointed out to you the last time your raised this, only earlier on this year, posters aren't sanctioned for their views, they are sanctioned for breaking the rules.

KyussB

Chips Lovell wrote: »

On the one hand you rail against posters arguing in bad faith and then immediately do the same yourself by claiming some economic views "were all but banned on Boards".

This is not correct. As I pointed out to you the last time your raised this, only earlier on this year, posters aren't sanctioned for their views, they are sanctioned for breaking the rules.

I replied to you in that thread:

"It's not the intentions of the system of rules and moderation that are in question, it's the end-result/net-effect of that system in practice. You don't need to target any specific views, or have any kind of conspiring, to end up with a chilling effect."

I described precisely how it led to a chilling effect that 'all but banned' those views.

Arguing in Bad Faith is engaging in deliberate use of lies and deceptive methods of argument, that don't genuinely represent a posters views, but are used to further an argument.
I don't agree with your and other mods/admins take on this (albeit I see where you'd be coming from, despite disagreeing) - but my views on it are real/genuine.

blanch152

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

And, to Matt Barrett, I’d just like to say, your thread is a joke and your “username” is nothing short of a thundering disgrace.

You should be ashamed.

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Creepy. Bordering on obsessed.

His username does not help him at all.

At best it is low-level trolling by taking the name of the Taoiseach's partner as his username and then spending his time on boards attacking FG politicians and any poster who is perceived as supporting FG.

At worst, it is a puerile attempt at a homophobic slur on the Taoiseach, drawing attention to his sexuality as somehow people will think less of the Taoiseach for it. As we know that there are people out there who are still homophobic in this day and age, it has a ready audience.

i know better at this stage to seek a satisfactory definition of "bad faith" that wouldn't simply encompass "does not agree with me"

but id point out that a fair definition would also surely encompass "killing threads by megaposting" and "insisting by repetition to an alarming degree that every topic relates to my one or two personal hobbyhorse supertheories"

brevity and offhand skewering of such narrative-imposing megaposts can be held as being less-invested trolling or whatever, but -and im genuinely thankful for this- the mods see through the outraged claims put forward on this basis more often than not.

KyussB

You should self-disclose snoop: You along with a handful of other posters tried to censor the Green New Deal - which is exactly a representation of the views I'm talking about, which were effectively banned years ago - as 'off topic' in the current climate change thread, and those are exactly views which I have been vociferously backing in that thread, and asserting as on-topic (which other posters have now started backing, too).

Bad Faith argument involves deception or an intent to deceive - that's the core definition of it - anyone trying to pin that on me has a high burden of proof to meet.

Your definition of Bad Faith there, precisely only covers "views I don't agree with" - disparaging someones views as 'theories' doesn't suddenly makes those views illegitimate/deceptive or Bad Faith.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

You should self-disclose snoop: You along with a handful of other posters tried to censor the Green New Deal - which is exactly a representation of the views I'm talking about, which were effectively banned years ago - as 'off topic' in the current climate change thread, and those are exactly views which I have been vociferously backing in that thread, and asserting as on-topic (which other posters have now started backing, too).

Bad Faith argument involves deception or an intent to deceive - that's the core definition of it - anyone trying to pin that on me has a high burden of proof to meet.

Your definition of Bad Faith there, precisely only covers "views I don't agree with" - disparaging someones views as 'theories' doesn't suddenly makes those views illegitimate/deceptive or Bad Faith.

hm ive no desire to relitigate other threads here. i made a fair (imo) comment relevant to your complaints in this thread and think its discourteous enough tbh for you to try to turn this thread into whatever you would like it to be in order to shoehorn in one of your fave arguments.

almost as if id noted that in a post an hour ago, isnt it

but so you cant have said it and claim it going unanswered is a point for you:

i. first line alone is just so ridiculous that it merits no response. but it underlines some of the behaviours that ive already noted might be what people react against when you find that everyone is against you and "arguing wrong"


ii. quite pertinently, id point out that we dont have a climate change thread except that you insist it must be a climate change thread

lookit, the rest, again- im not getting into megaposting against you on an unrelated thread.

KyussB

Well when I start getting accused of stuff, I need to defend myself - I'm happy to leave it there - and others can judge for themselves whether the other thread covers cllimate change.

Colonel Claptrap

8 pages in, are we any closer to somebody providing evidence of 'Fine Gael bots on boards'?

I note that the opening post has been deleted, which is a bit worrying.

Does OP stand over the many accusations made in this thread or will they post an explanation / retraction?

Mr E

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

I note that the opening post has been deleted, which is a bit worrying.

Yeah I think this thread could go around in circles. Since the OP has deleted his original question, this is a good place to draw a line under it.

If anyone has evidence of 'bots', please report the posts (make sure you are clear about what you are reporting in your reported text - putting "Troll" as the comment on the reported post isn't enough.)

Thread closed.