A discussion on the rules.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is a bare faced and total lie.
That makes you a bare faced liar.
When did I "self-identify"?
You do idiotic and moronic things. Therefore you self-identify as an idiotic moron. Therefore I can call you an idiotic moron. <- not abusive according to your new rules.
This has been explained 10 times now. It's a ****e excuse for insisting on using ad hominems TBH.

No, it just means you don't understand that ad hominem actually is.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ignoring the parts of your post which are clearly unacceptable, I would suggest that (i) you have no idea how the mods dealt with that post and (ii) you are incorrectly applying the Politics charter to the Politics Cafe (which I have now pointed out at least 3 times).

You might tell me why "smeabot" is an instant ban then at the apparently more relaxed Politics Cafe then but "shinnerbot" is A OK.
I can see how they dealt with your personal abuse: as you were mate.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Please - just one post without resorting to personal insults. :rolleyes:

Please, just one post quoting where these fantasy personal insults are? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, it just means you don't understand that ad hominem actually is.

Are you going to lie again and pretend calling somebody a shinnerbot, i.e. attempting to dismiss their arguments by assigning them an insulting label, isn't an ad hominem?
No wonder the other mods are all of a sudden keen to point out you don't have any say in their own forums!

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You might tell me why "smeabot" is an instant ban then at the apparently more relaxed Politics Cafe then but "shinnerbot" is A OK.
I can see how they dealt with your personal abuse: as you were mate.

Because "smearbot" is attacking the poster with nothing to do with the argument at hand: Ad hominem.
"Shinnerbot" goes to the argument and the agenda of the poster: Not ad hominem.


From my own forum's view, we treat people from whom 90% of their posts are below standard very differently than those from whom less than 10% are below standard (if that - I'd argue my percentage is way lower than that).

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The crux of the matter here is that Dan_Solo is of the mistaken belief that all ad hominem statements are fallacious or somehow insulting. In fact, in argument of fact rather than opinion, ad hominem may be considered a valid argument as it undermines the viewpoint or purposive position or the opponent.

OK then, here's an example:

Your posts are like those of an idiot or moron.
Therefore you are an idiotic moron.
Purely descriptive you see.
Now that's done, I don't have to address your arguments (which I couldn't anyway) because obviously you're only an idiotic moron.

No ad hominem there. Oh no.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please, just one post quoting where these fantasy personal insults are? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

TBH - all you're doing is proving the point at this stage. You've posts on this very page accusing posters of being trolls.


Anyway - a thread that was supposed to be about the rules of the forum has been seriously dragged off-topic - firstly by a poster ignoring the DRP process to try and cry victim, and secondly by the rest of us who've all helped in dragging the thread off into the abyss.

If someone is unwilling to show the slightest little bit of self-reflection, then there's no point in the rest of us feeding their persecution complex.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because "smearbot" is attacking the poster with nothing to do with the argument at hand: Ad hominem.
"Shinnerbot" goes to the argument and the agenda of the poster: Not ad hominem.

And again, if I find idiotic moron is descriptive of your posts, your logic says it's fine for me to call you an idiotic moron.
Not ad hominem.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

TBH - all you're doing is proving the point at this stage.

So you failing to quote these fantasy personal insults I've supposedly posted is me proving I have posted personal insults...
Logic RIP on that one blackwhite.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Anyway - a thread that was supposed to be about the rules of the forum has been seriously dragged off-topic - firstly by a poster ignoring the DRP process to try and cry victim, and secondly by the rest of us who've all helped in dragging the thread off into the abyss.

Then you haven't read the thread. Go back and learn what we are actually discussing.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK then, here's an example:

Your posts are like those of an idiot or moron.
Therefore you are an idiotic moron.
Purely descriptive you see.
Now that's done, I don't have to address your arguments (which I couldn't anyway) because obviously you're only an idiotic moron.

No ad hominem there. Oh no.

I think this says it all. I'll just wait for the mods to deal with you.

PS: Yep barristers are well known for being idiotic morons.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then you haven't read the thread. Go back and learn what we are actually discussing.

The thread is called "A discussion on the rules." Just because you want to turn it into something else doesn't mean everyone should be browbeaten to your agenda.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think this says it all. I'll just wait for the mods to deal with you.

PS: Yep barristers are well known for being idiotic morons.

Deal with what? I clearly said "Here's an example" first. If you failed to read that bit or pretended it wasn't there then I guess you'd have a personal insult on your hands... but no, you don't.
I didn't realise we were dealing with a barrister! Oh my mistake! In that case you are automatically right! (no logical fallacy there, eh?)

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

The thread is called "A discussion on the rules." Just because you want to turn it into something else doesn't mean everyone should be browbeaten to your agenda.

Yes, and the part of this discussion of the rules we were at, that you still haven't bothered to go back and inform yourself of, is with regard to whether "-bot" is a personal insult or not.
I apologise if the actual topic of discussion doesn't fit the one you had imagined.

Soldie

It's hard to believe that the last few pages of this thread are an actual conversation that has taken place. A real thing. In the real world. My faith in humanity dwindles.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, and the part of this discussion of the rules we were at, that you still haven't bothered to go back and inform yourself of, is with regard to whether "-bot" is a personal insult or not.
I apologise if the actual topic of discussion doesn't fit the one you had imagined.

It's a discussion that was ruled on by the Politics Mods already.

You insisted on dragging it up to try and dispute a ban you received from another forum - seemingly to try and paint yourself as some kind of victim.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

You insisted on dragging it up to try and dispute a ban you received from another forum - seemingly to try and paint yourself as some kind of victim.

Where did I dispute the ban? What I want to know is what the rules are, is it OK to call somebody a -bot or not? Or is it only OK in Politics Café?
That's a discussion of the rules.
As per the thread title.
Why are you here then?

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why are you here then?

I initially posted on this thread in the hope that it might help, in some small way, to bring the standards back up to what they are supposed to be, as outlined in the rules at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91351345&postcount=2

Clearly, there are posters here who are only too keen to drag the level and tone of debate as far into the gutter as they can - and any attempts to get them to post in a civil manner is a waste of time.

Villain

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You have been a member since 2005 - I'm surprised you've never been pointed to the site-wide rules:

Kinda ironic that you liked

Sand wrote: »

Quick query - At what point does a poster refusing to accept mod directions, ignoring explanations and rationales, being disingenuous and basically soap boxing become disruptive?

While pointing out the rule

Don't back seat moderate

Imagine a game of soccer where one player kept running up to the ref and saying "you should have warned that guy" "that was offside" "time is up on this game". Annoying, yes? Sitting back as a user and consistently directing the moderator like a minion is going to get you kicked off the pitch. The correct way to bring something to our attention is to report the post.

But do not abuse this feature. Report posts which clearly break the rules not just posts you don’t agree with or from people you don’t like. That’s just being a dick.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It really doesn't, and in my experience only people who want to excuse double standards ever say this. Something is either ok or it isn't.

Villain

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The main issue though imo is as soon as you don't condemn SF on each and every topic here you are labelled a Shinnerbot however the same cannot be said for those who don't condemn FG FF or Lab

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This could be as easily applied to people who always disagree with a certain party's policies and incessantly post any trivial snippet of supposed bad news regarding that party, yes?

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh. A qualifier. I've heard several people here say it never excuses lashing out.
No doubt they'll all pile in here to pull you up on this any second now...

FreudianSlippers

Villain wrote: »

Kinda ironic that you liked


While pointing out the rule

IMHO in the context of a discussion on the rules there is a big difference between Sand's question and a complaint that a certain post in a sub-forum with different rules was not actioned in a way that a certain poster wanted.

This is not a bitch about mod decisions thread. Particularly where a different charter applies to the post in question.

FreudianSlippers

Villain wrote: »

The main issue though imo is as soon as you don't condemn SF on each and every topic here you are labelled a Shinnerbot however the same cannot be said for those who don't condemn FG FF or Lab

I don't agree. I have yet to see the term be used against anyone that isn't towing the party line very obviously

Villain

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't agree. I have yet to see the term be used against anyone that isn't towing the party line very obviously

You didn't look too hard, I have been labelled it several times in the past despite the fact I have never voted for SF in a Dail election

Villain

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMHO in the context of a discussion on the rules there is a big difference between Sand's question and a complaint that a certain post in a sub-forum with different rules was not actioned in a way that a certain poster wanted.

This is not a bitch about mod decisions thread. Particularly where a different charter applies to the post in question.

I think you are trying to change the context of his post to suit your argument tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

I know this thread was opened many years ago, and things change but from the very start it was noted that it wasn't for "Can we ban this word that irritates me" type posts.

bonkey wrote: »

So, what I'd like to do is give everyone a chance to have their say. What needs to be changed?

Please bear in mind the following :

This will never turn into a "letter of the law" rules system. If what you want is a list of banned words, or a list of insults you cant say, or anything like that then you will be disappointed.

What we would like to see is a set of rules that promote discussion/debate...not just a set of rules to keep the forum under control (for lack of a better term).

Villain wrote: »

Kinda ironic that you liked

While pointing out the rule

It's not possible to back seat moderate in a rules discussion thread. It exists for the purpose of discussing the rules and how they are applied. By its original concept it doesn't exist for "ban this word" requests.

Despite that, a number of "ban this word" type requests have been made. They were rejected. The reasons were explained. Many times. Those explanations have been ignored. Disingenuous claims were made. Those were pointed out. Many times. Those corrections have been ignored. Instead of being a rules discussion, the last few pages seem to be the continuation of various arguments, score settling and grudges from general politics threads.

It's the exact same pattern as the "SF/IRA" request, and "SF/IRA" is *still* not banned despite page after page after page of it.

Villain

Sand wrote: »

I know this thread was opened many years ago, and things change but from the very start it was noted that it wasn't for "Can we ban this word that irritates me" type posts.





It's not possible to back seat moderate in a rules discussion thread. It exists for the purpose of discussing the rules and how they are applied. By its original concept it doesn't exist for "ban this word" requests.

Despite that, a number of "ban this word" type requests have been made. They were rejected. The reasons were explained. Many times. Those explanations have been ignored. Disingenuous claims were made. Those were pointed out. Many times. Those corrections have been ignored. Instead of being a rules discussion, the last few pages seem to be the continuation of various arguments, score settling and grudges from general politics threads.

It's the exact same pattern as the "SF/IRA" request, and "SF/IRA" is *still* not banned despite page after page after page of it.

Backseat modding is backseat modding Sand.

Sand

Villain wrote: »

Backseat modding is backseat modding Sand.

That's a great post. Well argued.

Villain

Sand wrote: »

That's a great post. Well argued.

You always did have an issue with the obvious facts

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

Despite that, a number of "this word is appropriate" type requests have been made. They were rejected. The reasons were explained. Many times. Those explanations have been ignored. Disingenuous claims were made. Those were pointed out. Many times. Those corrections have been ignored.

This is what these pages read like to somebody on the other side.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any chance someone could summarize exactly what's going on in here?

I'm a bit lost myself!

Personally I feel that some evidence of bias is obvious enough. I perhaps wouldn't reckon it's on the scale that Dan perceives it to be, but there's no doubt in my own mind that it's more taboo to smear non-establishment politicians and their supporters than the reverse.

I'm not sure if I'm picking you up correctly, but I'd say establishment parties and members get smeared more because they are the ones making the unpopular decisions.

Case in point, I was infracted a few weeks ago for posting (and not even in a derogatory manner I must add) that I had always assumed Godge was a supporter of FG and was surprised to see him state that he wasn't.
Now if that counts as "too personal", then in my view any poster who calls someone a "shinnerbot" or anything remotely along those lines and is not infracted, is being shown undue leniency or else I was being shown undue harshness by having my own post infracted.

We may have a problem in differentiating between the cafe and the normal forum.

Being anti-censorship I'd prefer if no one was infracted for these things, but to be honest the only thing that pisses me off more than debates being stifled is the application of double standards.

Or it could just be the cafe has lighter moderation.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sent a PM about my own infraction and got no reply. Posting about it publicly is arguably the only option left after that. Why are they so terrified of public criticism anyway? :rolleyes:

Errr, we've a thread here to discuss the rules. Sometimes pm's get missed, personal stuff and all that.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It really doesn't, and in my experience only people who want to excuse double standards ever say this. Something is either ok or it isn't.

So context, like say a posters history doesn't really matter? A new poster posting below standard should be treated exactly the same as a regular user warned multiple times for the same type of stuff?

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fair enough. I'm talking more about the fact that many posts are never red carded at all even though I'm certain they would be had they come from the other side of the debate. I reported one example a day or two ago (specifically stated in my report that I was doing so purely to point out the double standard rather than calling for anyone to be banned) and heard nothing back. The post in question was accusing the anti-IW side of behaving like four year olds and made numerous references to "mummy" "daddy" and other such condescending garbage - the poster in question has been far, far more trollish than Dan from where I'm sitting.

Again I usually wouldn't actually complain and to be fair most who've been around for a while will know I rarely do give out about moderation or report people etc, I've always thought Politics is pretty ok as far as moderation goes, but I can't be the only one who's noticed the application of double standards getting a bit out of hand here over the last few months?

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

So context, like say a posters history doesn't really matter? A new poster posting below standard should be treated exactly the same as a regular user warned multiple times for the same type of stuff?

I'm not saying that, but I am saying that some action should be taken against everyone who breaks the rules. I'm talking about the persistent red carding of people on one side of the debate but not the other.

glic71rods46t0

I somehow got following this thread over the last few weeks.
I am amazed that shinnerbot is still being debated.
It's an offensive term, there is no ambiguity as to the meaning or intent of the term. It seems that the mods are doing a lot of explaining. The old rule of thumb is appropriate here :if you're explaining, you're losing"
Surely it would be easier at this stage to ban the offensive term and get the debate back to SF crazy economic policies and the blatant contradiction of so called socialists being against property taxes!

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Again I usually wouldn't actually complain and to be fair most who've been around for a while will know I rarely do give out about moderation or report people etc, I've always thought Politics is pretty ok as far as moderation goes, but I can't be the only one who's noticed the application of double standards getting a bit out of hand here over the last few months?

By your own admission you aren't reporting posts, so how can you complain when there is no action taken against those posts if you don't report them?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying that, but I am saying that some action should be taken against everyone who breaks the rules. I'm talking about the persistent red carding of people on one side of the debate but not the other.

But you don't know what, if any, action was taken. What you're asking is effectively for mods to have to respond directly to everyone who reports a post and let them know what action they have taken and why. Never gonna happen.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not saying that, but I am saying that some action should be taken against everyone who breaks the rules. I'm talking about the persistent red carding of people on one side of the debate but not the other.

Fair enough.

All I can say is, we tend to notice names because of recurrent problems and reported posts. A newer poster might take longer to get on the radar.

I think it is fair to add that you pm'd me in the past after a more pro Govt. type poster got banned, asking for a more lenient approach. Another poster from that side of the argument also got banned recently so I'm not sure if the perception of bias has that much grounds to it.

Both sides tend to get away with a fair bit in the water charges and SF stuff as far as I can see.

RandomName2

Just want to get clarification whether it is against the rules to say something along the lines that

• Glaucon: "Your position is wrong. A communist approach to this is the right way forward."
• Socrates: "What are you talking about? Communism is bullsh*t.
• Glaucon: "Really? It is proven to be the correct way forward. Here."
• Socrates: "What?"
• Glaucon: "You didn't read it? Unless you are going to counter that treatise with research we have nothing more to discuss."
• Socrates: "Communism has been well discredited. I mean, as a political philosophy it doesn't make much sense, and we can look at examples of countries that adopted Communist practices and see what basket cases they ended up as"
• Galucon: "I'm not hearing you counter my source with research. I'm hearing desperate unsubstantiated sentences. Until you can produce sources directly contradicting mine you have nothing more to add here."
• Socrates: "Your source easily has 50,000 words in it!"
• Glaucon: "La la la"

Giving a source that is counter-productive to debate is surely against the charter... isn't it? Hell, I find it hard to see how that is even debate; it is merely stating a position and providing a hyperlink.

jank

Can we nail down what is or is not personal abuse as people have wildly different interpretations on what this is.
Are we able to reference a poster at all, even though it may be warranted?

For example, if a poster makes a racist remark (people of a certain skin colour and ethnicity are uneducated for example), if a another poster responds calling the poster a racist, is this deemed personal abuse?

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

Can we nail down what is or is not personal abuse as people have wildly different interpretations on what this is.
Are we able to reference a poster at all, even though it may be warranted?

For example, if a poster makes a racist remark (people of a certain skin colour and ethnicity are uneducated for example), if a another poster responds calling the poster a racist, is this deemed personal abuse?

IMHO the best thing to do with a racist post is to report it.

jank

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IMHO the best thing to do with a racist post is to report it.

True, that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?

Crooked Jack

jank wrote: »

True, and that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?

It's not even in the same league as calling out someone for racism. Shinnerbot is clearly a derogatory term. It's a way of dehumanising a poster and attempting to delegitimize their views by claiming theyre part of some cabal of internet trolls cooped up in Connolly House. It's cheap, lazy, total bullsh!t and completely contradictory not only to debate in general but to the quality of debate expected in the politics forum. it drags threads off topic (which is what i suspect those who use it want) and results in roundabout arguments and personal sniping.
The only reason it's allowed is because mods on boards seem to be largely anti-SF and anti northerners. For proof you need look no further than the little "P!ss off nordies" box they've wedge into the politics forum last year

FreudianSlippers

Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

True, that is one way of handling it. However, should calling that poster out as a racist is itself a card-able offence?

Again, just my opinion, but if it were in a forum I moderate I would probably consider it back-seat moderation.

Godge

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?

Agreed, if there isn't something done about this, the minute anyone gets a ban they will just set up a new account and continue acting in the same manner that leads to a ban. As bans aren't normally imposed on first offences, this is letting those who re-reg get away with repeated breaches.

K-9

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can someone please clarify the rules on re-reg users?

I see no rule about calling them out on being re-reg of previous users and I definitely see no issue with giving a new user the "benefit of the doubt that they are not a re-reg" when they appear to be one.

People are free to re-reg and close old accounts. Boards is also an anonymous site so unless the user makes public their old account name, they are entitled to a "clean slate" if they so wish. People close accounts for numerous reasons, it could well be a personal reason and "outing" them is in very poor taste, manners and possibly embarrassing.

I also would like to clarify that it is officially Politics Forum policy that should I be banned from a thread/forum that I can simply create another account and continue to post here with a clean slate?

I don't know how you got that idea. Somebody who has a previous track record on the forum will get that carried over to the new username. If they behave themselves under the new account that'll never be a problem!