A discussion on the rules.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

others have opinions on people based on evidence and they aren't allowed to post them, that is the discussion here.

I saw no evidence to support the claims made in the pulled posts.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

We all know that Adams was in the IRA. He's never been proven to have been so, just as Jimmy Saville was never proven to have been guilty of any crime, but we can all apply rudimentary critical faculties to form a conclusion outside a court of law - based on the evidence.

I'm sure Gerry's current problems regarding his past don't play any role in this whole bunfight, but a dose of honesty about the ample evidence of his membership wouldn't go amiss alongside the rush to 'lack of proof'.

Saville is dead and as I'm sure you are aware you can't defame the dead, we don't ALL know he was, I don't know he was.

I saw no evidence to support the claims made in the pulled posts.

I'm not talking any one case here, I'm talking in general, hundreds of posts have been deleted or people banned over the past years because an opinion on someone was given which couldn't be proven.

The FACTS are you can't prove Adams was a member yet you allowed to post that here without any actions been taken by mods, the same doesn't go for other people.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

Saville is dead and as I'm sure you are aware you can't defame the dead, we don't ALL know he was, I don't know he was..

Who mentioned defamation? I can't say I buy your pitch on Adams.

Villain wrote: »

I'm not talking any one case here, I'm talking in general, hundreds of posts have been deleted or people banned over the past years because an opinion on someone was given which couldn't be proven.

The FACTS are you can't prove Adams was a member yet you allowed to post that here without any actions been taken by mods, the same doesn't go for other people.

Proof isn't the issue - proof, in this context, is a legal term. Adams, himself, could come out today and admit his membership of the IRA, and it still wouldn't be proven. The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.

The problem is who decides that the evidence is 'ample'?
In this case the 'ample' evidence isn't 'ample' as there is no conviction.

It's a subjective assessment all day long.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The problem is who decides that the evidence is 'ample'?
In this case the 'ample' evidence isn't 'ample' as there is no conviction.

It's a subjective assessment all day long.

I don't see any problem - people make assessments every day - the legal system - which defines proof, requires juries and judges to make subjective assessments 'all day long'. You weigh up the evidence and form conclusions from the same. There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA.

Tramps Like Us

Why waste time talking to someone whose opinion is irrelevant - I thought this thread was to discuss things with the moderators. When K9 and others have discussed this in their bat cave and reached a position I'd appreciate a response to my post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90078600&postcount=1274

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I don't see any problem - people make assessments every day - the legal system - which defines proof requires juries and judges to make subjective assessments 'all day long'. You weigh up the evidence and form conclusions from the same. There's ample evidence that Adams was in the IRA.

This isn't a courtroom or the legal system.

There is 'ample' evidence available for most things if you have a bias or prejudice.

And Tramps is correct, a mod needs to clearly say what is allowed and what isn't.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

Who mentioned defamation? I can't say I buy your pitch on Adams.



Proof isn't the issue - proof, in this context, is a legal term. Adams, himself, could come out today and admit his membership of the IRA, and it still wouldn't be proven. The FACTS are that there's ample evidence to show that Adams was a member of the IRA - as I've already laid out.

You are missing the point here, it doesn't matter you believe or what evidence you believe, it is not a fact.

The discussion here is on the rules and the rules as they are being implemented shows that you can say what you like about some people but not about others.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

This isn't a courtroom or the legal system.

Glad that's finally sinking in.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There is 'ample' evidence available for most things if you have a bias or prejudice.

Not so. The evidence exists, independent of any bias.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

You are missing the point here, it doesn't matter you believe or what evidence you believe, it is not a fact.

Oh, but it is.

Villain wrote: »

The discussion here is on the rules and the rules as they are being implemented shows that you can say what you like about some people but not about others.

...based on the evidence presented - as it should be.

K-9

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Why waste time talking to someone whose opinion is irrelevant - I thought this thread was to discuss things with the moderators. When K9 and others have discussed this in their bat cave and reached a position I'd appreciate a response to my post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90078600&postcount=1274

I had heard of Mansfield, wouldn't have thought he was that widely known as IIRC he was, ironically, well known for being very private and shunned the public eye.

As for restoring the posts, as I said before I think it was the fair thing to do after getting a reported post and looking at the 7 or so posts that were deleted. Nothing to with defamation lads, as I said, others brought that up and ye all ran with it.

I don't have a problem with you posting Mansfields denial of rumours that circulated, if you'd posted something like that in the first place, I wouldn't have seen any problem.

I don't see why I should reinstate the posts, the posts were deleted, I stated why and asked posters to pm me, you didn't and posted on thread instead (usually means a card or ban), I linked to this thread, you posted, I asked for links, you gave them to me, I replied saying that would have been fine, yet here we still are. That's what happened, I've been fair with you. There is nothing stopping you posting the post with links on the thread and carrying on from there. Indeed another poster did provide links shortly after my warning.

As for double standards about deceased people, I don't think posting something like you did originally, basically rumours is fair, at least provide some sort of link. I just don't see Mansfield as directly comparable to Haughey, we've had Tribunals and numerous books published about him so I'm not seeing how they can be directly linked.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Glad that's finally sinking in.


Not so. The evidence exists, independent of any bias.

'Ample' evidence existed in this case too, but attracted a mod warning.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89964790

Again...why is your 'ample' evidence (not even tested in a court) enough to allow you to get away without a mod intervention?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Ample' evidence existed in this case too, but attracted a mod warning.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89964790

I couldn't comment - there's no evidence, or post for that matter, presented.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Again...why is your 'ample' evidence (not even tested in a court) enough to allow you to get away without a mod intervention?

Didn't you say - "This isn't a courtroom or the legal system."? The evidence is, as presented, sufficient to determine that Adams was in the IRA.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

I couldn't comment - there's no evidence, or post for that matter, presented.


Didn't you say - "This isn't a courtroom or the legal system."? The evidence is, as presented, sufficient to determine that Adams was in the IRA.

No it isn't a court room, so what you are referring to as 'legal evidence' is in FACT 'hearsay', as it cannot be tested or validated, except by your subjective opinion.

Nodin

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.

Don't suppose anyone looked at this in the Bat cave.....?

Villain

K-9 wrote: »

As for double standards about deceased people, I don't think posting something like you did originally, basically rumours is fair, at least provide some sort of link. I just don't see Mansfield as directly comparable to Haughey, we've had Tribunals and numerous books published about him so I'm not seeing how they can be directly linked.

Are you going to answer why people are allowed accuse Adams of lying but not others?

Villain

alastair wrote: »

Oh, but it is.

No it isn't and if you can't accept that then there is no point discussing it any further.

The man has denied it and no-one has proven he was, some say he was but no-one has proven it thus you are calling the man a liar, something which usually results in a ban around here but the mods seem to think otherwise when it comes to Adams!

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

No it isn't a court room, so what you are referring to as 'legal evidence' is in FACT 'hearsay', as it cannot be tested or validated, except by your subjective opinion.

It was legal evidence in a court presentation. That's the context of that evidence. I don't recall claiming that the forum had any legal aspect.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

No it isn't and if you can't accept that then there is no point discussing it any further.

The man has denied it and no-one has proven he was, some say he was but no-one has proven it thus you are calling the man a liar, something which usually results in a ban around here but the mods seem to think otherwise when it comes to Adams!

Again legal proof, and the facts of the matter are not one and the same thing. Is it a fact that ample, and varied, evidence demonstrates that Adams was in the IRA? Of course it is.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It was legal evidence in a court presentation. That's the context of that evidence. I don't recall claiming that the forum had any legal aspect.

Why are you using the word 'legal' in front of 'evidence' do you think it gives weight to what you are saying. What does that mean?

Evidence is presented at any trial, whether the defendant is guilty or not. That doesn't make it a fact. Yet in relation to some people it is allowed to be used as a fact on here.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why are you using the word 'legal' in front of 'evidence' do you think it gives weight to what you are saying.

It provides context. Legal evidence presented in court has rather more weight than bar room gossip - it's subject to review and interrogation.

But you don't like the evidence - I get it. It's still out there though - whether you like it or not.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

It provides context. Legal evidence presented in court has rather more weight than bar room gossip - it's subject to review and interrogation.

LOL now thats a good one, if under Oath someone says something then it is a fact and true??

How does that work if a person is charged with Murder and a witness takes the stand and gives evidence that they did it but then the accused is not convicted by a jury but found innocent, does that mean you can come on here and say they are a murderer?

alastair

Villain wrote: »

LOL now thats a good one, if under Oath someone says something then it is a fact and true??

More straw man arguments? :rolleyes:

Villain

alastair wrote: »

More straw man arguments? :rolleyes:

No rationalize what you are saying, legal evidence carries weight whether it's proven or not and allows you claim it as true, unless you think that only applies to Adams??

Tramps Like Us

K-9 wrote: »

I had heard of Mansfield, wouldn't have thought he was that widely known as IIRC he was, ironically, well known for being very private and shunned the public eye.

As for restoring the posts, as I said before I think it was the fair thing to do after getting a reported post and looking at the 7 or so posts that were deleted. Nothing to with defamation lads, as I said, others brought that up and ye all ran with it.

I don't have a problem with you posting Mansfields denial of rumours that circulated, if you'd posted something like that in the first place, I wouldn't have seen any problem.

I don't see why I should reinstate the posts, the posts were deleted, I stated why and asked posters to pm me, you didn't and posted on thread instead (usually means a card or ban), I linked to this thread, you posted, I asked for links, you gave them to me, I replied saying that would have been fine, yet here we still are. That's what happened, I've been fair with you. There is nothing stopping you posting the post with links on the thread and carrying on from there. Indeed another poster did provide links shortly after my warning.

As for double standards about deceased people, I don't think posting something like you did originally, basically rumours is fair, at least provide some sort of link. I just don't see Mansfield as directly comparable to Haughey, we've had Tribunals and numerous books published about him so I'm not seeing how they can be directly linked.

So I can post the stuff I did again but just say that he had denied it?

What does the deceased Mansfield enjoy such a privileged position? He mightn't be directly comparable to Haughey but he is directly comparable to his mate Larry Goodman.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

No rationalize what you are saying, legal evidence carries weight whether it's proven or not and allows you claim it as true, unless you think that only applies to Adams??

The weight of the various, discreet, evidence is what highlights Adams' membership. Clearly evidence, presented in court, under the spotlight of review and interrogation, carries more weight than simple gossip.

Now - all the rest is your own strawman construct - as indicated. Your 'rationalisation' is your own flight of fancy.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It provides context. Legal evidence presented in court has rather more weight than bar room gossip - it's subject to review and interrogation.

But you don't like the evidence - I get it. It's still out there though - whether you like it or not.

So if 'evidence' is presented in a court that somebody is a pedophile it is ok to call them that on Boards?

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The weight of the various, discreet, evidence is what highlights Adams' membership..

The 'weight' given to it by you.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

The weight of the various, discreet, evidence is what highlights Adams' membership. Clearly evidence, presented in court, under the spotlight of review and interrogation, carries more weight than simple gossip.

Now - all the rest is your own strawman construct - as indicated. Your 'rationalisation' is your own flight of fancy.

No in your opinion it is a stawman construct, you can't apply your analogy to some cases and not others.

You seem blinded by a preconceived notion of Adams and unable to see the larger point.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So if 'evidence' is presented in a court that somebody is a pedophile it is ok to call them that on Boards?

If there's photographic evidence of them engaged in paedophilic activity, and multiple other witnesses to their paedophilic activity make statements to that effect, and various governments are confident enough of their culpability to name them as paedophiles, then yes - it would be fine to call them such on Boards.

Note that far less evidence is applicable to Jimmy Saville - regularly referenced as a paedophile, here and elsewhere.

alastair

Villain wrote: »

No in your opinion it is a stawman construct, you can't apply your analogy to some cases and not others.

Yes - in my opinion, and on the basis of the universally understood meaning of the term. I'm entirely consistent in applying a need for evidence to support a claim.

Villain wrote: »

You seem blinded by a preconceived notion of Adams and unable to see the larger point.

'Fraid not.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

The 'weight' given to it by you.

And everyone else who's being honest.

Villain

Yes - in my opinion, and on the basis of the universally understood meaning of the term. I'm entirely consistent in applying a need for evidence to support a claim.

You just get to decide which evidence is true and which isn't based on your beliefs, I see that is a nice naive world!

alastair wrote: »

And everyone else who's being honest.

ohhh so we aren't being honest now??

alastair

Villain wrote: »

You just get to decide which evidence is true and which isn't based on your beliefs, I see that is a nice naive world!

As already stated - everyone has to assess the weight of evidence on a daily basis. Unless you have some sort of faith system going, you do the same thing.

Villain wrote: »

ohhh so we aren't being honest now??

If you're pretending that Adams wasn't in the IRA, yes. Unless there's some other reason for denial in the face of the evidence.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

If there's photographic evidence of them engaged in paedophilic activity, and multiple other witnesses to their paedophilic activity make statements to that effect, and various governments are confident enough of their culpability to name them as paedophiles, then yes - it would be fine to call them such on Boards.

So once again, YOU are deciding what is enough. Which again makes it a subjective opinion.

Jimmy Saville is dead and that is entirely different.

Villain

alastair wrote: »

If you're pretending that Adams wasn't in the IRA, yes. Unless there's some other reason for denial in the face of the evidence.

Do I know he was in the IRA? The honest answer is No

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So once again, YOU are deciding what is enough. Which again makes it a subjective opinion.

Again - subjective opinion based on evidence is enough to send a man to jail - I'm not sure what difficulty you have with grasping this reality.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Jimmy Saville is dead and that is entirely different.

It's precisely the same issue.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

Again - subjective opinion based on evidence is enough to send a man to jail - I'm not sure what difficulty you have with grasping this reality.


It's precisely the same issue.

So the question for a mod is;

Once 'evidence' has been presented in a court, are we are allowed to be the judge and the jury and hand out our own convictions?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

So the question for a mod is;

Once 'evidence' has been presented in a court, are we are allowed to be the judge and the jury and hand out our own convictions?

:rolleyes:
Who is convicting anyone of anything? Again - this isn't a court of law.

Scofflaw

Villain wrote: »

Do I know he was in the IRA? The honest answer is No

That this thread is a discussion on the rules does not actually exempt posters from following mod instructions. 1 week ban for persistently ignoring instructions.

Other posters could put the handbags down, and not drag this thread into the dreary trenches of Fermanagh and Tyrone.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Who is convicting anyone of anything? Again - this isn't a court of law.

Ok,have it your way,

@Mods.

In general terms, are we allowed to claim somebody has committed a crime, just because evidence has been 'presented' in a court and even if the defendant has been acquitted?

Sand

Not a mod, but you're well within your rights to accuse someone of committing a crime on your own website. Boards will obviously take a view to defend their own interests given Ireland's penal laws on libel, taking into account the probability of getting sued.

Clearly politicians and public figures will get accused of all sorts - Bush and Blair are regularly described as "war criminals" for example - and there seems to be a general balance struck between protecting Boards and serving the forums purpose for discussion. I wouldn't test it too far - banning any negative comment about any political figure that has not been proven in a court of law would have a chilling effect on the board.

At the risk of Godwins, the only thing Hitler was ever convicted of was a role in the Munich putsch. Other than that he's as entitled to his good name as you or I.

EDIT - the other thing to consider is if Adams would actually consider his character to have been damaged by allegations that he was a member of the PIRA. He would have to explain why he would it consider it a slur against someone's good name to called a member of the PIRA. It might be immediately obvious to those who are not members or supporters of the PIRA, but it would be awkward at best for Adams. I could say you're the greatest original thinker of your generation. Its probably false, and I wouldn't be able to prove it in a court of law, but unless you can explain how its damaging to your character its not libel.

Happyman42

Sand wrote: »

Not a mod, but you're well within your rights to accuse someone of committing a crime on your own website. Boards will obviously take a view to defend their own interests given Ireland's penal laws on libel, taking into account the probability of getting sued.

I'd still like to hear where the line is from a mod.

EDIT - the other thing to consider is if Adams would actually consider his character to have been damaged by allegations that he was a member of the PIRA. He would have to explain why he would it consider it a slur against someone's good name to called a member of the PIRA. It might be immediately obvious to those who are not members or supporters of the PIRA, but it would be awkward at best for Adams. I could say you're the greatest original thinker of your generation. Its probably false, and I wouldn't be able to prove it in a court of law, but unless you can explain how its damaging to your character its not libel.

To call someone a 'liar' is the defamation.

nesf

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd still like to hear where the line is from a mod.

Do a search, this stuff has been covered many, many times. Also, this isn't a question for the mods but the staff of the site, e.g. Dav.

Happyman42

nesf wrote: »

Do a search, this stuff has been covered many, many times. Also, this isn't a question for the mods but the staff of the site, e.g. Dav.

Could you give us a search term, link?

Tramps Like Us

Sand wrote: »

Not a mod, but you're well within your rights to accuse someone of committing a crime on your own website. Boards will obviously take a view to defend their own interests given Ireland's penal laws on libel, taking into account the probability of getting sued.

Clearly politicians and public figures will get accused of all sorts - Bush and Blair are regularly described as "war criminals" for example - and there seems to be a general balance struck between protecting Boards and serving the forums purpose for discussion. I wouldn't test it too far - banning any negative comment about any political figure that has not been proven in a court of law would have a chilling effect on the board.

At the risk of Godwins, the only thing Hitler was ever convicted of was a role in the Munich putsch. Other than that he's as entitled to his good name as you or I.

EDIT - the other thing to consider is if Adams would actually consider his character to have been damaged by allegations that he was a member of the PIRA. He would have to explain why he would it consider it a slur against someone's good name to called a member of the PIRA. It might be immediately obvious to those who are not members or supporters of the PIRA, but it would be awkward at best for Adams. I could say you're the greatest original thinker of your generation. Its probably false, and I wouldn't be able to prove it in a court of law, but unless you can explain how its damaging to your character its not libel.

Sand, its well established in law that accusing someone of being a member of the IRA is defamatory as it damages the person in the eyes of the public - or at least this is how the court sees things.

There was a famous case years ago where a man sued another for defamation as he was called a tout. Court ruled that it was not defamatory to accuse someone of telling police about actions and members of an illegal organization as such an act could not lower the standing of a person in the eyes of the legal fiction known as the "reasonable man"

Whether or not Adams himself thinks his character is damaged or not is irrelevant, fact remains that accusing someone of membership of an illegal organization, never mind murder etc, is defamatory.

Do you have an opinion on the original instance which prompted this, my comments about Mansfield, and their subsequent deletion despite there being no legal consequences whatsoever - and the double standard of all kinds of speculation and allegations allowed on this board about people alive and dead. (I just gave Adams as an example)

Sand

Happyman42 wrote: »

To call someone a 'liar' is the defamation.

If you specifically call them a liar, perhaps.

But do you *really* want calling someone a liar to be banned as a rule in the politics discussion?

You defended the manner in which Sean Gallagher's was posed that infamous, unproven and withdrawn tweet in the Presidential debate that "it doesn't matter how a liar is revealed". Very strongly implying Gallagher was a liar, and in the same thread (Post 154) you described David Norris, Dana and Brian Lenihan as being "dishonest" with the public, which would also be taken as defamation and attacks on their character.

Be careful what you wish for. This is the chilling effect on the boards I referenced. You'd end up with a ban yourself, or unable to express your own views under the rules you're calling for. Under Irish laws even making negative comments about a group of people - civil servants, bankers, Gardai, priests, Fianna Failers, the Para Regt - can be tried as defamation of people identified with that group, though its rarely exercised. Should that too be banned?

I'd leave well enough alone and just acknowledge that there is a balance to struck and it wont always be where suits you at a particular point in time. Let Adams and other public figures worry about their own good name. You worry about owning your own comments and let Boards worry about what they will or wont tolerate being posted on their site.

@Tramps Like Us

Sand, its well established in law that accusing someone of being a member of the IRA is defamatory as it damages the person in the eyes of the public - or at least this is how the court sees things.

The courts don't take actions on behalf of people who don't believe they have been defamed. Adams would have to take the case, indicating he believed he had been defamed by being described as a member of the PIRA. That leads to the awkward difficulty I mentioned - to Adams and Republic supporters, being a member of the PIRA, fighting the good fight against British tyranny and oppression would be a badge of pride.

And as for the eyes of the public viewing PIRA membership as defamatory, that's arguable. Republicans form at least a significant minority of the public and dont view PIRA membership as a negative. Similarly, SF enjoys sizeable electoral support despite heavy association with the PIRA and many "former" PIRA members working in the party and Adams happy, even joyful, public association with them when they were released.

nesf

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you give us a search term, link?

No, I don't remember the specific thread titles. If you really want to know about this send a message to Dav and he can explain the company's policy on this.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

If you specifically call them a liar, perhaps.

But do you *really* want calling someone a liar to be banned as a rule in the politics discussion?

He doesn't. Much like some others, he can't understand why one deceased individual was singled out for protection. Neither can I, for that matter.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

He doesn't. Much like some others, he can't understand why one deceased individual was singled out for protection. Neither can I, for that matter.

I explained my reasoning earlier, I thought it was a fair and reasonable thing to do. Nobody was singled out for protection. People can take my word on that. I've often given posters the benefit of any doubt when modding, I don't expect the same courtesy and decency back, but it would be nice when I say no protection of any sort entered my mind, posters I respect would step back and offer me the same.