A discussion on the rules.

hotfoot

Manco wrote: »

Well said. Anti traveller bigotry is absolutely rife, with anyone who challenges the consensus getting shouted down.

There are more bad comments and bigotry against travellers, it seems more acceptable than any other ethnic group or nationality.

Got a question to criticise a race is it considered racism ?

hotfoot

There was mention in a mod post earlier that if Administration interferred with mods there would be a strike .
What a senario how would the mods exist without their ban button . Looking at the threads with no control just decending into chaos or so they would want us to believe .Could you live without your ban button ?

Scofflaw

hotfoot wrote: »

There are more bad comments and bigotry against travellers, it seems more acceptable than any other ethnic group or nationality.

Got a question to criticise a race is it considered racism ?

Well, yes.

hotfoot wrote:

There was mention in a mod post earlier that if Administration interferred with mods there would be a strike .
What a senario how would the mods exist without their ban button . Looking at the threads with no control just decending into chaos or so they would want us to believe .Could you live without your ban button ?

Gosh? Give up putting in free effort to keep the place reasonably civil and posters on topic for the good of all? Whatever would I do?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

hotfoot wrote: »

There was mention in a mod post earlier that if Administration interferred with mods there would be a strike .
What a senario how would the mods exist without their ban button . Looking at the threads with no control just decending into chaos or so they would want us to believe .Could you live without your ban button ?

It's evidently easier to live without the ban hammer than it is to not re-register just one more time...

johnlaw

Aside from all the ballyhoo about FF and FG . I have the impression that looking at heated posts on the Politics forum there is a bias twords fanatic left .I suspect cetain posters are in some kind of league with the mods and get away with trolling.

Black Swan

johnlaw wrote: »

Aside from all the ballyhoo about FF and FG . I have the impression that looking at heated posts on the Politics forum there is a bias twords fanatic left .I suspect cetain posters are in some kind of league with the mods and get away with trolling.

Since we are sharing a post in the Discussion on the Rules thread, what are your thoughts on the following rules found in the Politics charter, FAQ, and boards.ie Terms of Use given that you have recently re-registered also as hbilly, hbilly1, and hbilly2?

Dr Galen wrote: »

6. Duplicate Accounts

Any user suspected by the moderators of using a duplicate account on politics will have the duplicate account(s) and their original account banned permanently from the forum. The moderators may also petition the admins to ban the duplicate accounts and original account from boards permanently as well.

From boards.ie FAQ:

Duplicate accounts are not permitted

From boards.ie Terms of Use:

You will not create more than one personal profile.

K-9

I don't get this left wing bias thing, there's a good few more right wing posters about to balance things out.

johnlaw

Black Swan wrote: »

Since we are sharing a post in the Discussion on the Rules thread, what are your thoughts on the following rules found in the Politics charter, FAQ, and boards.ie Terms of Use given that you have recently re-registered also as hbilly, hbilly1, and hbilly2?


From boards.ie FAQ:



From boards.ie Terms of Use:

Just to set the record straight hbilly was banned because scofflaw thought it was a re reg of hotbabe1992 who got banned .
hbilly1 and 2 were set up to respond as it was the only way to do so.
I had difficulty registering hbilly1 and 2 and never used them .Thses accounts are CLOSED.
johnlaw is the new and only account .

johnlaw

K-9 wrote: »

I don't get this left wing bias thing, there's a good few more right wing posters about to balance things out.

They seem in short supply here because they have been banned no doubt .

oscarBravo

johnlaw wrote: »

hbilly1 and 2 were set up to respond as it was the only way to do so.

Actually, there was a way to do so: the Prison forum, where you posted:

hbilly wrote: »

You obviously do not care , Shove it up your hole in that case .I will just re reg see you around.

RDM_83 again

K-9 wrote: »

I don't get this left wing bias thing, there's a good few more right wing posters about to balance things out.

I would presume what is meant by left wing bias, is that taking a political compass style view of political opinion the defacto viewpoint would be very much "liberal" whether right or left.

As an aside and I know this shouldn't matter but has there ever been a mod in politics that would self identify as a SF supporter, it seems like its the one viewpoint thats never been represented on the moderation team even though it represents in the region of 1 in 5 of the voting population (and probably higher for here considering boards.ie represents a disproportionately younger population).
There has been some pretty clearly anti SF/Republican mods in the past so it would add some balance.

nesf

I don't remember there ever being a FF supporting mod either to be fair.

oscarBravo

I can remember a moderator who was (IIRC) a member of Fianna Fáil (or at least Ógra), and I'm pretty sure at least one of the current mods has republican sympathies.

Not, as you say, that it matters.

RDM_83 again

nesf wrote: »

I don't remember there ever being a FF supporting mod either to be fair.

I am fairly certain there have been, in fact I have a feeling there was a mod in the 2009-2010 time frame that had to be removed who was a FF supporter.

RDM_83 again

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can remember a moderator who was (IIRC) a member of Fianna Fáil (or at least Ógra), and I'm pretty sure at least one of the current mods has republican sympathies.

Not, as you say, that it matters.

Really from a brief glance I don;t have a clue who that could be?

bluewolf - No
K-9 - No
Lockstep - No
sceptre - No
Scofflaw -No

Black Swan - Potentially but if he/she is they keep extremely quiet about it, so much so that since my curiosity was aroused literally no relevant results came up with the keywords "Adams" "Gerry" "Sinn Fein" " "IRA" "good friday", which is pretty impossible if one has an active interest in republican politics. So I would go for a No there too.

Apologies if I am misrepresenting mods views but I don't think I am and its a significant absence of view considering there have been a few mods quite hostile to SF but never a counter balance.

Black Swan

johnlaw wrote: »

Just to set the record straight hbilly was banned... hbilly1 and 2 were set up to respond as it was the only way to do so.

Once again, this is not correct, and you knew you had an opportunity to appeal the ban decision when you replied in prison using hbilly:

UP YOUR ****IN ARSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with ban

Re reg time again ha ha ha

johnlaw wrote: »

I had difficulty registering hbilly1 and 2 and never used them .Thses accounts are CLOSED. johnlaw is the new and only account .

Once again this is incorrect. Although you have yet to use them, both hbilly1 and hbilly 2 were not CLOSED by you, consequently you have re-reg'd 4 different accounts/profiles, which is against Politics charter, boards.ie FAQ, and Terms of Use.

Furthermore, before you closed hbilly, that account had been permanently site banned by Admin. You have since re-registered as johnlaw to circumvent the site ban of the hbilly account.

EDIT: johnlaw perm site banned by Admin.

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Really from a brief glance I don;t have a clue who that could be?

bluewolf - No
K-9 - No
Lockstep - No
sceptre - No
Scofflaw -No

Black Swan - Potentially but if he/she is they keep extremely quiet about it, so much so that since my curiosity was aroused literally no relevant results came up with the keywords "Adams" "Gerry" "Sinn Fein" " "IRA" "good friday", which is pretty impossible if one has an active interest in republican politics. So I would go for a No there too.

Apologies if I am misrepresenting mods views but I don't think I am and its a significant absence of view considering there have been a few mods quite hostile to SF but never a counter balance.

At the moment I'm not sure there are any strong anti-SF mods to be balanced. In general, the problem would seem to me to be that supporting republicanism isn't as a rule quite the same as supporting one of the 'mainstream' parties - the level of dedication has tended to be higher. There are people I can think of who are as dedicated in their support for FF or another such as most republicans, but they're few enough, and I wouldn't be happy to see them modding politics.

Conversely, I can think of at least one republican poster who I'd be happy to see as a mod, but they're again few enough. I don't think that's because of bias on my part, because I don't have (and find weird, tbh) the visceral anti-SF thing that is a definite part of Irish politics. As far as I'm concerned it's because serious republicanism is a political position which still requires constant defence against media and public prejudice, and that in turn requires a mindset which is not conducive to modding.

The only way having a pro-republican mod is meaningful is if they exercise their sympathies in favour of the republican posters here, and that in turn is only a positive thing if republican posters are somehow being unfairly treated and preferentially repressed by the current mod team. I don't see that as being the case, but I can see that some republican posters would see it as being the case - which, in turn, is exactly why most republican posters would make unacceptable mods for Politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I am fairly certain there have been, in fact I have a feeling there was a mod in the 2009-2010 time frame that had to be removed who was a FF supporter.

I remember one moderator from another forum who was openly an Ógra member. I don't remember a Politics Mod being one. My memory could be failing me though to be fair (which would be quite on-topic with this post ).

Crooked Jack

So i take it this disgusting "northern" Ireland page is here to stay in the politics forum then? Yeah, shove all the nordies (even though half of the threads in it, if not more, are all Ireland issues) into a corner so we can deal with proper "Irish" politics. Issues that affect the whole island, like the Donegal council budgetary problems, or the split within huge national movements such as, eh, direct democracy.....

nesf

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So i take it this disgusting "northern" Ireland page is here to stay in the politics forum then? Yeah, shove all the nordies (even though half of the threads in it, if not more, are all Ireland issues) into a corner so we can deal with proper "Irish" politics. Issues that affect the whole island, like the Donegal council budgetary problems, or the split within huge national movements such as, eh, direct democracy.....

Irish Economy existing as a sub-forum doesn't mean anyone thinks Irish politico-economic issues are not Irish. The existence of a sub-forum says nothing either way about whether Northern Ireland Politics are Irish or not.

K-9

Crooked Jack wrote: »

So i take it this disgusting "northern" Ireland page is here to stay in the politics forum then? Yeah, shove all the nordies (even though half of the threads in it, if not more, are all Ireland issues) into a corner so we can deal with proper "Irish" politics. Issues that affect the whole island, like the Donegal council budgetary problems, or the split within huge national movements such as, eh, direct democracy.....

The Donegal Council budget thread had a wider political impact, how the thread developed showed it's a wider political issue, indeed something that needed to be brought to wider attention IMO.

On Direct Democracy, how many posters often call for an alternative to FF/FG/Labour/SF? It's a very common post in politics, people are interested in alternatives like them and the Reform Alliance. Both aren't my cup of tea either, but plenty of people are interested in discussing them.

I'd no problem with a N.I. dedicated sub forum but I'd have voiced concerns that the main politics boards might have suffered with the creation of it. Have to say I'm happy enough with how it's going atm.

oscarBravo

Crooked Jack wrote: »

..."northern" Ireland...

Why the danger quotes?

Tramps Like Us

I dont mind the separate forum as a matter of principal but it seems it has preformed its function which is much reduced discussion on northern issues.

People were getting their knickers in a twist over the first page of the main forum having threads which dealt with important all Ireland issues

Sand

I think the forum has been broadly successful though I say that as someone who preferred a separate NI forum for quite a while. I don't see that its reduced activity by posters who enjoy the NI "discussions" but it has consolidated it. It has also allowed the green shoots of non-NI focused topics to emerge on page 1 of the forum which is no bad thing.
A sub forum for a popular topic also perhaps allows for slightly different moderation approaches or policies to topics in it. Everyone wins. One thing Id recommend is a stronger stance on off-topic posting to combat "whataboutery" which is a fairly common issue with NI topics.

RDM_83 again

It would be nice if there was some consistency applied in relation to the idea that

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Cut out the pointless one liners please. Try and make some sort of point, and semblance at adding to the discussion before posting, thank you.

This is an actual rule because its weakened when posts like this are allowed to stand.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

The morons

Or is there only a problem with one-liners and pointless posting if a poster with the opposing viewpoint actually bites and starts replying?

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It would be nice if there was some consistency applied in relation to the idea that



This is an actual rule because its weakened when posts like this are allowed to stand.



Or is there only a problem with one-liners and pointless posting if a poster with the opposing viewpoint actually bites and starts replying?

There's an element of that, certainly. We don't have a universal blanket proscription that means you absolutely must write more than one line, and there are plenty of pithy and witty one-liners which add to discussion.

Plus, of course, it's always possible that nobody has reported the post in question, which suggests a one-liner people consider constructive or at least inoffensive. Nobody seems to have taken up Redzer's post, so it doesn't really seem worth penalising without a report - had someone reported it at the time, I would have penalised or at least deleted it.

In an ideal world, mods are unnecessary - nobody feeds the trolls, the loonies stay away, anyone being rude is immediately frowned down rather than responded to in kind, while the hard of thinking are helped through their difficulties by kindly hands. Obviously the real world isn't quite like that, but we do try not to interfere if things are going reasonably smoothly - we're aware that, over-used, modding has a chilling effect.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It would be nice if there was some consistency applied in relation to the idea that



This is an actual rule because its weakened when posts like this are allowed to stand.

The warning was to nip in the bud a sniping contest developing, derailing the thread. N.I. threads tend to escalate quickly that way.

Or is there only a problem with one-liners and pointless posting if a poster with the opposing viewpoint actually bites and starts replying?

Sometimes a one liner has a valid point, sometimes little or nothing of value, I'd say that one falls under the latter category. I'd agree with scofflaw, I prefer to see users ignore one liners like that, less waste of mods and more importantly, users time.

Nodin

I was under the impression that conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and/or pederasty was a "no go"......

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I was under the impression that conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and/or pederasty was a "no go"......

Sometimes it better to argue and debate a point than just ban it. If a poster keeps repeating something without providing any back up, then we are into soapbox territory.

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

I was under the impression that conflation of homosexuality with paedophilia and/or pederasty was a "no go"......

Not quite - the idea of a 'no-go' area on a discussion forum is a bit tricky. Our position is that we don't wish to give anyone a "platform for dissemination" of such views (or any views, really). As K-9 says, what that means is that soapboxing is out.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

....just strikes me as a bit odd that in this day and age we have to have the 'gays are ordinary people too' argument again.


And I also don't see why adoption has to get dragged into it, seeing as that's going to happen one way or the other.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

....just strikes me as a bit odd that in this day and age we have to have the 'gays are ordinary people too' argument again.

Why there are clearly people out there who don't think this. Sure they're wrong but just politely rip their argument to pieces and it'll do more to influence "on the fence" readers than a mod banning the poster. A lot more, the mod banning makes it look like a viewpoint is being suppressed which fits perfectly for any conspiracy minded people.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Why there are clearly people out there who don't think this. Sure they're wrong but just politely rip their argument to pieces and it'll do more to influence "on the fence" readers than a mod banning the poster. A lot more, the mod banning makes it look like a viewpoint is being suppressed which fits perfectly for any conspiracy minded people.

...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.

There's a danger in threads like gay marriage that if we banned arguments like the above, we'd have maybe 7/8 posters pro gay marriage backing each other up and thanking each others posts, basically talking to themselves! That doesn't look good either.

Sometimes it is best to let the community of posters tear an opinion apart.

Soap boxing we can do something about, posting opinions with little or no back up, seagull type posters, that's stuff we can act on.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

...I suppose. My patience with it is limited, as is no doubt obvious. In particular the 'homosexuality = paedophillia' line - even in my less enlightened youth I'd no time for that one.

The problem is when the person is challenged to provide any evidence of that and they evade and dodge this whilst repeating the claim. This is where you want the mod to get involved. But if that person shuts up after being shown what they thought was evidence actually was just made up bull****, then this is a good thing no? Or (on a different topic) they show you that, actually there is a limited problem with something that you initially rejected out of hand because you assumed it was the standard "anti-liberal hating group X" stuff.

Debate and opposing viewpoints are good. What we don't want is just two sides screaming abuse at each other and refusing to even consider the existence of any middle ground.

Manach

nesf wrote: »

Debate and opposing viewpoints are good. What we don't want is just two sides screaming abuse at each other and refusing to even consider the existence of any middle ground.

That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.

K-9

Manach wrote: »

That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.

Some people look at political and social topics in a very black and white way. A moral absolutist will never see any leeway or middle ground.

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

Some people look at political and social topics in a very black and white way. A moral absolutist will never see any leeway or middle ground.

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because God says it's wrong" is a black and white argument that I would disagree with, but accept someone's right to express.

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's a sneaky plot by pederasts" is pretty much just defamatory (perhaps not strictly in the legal sense, but certainly in the broader sense of the word).

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because God says it's wrong" is a black and white argument that I would disagree with, but accept someone's right to express.

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because it's a sneaky plot by pederasts" is pretty much just defamatory (perhaps not strictly in the legal sense, but certainly in the broader sense of the word).

The first belief is because they read it in the bible, or the local curate or whatever said it.

I'd class the second as similar to xenophobic. It's a fear of homosexuals, akin to a fear of foreigners.

nesf

Manach wrote: »

That presumes that such a middle ground exists - argumentum ad temperantiam; In some social issues it is fairly binary, where no leeway exists in the opposing positions.

It doesn't presume this. To consider the existence of something is not to assume it, presume it or propose it only to take a look to see if it does or not. Whilst we do have topics where argumentum ad temperantiam does apply we have many many cases of false dilemmas and excluded middles in social issues.

bobcoffee

so gay bashing, is best left to the community as it is easily solved with simple logic.
if someone lolz.. it gets the mods attention.
very interesting indeed :P

Nodin

It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise. Yet countless posts are wasted arguing this again and again, often multible times in the same thread. I would suggest that this be put in the charter much like the Dublin regulation.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise. Yet countless posts are wasted arguing this again and again, often multible times in the same thread. I would suggest that this be put in the charter much like the Dublin regulation.

shouldn't that be Irish citizen that satisfies the habitual residency requirements?

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

shouldn't that be Irish citizen that satisfies the habitual residency requirements?

?

RDM_83 again

Because

EU rules prevent discrimination on nationality grounds in relation to social security, so it is not possible to exempt a particular category of Irish citizens (such as returning Irish emigrants) from the habitual residence condition (either in general or for Carer’s Allowance) without extending the same treatment to all EU nationals

If you are Irish citizen you have to demonstrate you satisfy the habitual residency requirements. Therefore its factually incorrect to say that

Nodin wrote: »

It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise.

What is correct is that one cannot arrive to the ROI and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen that is satisfies the habitual residency requirements which is a rather different thing.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_assistance_payments/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.html

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Because



If you are Irish citizen you have to demonstrate you satisfy the habitual residency requirements. Therefore its factually incorrect to say that



What is correct is that one cannot arrive to the ROI and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen that is satisfies the habitual residency requirements which is a rather different thing.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_assistance_payments/residency_requirements_for_social_assistance_in_ireland.html

I've no idea what you're on about. The fact is that somebody from Poland or wherever cannot arrive here and sign on.

RDM_83 again

Nodin wrote: »

I've no idea what you're on about. The fact is that somebody from Poland or wherever cannot arrive here and sign on.

Yes but you request was for

Nodin wrote: »

It is a fact that one cannot arrive here and claim the same benefits as an Irish citizen, regardless of whether the individual is from the EU or otherwise.

The EU laws mean that its not citizenship thats the requirement its residency/association with the country.
And if an edited rule is added, something like this

"Accessing benefits requires evidence of PRSI contributions and/or habitual residency, one can not simply arrive and claim benefits"

Are the exceptions to this rule going to be noted which are AFAIK supplementary welfare allowance,some family benefits and possibly some HSE based payments

Nodin

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yes but you request was for



The EU laws mean that its not citizenship thats the requirement its residency/association with the country.
And if an edited rule is added, something like this

"Accessing benefits requires evidence of PRSI contributions and/or habitual residency, one can not simply arrive and claim benefits"

Are the exceptions to this rule going to be noted which are AFAIK supplementary welfare allowance,some family benefits and possibly some HSE based payments

Supplementary welfare allowance has a habitual residence test.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/supplementary_welfare_allow.html

There is no basis for the notion that people can arrive and claim.

Scofflaw

Not really the place for this discussion...

moderately,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

Not really the place for this discussion...

moderately,
Scofflaw

Its not a discussion I'm remotely interested in having.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90019733&postcount=1243