Politics forum

Villain

Gordon wrote:

My current thinkings on this thread are all written here.

Who Suck's what Gordon??

LOL

pwd

I don't think the post/journal entry was offensive. I find the posts that defend the IRA and Sinn Fein highly offensive on the other hand. It is not ok to post a joke about a dead baby, but it is ok to glorify baby killers? Senseless. The sorts of posters he criticises infuriate me and I loathe them.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Did you read my contribution...I'll repost it for you
As I am one of the current mods,I'd say I'm privy to the politics mods thinking on this issue.

that really does not answer anything earthman

surely when gandalph alllowed lemming to link to an abusive journal entry it at some stage must have crossed his mind that others could follow suit and that the problems were obvious from the first day not just now 3 weeks later

i realise that you were not a mod then and are in no way responsible for the non action 3 weeks ago

the fact that the post was or was not reported is irrelevant gandalph has admitted he was fully aware of it and took no action untill a republican was in a position to do something similar( not that i think irish1 had any intention of doing this)
if this does not suggest an anti republican bias ie abuse is ok in as long as it is directed at republicans then i don't know what is

cdebru

pwd wrote:

I don't think the post/journal entry was offensive. I find the posts that defend the IRA and Sinn Fein highly offensive on the other hand. It is not ok to post a joke about a dead baby, but it is ok to glorify baby killers? Senseless. The sorts of posters he criticises infuriate me and I loathe them.

loathe away i don't have a problem with you loathing anyone it was the abusive nature of the journal entry that i have a problem with

btw i have never glorified anyone that killed babies i dont think anyone else on lemmings list did either

cdebru

irish1 wrote:

Good post cdebru, but I don't think anything will change Lemming seemed to know that he could do this and get away with it. In a PM to me after he posted his link he said sad thing is Lemming only started to post regualry in politics again after I questioned him on why he hadn't been discussing the topics instead of posting insults. IMO if any SF supporter had done what Lemming did they would have been banned and rightly so.

which of course begs the question did lemming clear the post with mods or admin before posting it would at least appear that he did

pwd

It was not directed at republicans. It was directed at apologists for the IRA. There is a difference.

cdebru

pwd wrote:

It was not directed at republicans. It was directed at apologists for the IRA. There is a difference.

it was aimed at me iam not an apologist for anyone or anything if the IRA need to apologise they can do it themselves

i have never apologised for the IRA

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

surely when gandalph alllowed lemming to link to an abusive journal entry it at some stage must have crossed his mind that others could follow suit and that the problems were obvious from the first day not just now 3 weeks later

Well it was Bonkey that actually moderated on the situation here
The Key point of the post being in bold

You are supposed to be discussing a topic, not making judgements on each other's beliefs or engaging in other forms of personal "clashing of antlers". If you're unable to make that distinction, the moderators will now summarily do so for you.

If you asked Gandalf today or yesterday and brought up the subject of the journal and that is what was done by Irish1-well then of course you are going to remind him and of course when reminded the mods will take action.


I dont for the life of me see where anti republicanism of any shape or form is involved in tightening up the implimenting of the charter.
Posters if convinced enough of the weight of their argument should continue to discuss it civilly rather than anything else.

With reference to Lemming V Irish1, thats a matter for themselves.
Personal insults,jibes,taunting between them or anyone else will not be allowed on the forum-take that as read.
Both of them may discuss civilly their political differences on the board in political threads as is the norm as long as it is a discussion on politics and is kept within the rules.

RuggieBear

this is becomming more and more like a typical IRA/SF politics thread....

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well it was Bonkey that actually moderated on the situation here
The Key point of the post being in bold

If you asked Gandalf today or yesterday and brought up the subject of the journal and that is what was done by Irish1-well then of course you are going to remind him and of course when reminded the mods will take action.


I dont for the life of me see where anti republicanism of any shape or form is involved in tightening up the implimenting of the charter.
Posters if convinced enough of the weight of their argument should continue to discuss it civilly rather than anything else.

With reference to Lemming V Irish1, thats a matter for themselves.
Personal insults,jibes,taunting between them or anyone else will not be allowed on the forum-take that as read.
Both of them may discuss civilly their political differences on the board in political threads as is the norm as long as it is a discussion on politics and is kept within the rules.

Bonkey was the one that stepped in

however from gandalphs post on this forum

Actually to clear things up here I was aware of Lemmings Journal entry from day 1. I like others I felt that journals are peoples own business and if they stepped over the line it was for the admins to correct them. Linking to their journals in threads was a grey area and one initially I was prepared to let go until it became apparent that it was going to turn into a little green guerrila war.

now what i take from that is that in particular the reference green guerilla war was that it was ok as long as it was aimed at republicans when the possibility that irish1 could fire back action was taken

i can not see how linking to journals could be a grey area when the aim was to subvent the rules and fire abuse at other posters

the last paragraph lemming versus irish 1 is fine that is how it should be that is not how it is or was

The Muppet

irish1 wrote:

FYI I never threatened to start my own journal, I think you should have a look at what I actually posted.

Apologies on that Point Irish1, I have read the thread again and you are right you never threatened to start your own Journal .

pwd

cdebru wrote:

it was aimed at me iam not an apologist for anyone or anything if the IRA need to apologise they can do it themselves

i have never apologised for the IRA

You're right to be offended by the suggestion you have then.

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

now what i take from that is that in particular the reference green guerilla war was that it was ok as long as it was aimed at republicans when the possibility that irish1 could fire back action was taken

Thats your subjective opinion,however I can tell you what is actually the case.
I have said three times already (and I am privy to the discussions between the moderators on this subject) that the loophole was closed when Irish1 reminded us it was there.
This was not done specifically to prevent one side or the other of any discussion from breaking the boards charter, it was done to prevent both.
Basically it was prudent.

gandalf

Jesus talk about Martyr syndrome in the extreme. The reason I left it there was because at the time I taught it was a storm in a teacup. Irish1 said he had taken it to DeVore so I decided to leave the call to him. DeVore obviously decided there was nothing out of order with it so it stayed and so I decided to leave it there in a closed thread :rolleyes: which would have sunk into nothingness if it wasn't for the wannabe crucifix rider brigade.

When it became obvious that Irish1 had instructed everyone on the forum in an open thread that could insult people willy nilly we then decided to take action as a fair few of the politics regulars have journals not just the ones with a green hue. Again I suppose we should let one link to their own insults just so they can satisfy their inbred sense of "tit for tat" that has effected these islands for years.

cdebru

gandalf wrote:

Jesus talk about Martyr syndrome in the extreme. The reason I left it there was because at the time I taught it was a storm in a teacup. Irish1 said he had taken it to DeVore so I decided to leave the call to him. DeVore obviously decided there was nothing out of order with it so it stayed and so I decided to leave it there in a closed thread :rolleyes: which would have sunk into nothingness if it wasn't for the wannabe crucifix rider brigade.

When it became obvious that Irish1 had instructed everyone on the forum in an open thread that could insult people willy nilly we then decided to take action as a fair few of the politics regulars have journals not just the ones with a green hue. Again I suppose we should let one link to their own insults just so they can satisfy their inbred sense of "tit for tat" that has effected these islands for years.

i dont feel like a martyr or that i have a martyr syndrome
i' am posting on a thread about what i and many others believe tro be an unfair bias
while you can say it is a storm in a teacup i can absolutely gaurantee that if i or any one of a green hue had posted that kind of nonsense then we would have been banned straight away

the story that you only realised that this could be a problem when irish 1 raised the issue is nonsensical surely the mods on the politics forum are not so shortsighted that they did not see the possibilty of people insulting anyone they liked via a link to their journal

can i ask you if the insult had been directed at you gandalph would you have taken such a light view of it

I have no desire for tit for tat just that you and the other mods at least try and have a sembleance of fairness
your dismissive and insulting atitude of the people who have complained and your failure to even try and see it from the point of view of the people who were named in the journal entry is further evidence of your ploitical bias if any were needed

ecksor

Can we leave out the snipes at people of various political persuasions and stay on the topic of the particular rule/judgement in question.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Thats your subjective opinion,however I can tell you what is actually the case.
I have said three times already (and I am privy to the discussions between the moderators on this subject) that the loophole was closed when Irish1 reminded us it was there.
This was not done specifically to prevent one side or the other of any discussion from breaking the boards charter, it was done to prevent both.
Basically it was prudent.

prudent would have been to take the action when the orignal incident happened
to suggest that the mods needed to be reminded that lemming had been allowed to openly abuse and insult other posters is frankly absurd

btw earthman i accept that the decision that you were involved in was not done to prevent one side or the other from doing what lemming had been allowed to do

and i have no problem with the new decision to prevent anyone else from doing this again

i do not accept that the orignal decision to allow lemming to do this was not motivated by political bias

cdebru

ecksor wrote:

Can we leave out the snipes at people of various political persuasions and stay on the topic of the particular rule/judgement in question.

an excellent suggestion

perhaps you might find the time to mod the politics forum

DeVore

I'm getting well fnckin' unhappy about this and I'm about 1 post short of banning about a dozen people and banning discussion on the north.

Alternatively I'll make Politics like Football.


Personally I am not in favour of banning links. If thats a link to a journal, so be it. Will we ban links to Geocities pages now? Yahoo? Who will judge this? You? Me? Gandalf?
When will a link be deleted? How nasty does it have to be?

Silencing anyones honestly held opinion isnt what we are here for. I wouldnt allow that to be posted on Boards because I dont want to run the site that says it. On the other hand, Lemming has paid for his space and is entitled to say more there then we'd tolerate in public.

If Irish1's objection is to being named in a list of apologists then he should ask Lemming to take it down, or ask me to ask lemming. Thats not what I'm hearing.

I'm hearing "shut him up" and I'm not going to do that.

This has already taken up a dispropotionately large amount of my time.
DeV.

gandalf

Yes but it is a private journal entry which I have no control over and I am not going to ban someone based on their journal when at the time it was not understood to be part of the rules.

As for being shortsighted not at all no one had done it before, so hats off to Lemming on finding that loophole. He does it again and he will be banned as will anyone else. Again it would not have been an issues if you all didn't keep rabbiting on about it and Irish1 had not posted his recommendation that everyone could get around the rules by posting in there journals.

If anyone named me in a journal I would take it directly to the admins of the site and not whinge like a little bitch, badger mods to ban someone all the time when the offending text is not directly on the forum and the link was not covered by the rules at the time of posting.

Sorry but I disagree you want your pound of flesh as does irish1 and because DeVore didn't ban Lemming you expect us to repair your damaged ego's.

As for my political bias, its well known its in any threads I replied to in politics and my only public entry on my journal. Normally my bias does not effect how I mod, its only when people annoy me then I let loose.

BTW just for your interest one of the most recent bannings on politics was a user who making continued protest postings over the fact NI/IRA/SF threads seem to have taken over the forum. My god it stinks of bias that we actually banned him eh :rolleyes:

(Posted before I saw ecksors or DeVores posts!)

cdebru

DeVore wrote:

I'm getting well fnckin' unhappy about this and I'm about 1 post short of banning about a dozen people and banning discussion on the north.

Alternatively I'll make Politics like Football.


Personally I am not in favour of banning links. If thats a link to a journal, so be it. Will we ban links to Geocities pages now? Yahoo? Who will judge this? You? Me? Gandalf?
When will a link be deleted? How nasty does it have to be?

Silencing anyones honestly held opinion isnt what we are here for. I wouldnt allow that to be posted on Boards because I dont want to run the site that says it. On the other hand, Lemming has paid for his space and is entitled to say more there then we'd tolerate in public.

If Irish1's objection is to being named in a list of apologists then he should ask Lemming to take it down, or ask me to ask lemming. Thats not what I'm hearing.

I'm hearing "shut him up" and I'm not going to do that.

This has already taken up a dispropotionately large amount of my time.
DeV.

I am not saying shut him up

i am saying he used his journal as way to insult other board users as a way to get around the rules
i am not asking for his journal to be censored or closed the link from a public post meant he did say it in public

to compare insults directed at other board users to a link to yahoo or geo cities is ridiculous


to answer your question how nasty does it have to be the obvious answer is if it would not be acceptable in a post then it should not be linked to

ecksor

gandalf wrote:

[..]not whinge like a little bitch[..]

Ok, the next person on this thread who can't behave themselves gets a ban.

cdebru

gandalf wrote:

.

If anyone named me in a journal I would take it directly to the admins of the site and not whinge like a little bitch, badger mods to ban someone all the time when the offending text is not directly on the forum and the link was not covered by the rules at the time of posting.

Sorry but I disagree you want your pound of flesh as does irish1 and because DeVore didn't ban Lemming you expect us to repair your damaged ego's.

does every post by you have to include insults

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

to compare insults directed at other board users to a link to yahoo or geo cities is ridiculous

I think what DeV was referring to there would be blogs hosted by yahoo or geo cities in which the same thing could be done.
Look could everybody take a deep breath please and those that want to,go back to discussing politcs in the forum thats there for that purpose and let there be closure on this?
It's got a good airing.

Nuttzz

DeVore wrote:

Alternatively I'll make Politics like Football.

excellent idea imo

Villain

FYI Gandalf I did bring this to Devore's attention via a PM when lemming first posted his link to his journal and Devore said that while he wasn't happy with lemming's journal entry he didn't think he should do anything. Also I did PM lemming and ask him to remove me from the list but he said he wouldn't.

If you want to call me a whinging little bitch do it via a PM, I really don't think comments like that help anyone.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Well it was Bonkey that actually moderated on the situation here

Although I no longer moderate the forum (and please remember that while reading the below), I would like to explain my actions at the time as I was a moderator at the time.

Here is the link to the page where I had my post where I locked/unlocked the thread. This is where the conversation had gotten to when I became aware of Lemmings post.

I locked the thread. It may, or may not, have been because Irish1 reported it that it came to my attention, I honestly don't remember. I unlocked the thread, with the comments as already posted because I was asked to by one of the posters involved (again, I think Irish1, but I could be wrong) and I did so in the hope that the warning would allow the original topic to re-emerge (which it did, somewhat, I think).

Why didn't I ban Lemming? I didn't ban Lemming because by the time I saw what had happened, I had a choice of either handing out a fistful of bannings, or trying to find a less "oppressive" way of keeping the peace. I chose the latter. It may, or may not, have been that very post (if not, it was one somewhat similar) which I then posted links to in all of the "trouble threads" that were running.

Why did I do this? Simple. It was my intention to draw a line in the sand. To come straight out and say that we - the moderators - had let too much slide for too long, from all sides, and were no longer going to put up with it. We weren't going to start until we were ready to do so, and in the meantime, that resulted in us taking a somewhat less aggressive role so that when the hammer fell (so to speak) there would be no-one who could even suggest that they hadn't been given fair warning.

Now, I may have just made the current mods job a lot harder by saying that....but only if the people who are reading it aren't going to learn the easy way....so I don't really mind.

I personally believe that Politics is a great forum. Its a nightmare to mod, especially if you also contribute to the discussions - as all of the mods do. It is - quite simply - impossible to find the right balance, and to be seen to be balanced. More than once we chose to deal with an issue over PM, only to have another poster accuse us of bias because we did nothing about said problem.

Newsflash: mods aren't perfect, but they do actually try to do their job.

But for **** sake lads....have a bit of consideration to how much each of you is contributing to the very problem you're complaining about their reaction to.

Which brings us back to this whole current issue.

Apparently, my warning didn't work at the time...which has given the current mods the issue that they've just dealt with.

That is what happened. I dealt with a situation in the way that I deemed appropriate at the time. The other moderators of the time (of whom Sceptre and Gandalf are still around) agreed with the approach - that we would give the "calm down" approach one more shot.

If you think I acted inappropriately....fair enough. If you feel really upset, take comfort that I'm not a moderator any longer. But don't take it out on the current mods. Two of them backed my decision, but they weren't the ones who made it. As for how the four guys dealt with the resurgence of the problem? Lads....I applaud you for your handling of that as well as your openness in this thread.

jc

bonkey

cdebru wrote:

i do not accept that the orignal decision to allow lemming to do this was not motivated by political bias

You know whats funny (it having been my original decision as much as anyone else's)

I've had my decisions called anti-Republican by the pro-Republicans. I've had them called pro-Republican by the anti's.

You can also probably replace Republican in that sentence with any other contentious issue which is ever discussed.

I'm guessing all four of the current mods are the same, and if not, that its only a matter of time.

When both sides accuse you of favouring the other....where does that leave you if not where a moderator should be - in the middle?

jc

billy the squid

DeVore wrote:

Alternatively I'll make Politics like Football.
.

I do not think this would not be the best course of action. I believe that if it were to happen you would have people of opposing political views refusing to sponsor new members, and then one side would end up being censored.

but I cannot think of an alternative.

@irish1 as per your query in response to my comments in the said blog here is the thread, read from post 43 onwards for the exchange between me and FTA69

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=229135&page=3&pp=20&highlight=mccartney+rape