Politics forum

Villain

Nuttzz wrote:

Imagine:

Nuttzz: Well Irish1 I hear you support IRA murders
Irish1: WTF? Where did you get that from?
Nuttzz: Here (linky to my "source" someones journal)
Irish1 reports my post.

There are so many ways that could spin out? Was I just quoting what an external source said, was I posting in good faith, was I trying to score points? It becomes very vauge at this point.

Well Nuttzz you would have taken the decision to bring it into the thread and so should be banned. I would never link to someones journals I would know that was asking for trouble.

You may not like my idea, but at least my way people would know where they stand.

Nuttzz

irish1 wrote:

Well Nuttzz you would have taken the decision to bring it into the thread and so should be banned. I would never link to someones journals I would know that was asking for trouble.

You may not like my idea, but at least my way people would know where they stand.

I have no problem with your idea at all, and understand your POV but were do you draw the line? What about someones blog? blogs are linked a lot in the forum with regard to Iraq etc. What about an opinion piece in the guardian or the times or the independent. I could have taken great offence to someone "reprinting" the Kevin Myres ba$tards article a couple of weeks ago.

What if I put this at the end of my post "DISCLAIMER: Information in the external links provided are strictly the opinion of the original writer and are not automatically the opinion of the creater of this post"

Minefield I tell ya's !!!!

uberwolf

Nuttzz wrote:

but were do you draw the line?

you just come back around to trusting the mods discretion, having faith in our impartiality, and reporting posts so that the mods remain fully informed with a constantly changing landscape.

Everytime someone tries something, inform us, and then we can set a precedent.

A Dub in Glasgo

The issue here is not that someone, in their opinion, thinks that other members of boards are apologists for one thing or another. The issue here is the language used to go beyond stating that the poster believes X, Y or Z is an apologist. The use of the following

What have the IRA & SF brought this island besides the above? Really? What good have they done. I sit here and I look at all the apologists for these ****ing murders and I feel sick reading each single mother****ing scumsucking line of their pathetic ****ing apologist arguments.

F*CK YOU!

You're as bad as the scum who murder, bomb, knee cap, beat to within an inch of life, terrorise, drug deal, and generally carry out all manner of criminal activities. You defend them with this sickening display of how much the sun shines out of their arseholes and how you love to lick at it on an hourly basis.

You are everything that is wrong with this country and should be ashamed to call yourselves human.

So here's the current list (in evolution - there are a few posters I'm not so sure about yet) of those who have spouted terrorist-apologising rhetoric:

is totally and utterly abusive towards the forum members listed. It goes against the ethos of boards and everything in the charter specifically

Every poster is entitled to their opinion - whether it is ill-informed or not.

Never attack a poster. Attack the content of their post. (You can tell someone that their opinion is based on incomplete or incorrect information, but do not call them an idiot.)

Guilty

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters.

Guilty

It is not about someone believing that someone else may be an apologist for something. It is about basic manners and respect. You will not find a clearer case of someone here posting who has totally ignored basic manners and respect.

Surely the charter is there to protect forum members from that type of abuse, no?

uberwolf

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Surely the charter is there to protect forum members from that type of abuse, no?

yes.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nuttzz wrote:

I have no problem with your idea at all, and understand your POV but were do you draw the line? What about someones blog? blogs are linked a lot in the forum with regard to Iraq etc. What about an opinion piece in the guardian or the times or the independent. I could have taken great offence to someone "reprinting" the Kevin Myres ba$tards article a couple of weeks ago.

What if I put this at the end of my post "DISCLAIMER: Information in the external links provided are strictly the opinion of the original writer and are not automatically the opinion of the creater of this post"

Minefield I tell ya's !!!!

If the external source was specifically created to abuse fellow forum members and you posted the link and stated that this is your opinion of the forum members, then yes you should be banned.

The gas thing is the offending post from Lemming was off-topic as well!!

cdebru

Nuttzz wrote:

grand, but lets say he (or anyone else) said in this journal that Mercury tilt is supporter of murdering terrorists and I posted a link to that, who gets banned? do i for posting the link, does he for writing it? All i'm saying is that its a minefield for the (over taxed,IMO) politics mods.

first of all it would depend on what his journal said if it was abusive about another poster
what would be the reason for you posting the link
to inform mercury tilt that could be done by PM

if the journal had a post that was revelant to the thread and did not contravene the rules on abuse or any other rule there would be no problem in posting a link in my view

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote:

Minefield I tell ya's !!!!

Nope.
I'll take action when I see abuse,like I said earlier, it wont matter, what greasy form the abuse is in, or however subtle,I'll see through it if I catch it in time or if its reported.
The other mods will aswell.
If its not abuse in our view well then thats a different matter.

I'm actually quite surprised now that this is still being discussed as its getting repetitive at this stage.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Nope.
I'll take action when I see abuse,like I said earlier, it wont matter, what greasy form the abuse is in, or however subtle,I'll see through it if I catch it in time or if its reported.
The other mods will aswell.
If its not abuse in our view well then thats a different matter.

I'm actually quite surprised now that this is still being discussed as its getting repetitive at this stage.

Pitty you weren't around 3 weeks ago earthman!

sceptre

irish1 wrote:

Pitty you weren't around 3 weeks ago earthman!

Pity you didn't click the Report This Post button three weeks ago:)

I'm done with this unless someone has actually got something to add.

Villain

sceptre wrote:

Pity you didn't click the Report This Post button three weeks ago:)

I'm done with this unless someone has actually got something to add.

Oh I'm almost certain I did, I think bonkey may agree with me, I certainly remember sending him a PM.

But hey it's happened now, so we should just move on and discuss the mad crazy world of politics, while been safely guided by our great god like mods

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Pitty you weren't around 3 weeks ago earthman!

Well in fairness to Bonkey,Swiss,Gandalf and Sceptre, the decision and action taken may well have been the same if I had been there aswell.
Bonkey has said , he cant be sure if you reported that post either,he thinks you may have, but even you are only certain that you pm'ed.

Also in relation to what you just said to Sceptre,Bonkeys version of events isnt cast iron supportive of what you are saying either.
He says he became aware of Lemmings post at a certain point.
As is often the case this may or may not have been before he may or may not have read any report on the post.
He does recall receiving a pm from you which could have been the reason why he re-opened the thread

FYI-this analysis from me comes to you from the below Quote:

bonkey wrote:

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).

jc

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Oh I'm almost certain I did, I think bonkey may agree with me, I certainly remember sending him a PM.

But hey it's happened now, so we should just move on and discuss the mad crazy world of politics, while been safely guided by our great god like mods

Just on an aside, but on topic, theres a degree of fed up ness among the "anti republican" side In this debate.

Irish1 can claim he does not support terrorism but then can spend a page demanding the release of the Mc Cabe killers.

cdebru can announce that "what other politcial party would IRA members canvas for?", and then get outraged when I suggest the implication of his statement is that IRA members are heavily active in Sinn Fein

jbkenn can state in reference to the tory party conference bombing "stoop, it was a fecking spectular" The spectular, being the exact name IRA use for a massive bomb, and when called on this fumble out a reply about not supporting terrorism but mumble something about calling any massive bombing a "spectacular" (which beggars the obvious question, how would he view the attack on fallujah?)

Which means these posters can imply support of certain aspects of terrorists organisations while decrying others. And then getting indignation when someone translates that implied support into implicit support. And demands that when someone challenges that implicit support to prove there is is definitive support.

Meanwhile theres a body of pro republican supports who will claim anything from Jean Mc Conville was a dirty tout (BCB) the Branch are intimidating SFers in free West Waterford (FTA69) and anyone who questions republicans are supporters of the murderers of Pat Finnuance (Squattalto).

While those moderates who apparently abhore tese argument, aside from some mild tutting, from the ilk of cdebru, Irish1, et all, ignore these deeply offensive attitudes, decline to really condemn them, and then ,ignore the thrust of those arguing with them while demanding the mods enforce an alledged, "anti republican bias" when a core group of posters are dancing a fine line, and call anyone who calls them on it, "anti republican"

Alot of us are fed up, and frustrated. We're upset that someone whose not set leaving cert history is trying to lecture us on the republican history of this country.

We're not as upset as the republicans. Because whats happening on boards is a reflection on which is happening in the general public, and the irish media, that alot of old excuses are not washing, and they've been scrambling to recover lost ground, punches are flying wildly and an "anti republican" sentiment is just a reflection of public sentiment at the moment. And suggesting the mods are biased is suggesting the easy defense that IRA/SF publicity are trying to play to avoid answering questions.

I've been called a few times by mods the last few weeks. And they where right debate got heated. But debate does. This whinging about bias, is bulls*it theres too many people on your side who express a viewpoint you claim to abhore, but then mildly condemen, which is kind of pathetic. Announcing that theres a bias and using one post by one person with one link which is vaguely dubious, and been corrected, reeks of deseperation .

Look debate the issues, be honest about what your position means, you can't defend republicanism, and unequivably defend terrorism, or you start picking what level of terrorism you justify.

You don't get to defend some level of terrorism or defend it all, or denouce some level or all of SF.

This grey area of defense of terrorism, and support of sinn fein, and the condemnation of terrorism, is the core of the debate. And the removal of this grey area, is the core area of the debate*

It's deeply frustrating debating this group of posters who, imply a level of support to an organisation, and then when called on specifics, get antsy.

I'm currently getting an epitphany on why we've been on cease fire for eleven years yet the IRA haven't fully disarmed.

I think the mods on politics are doing an excellent job at a difficult time, and a group of posters are arguing semantics because they release the realities are fairly undigestable for them.

*aside from the northern bank robbery, Mc Carthy, and the Mc Cabe killers.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

.

cdebru can announce that "what other politcial party would IRA members canvas for?", and then get outraged when I suggest the implication of his statement is that IRA members are heavily active in Sinn Fein

.

that is not what you said

you alledged that i said all IRA member were in sinn fein
which i did not say or imply

as was pointed out to you

mycroft

mycroft wrote:

jbkenn can state in reference to the tory party conference bombing "stoop, it was a fecking spectular" The spectular, being the exact name IRA use for a massive bomb, and when called on this fumble out a reply about not supporting terrorism but mumble something about calling any massive bombing a "spectacular" (which beggars the obvious question, how would he view the attack on fallujah?)

I am nearly certain you mean jman0 there and not jbkenn...

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

that is not what you said

you alledged that i said all IRA member were in sinn fein
which i did not say or imply

as was pointed out to you

And once again you're spliting hairs, honestly the premedicated shampoo isn't helping the splitting of hairs

You said

"They were in the IRA, what party do you expect them to canvas for"

The implication is clear and your quibbling over a turn of phrase is typical of the point I was raising getting irate over a turn of phrase rather than then actual argument.

I am nearly certain you mean jman0 there and not jbkenn...

Look if you want to share the split end shampoo with that cdebru, thats fine, any joke about slippery soap and the showers, will require you to fill out the punchline. Cause we all know all republican prisoners behaved like all priest would expect or do themselves in the shower*

* the previous joke is stupid and tasteless and should be ignored by anyone being offended by it by going "la la la, ignore the stupid man"

Which is incidently Irish1 mantra when reading an "anti repubilican" post.

billy the squid

actually jbkenn would probably be offended being attributed to those comments given that his posts tend to be very anti-IRA.

mycroft

billy the squid wrote:

actually jbkenn would probably be offended being attributed to those comments given that his posts tend to be very anti-IRA.

Then offer my apologies, and once again we're getting off point here.

Villain

MyCroft you obviously don't read the threads in politics , I have never called for the realease of the McCabe killers I have said they are entitled to it.

I'm really sick of the way people read things to suit themselves, FYI I have also always said I think the killing of Gerry McCabe was a crime.

So MyCroft maybe in future you might actually read whats posted!

Boston

irish1 wrote:

FYI I have also always said I think the killing of Gerry McCabe was a crime.

Sorry but what the ****. What would call riddling someone with bullets who was just doing his job? An act against impiriaist Ireland.

Fair place to lemming on this one. Keep up the good work.

ecksor

mycroft, was my post about staying on-topic unclear?

ecksor

irish1 wrote:

IMO you should get banned for linking to material that is in breach of the forum rules. Who ever brings it into the thread has to take responsibility for it

That may lead to situations where it works against what the forum should be about. Lemming used what he saw as a loophole to circumvent the rules, but that's not a good reason to ban what may be legitimate links.

mycroft

ecksor wrote:

mycroft, was my post about staying on-topic unclear?

Look ecksor I'm sorry but

MyCroft you obviously don't read the threads in politics , I have never called for the realease of the McCabe killers I have said they are entitled to it.

It's this staggering degree of two facedness that is bugging me.

The mods in politics have a tough enough time without someone who's "never" "calling for" the release of the Mc Cabe killers, but in their own words does not mean they belief the murderers are "entitled" to this.

I mean serious issue arise here. My point was the mods are hard pressed trying to deal with the issues and have to deal with someone who "never calls for" the release of the mc cabe killers. kust that they are "entitled" to it, and then says they don't support terrorism. Makes moding very hard.

I just am sympathising with the mods of politics. Its worth mentioning that no repubulcian has answered the core point of my debate.

The Mods have got enough hassle n grief on their plates from a group who seem happy to fog and grey the terms of "republicanism" when the clear defintion of the terms of republicanism means they'll have to answer some of the less digesitable aspects of their beliefs. When they'll have to defend the less defensible, the punishment beatings, the sucides in the ardyone, the alledged murder of Mc Carthy/ the IRA bank robbery; the point is the defendes of this awkward and less PR friendly aspect of IRA behaviour.

And it is ignored.

The Pro Sinn Fein lobby accuse the mods of having a clear anti republican attitude. Frankly of they did they'd not have banned squaltto cause he was doing more damage to you than any of us. The mods are fair, doing a difficult job and don't respect the paradox of your worldview that you won't acknowledge, but at the same time allow you to speak. They're doing a good job. Arguing that they betray a "anti republican bias", when you and others like the murky the waters about what it means to be a irish republican, because it allows you defend a certain kind of activity while avoiding blame for another is sickening. And blaming mods for a bias in an area you're happy to murky the waters in what it means to be a republican is a joke.

A Dub in Glasgo

mycroft

You seem to be confusing freedom of speech with the agreement to abuse other boards users. Which is it? It appears to me that everything you have posted in this thread relates to how pissed off and fed up your are with some boards posters freedom of speech and nothing to do with the abuse some posters take for that freedom of speech. Strange one that.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

ecksor

Agreed.

The bits I understand are complete nonsense, and the other bits are ... Well, a different sort of nonsense I suppose. Hey, I guess I'm biased.

mycroft banned from Feedback.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

swiss

Having been a Politics mod at the time of this incident I do indeed remember the specific post. My initial reaction was that it was an admin issue, for the very same reason that I would consider abusive signatures to be an admin issue. In retrospect it may have been more appropriate to treat it as an external link, since it was posted as a direct link in the post. I left the post for some time, because to be frank I was quite busy with other committments and had not the time to deal with it. When I returned to it later I noticed that bonkey had issued a blanket warning regarding the kinds of posts that we had been witnessing on that thread and indeed in the wider context of the politics board, a decision with which I was happy to abide.

Retrospecively, people have been calling for the post to be edited, for Lemming to be banned, and I would agree that he crossed the line. However, he had found an interesting way of crossing that line, since he had posted to a journal - which are generally allowed to have much more latitude than a post (an ethos with which I would agree) - and had linked from that journal. Thus the issue of banning or censuring him was not as cut and dried as people might have liked. DeVore raised some of the issues regarding such an approach. Do we also ban links to external websites? To other journals (not belonging to the original poster)? To other posts on the board? Where do we draw that line?

In any case, the specific post was merely symptomatic of a deeper issue which I felt was the manner in which posters had become very adept at skirting around the particulars of ban worthy material without compromising on the sentiments which would have led to such a ban. Additionally, the manner in which people responded to such sentiments were in many cases inappropriate themselves, and almost inevitably led to friction. It polarised the board, and made it much more difficult for us as moderators to take action without accusations of bias.

Sleepy

mycroft wrote:

Just on an aside, but on topic, theres a degree of fed up ness among the "anti republican" side In this debate.

Irish1 can claim he does not support terrorism but then can spend a page demanding the release of the Mc Cabe killers.

cdebru can announce that "what other politcial party would IRA members canvas for?", and then get outraged when I suggest the implication of his statement is that IRA members are heavily active in Sinn Fein

jbkenn can state in reference to the tory party conference bombing "stoop, it was a fecking spectular" The spectular, being the exact name IRA use for a massive bomb, and when called on this fumble out a reply about not supporting terrorism but mumble something about calling any massive bombing a "spectacular" (which beggars the obvious question, how would he view the attack on fallujah?)

Which means these posters can imply support of certain aspects of terrorists organisations while decrying others. And then getting indignation when someone translates that implied support into implicit support. And demands that when someone challenges that implicit support to prove there is is definitive support.

Meanwhile theres a body of pro republican supports who will claim anything from Jean Mc Conville was a dirty tout (BCB) the Branch are intimidating SFers in free West Waterford (FTA69) and anyone who questions republicans are supporters of the murderers of Pat Finnuance (Squattalto).

While those moderates who apparently abhore tese argument, aside from some mild tutting, from the ilk of cdebru, Irish1, et all, ignore these deeply offensive attitudes, decline to really condemn them, and then ,ignore the thrust of those arguing with them while demanding the mods enforce an alledged, "anti republican bias" when a core group of posters are dancing a fine line, and call anyone who calls them on it, "anti republican"

Alot of us are fed up, and frustrated. We're upset that someone whose not set leaving cert history is trying to lecture us on the republican history of this country.

We're not as upset as the republicans. Because whats happening on boards is a reflection on which is happening in the general public, and the irish media, that alot of old excuses are not washing, and they've been scrambling to recover lost ground, punches are flying wildly and an "anti republican" sentiment is just a reflection of public sentiment at the moment. And suggesting the mods are biased is suggesting the easy defense that IRA/SF publicity are trying to play to avoid answering questions.

I've been called a few times by mods the last few weeks. And they where right debate got heated. But debate does. This whinging about bias, is bulls*it theres too many people on your side who express a viewpoint you claim to abhore, but then mildly condemen, which is kind of pathetic. Announcing that theres a bias and using one post by one person with one link which is vaguely dubious, and been corrected, reeks of deseperation .

Look debate the issues, be honest about what your position means, you can't defend republicanism, and unequivably defend terrorism, or you start picking what level of terrorism you justify.

You don't get to defend some level of terrorism or defend it all, or denouce some level or all of SF.

This grey area of defense of terrorism, and support of sinn fein, and the condemnation of terrorism, is the core of the debate. And the removal of this grey area, is the core area of the debate*

It's deeply frustrating debating this group of posters who, imply a level of support to an organisation, and then when called on specifics, get antsy.

I'm currently getting an epitphany on why we've been on cease fire for eleven years yet the IRA haven't fully disarmed.

I think the mods on politics are doing an excellent job at a difficult time, and a group of posters are arguing semantics because they release the realities are fairly undigestable for them.

*aside from the northern bank robbery, Mc Carthy, and the Mc Cabe killers.

I'd fully agree with that.

ecksor

Would either sleepy or irish1 care to explain how this remains on topic?