A discussion on the rules.

Villain

I don't mean to be a pain here but whats the story with saying "Bertie lied in my opinion??"

I mean Tristrame says its ok as long as you don't use IMO while OscarBravo seems to say it isn't ok unless the lie has been proven as fact by the tribunal surely one can look at the evidence and form their own opinion and post that, their opinion.

I mean posters have been making all sort of accusations against certain politicians in the past here and as long as they stated it was in their opinion it seemed fine, just one example been accusations about Gerry Adams being a member of the IRA Army Council etc.

Can someone please clarify?

oscarBravo

It's quite simple: accusations of lying have always been singled out for special attention on this forum. I didn't want anyone taking Tristrame's direction about clarifying personal opinions as carte blanche to trample on that rule by simple dint of saying "in my opinion".

For example, someone expressed the opinion that Bertie was being hypocritical - fair enough. Expressing an opinion that someone is a liar isn't.

Clear?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

just one example been accusations about Gerry Adams being a member of the IRA Army Council etc.

I knew you'd bring that up eventually...:rolleyes:

Look it's even simpler now.
No accusations of lying will be tolerated at all .
Use something simple like I don't believe x or Y and this is why...
How hard is that?

Villain

Its not hard it just seems the goalposts move depending on who the accusation is about.

You can roll your eyes all you want but you know as well as I do what has been allowed on this forum in past, I'm sure I don't need to find you examples. Do you not agree that that is the case Tristrame?

Although I think some people here will never agree that Bertie lied even if the tribunal states it in its findings while other Politician's here will be accused of a lot worse things without been censored.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Its not hard it just seems the goalposts move depending on who the accusation is about.

I'm really not sure how to make myself any clearer without typing more slowly: accusations of lying are a special case on this forum and will not be tolerated without proof. Accusations of all sorts of other things can be argued about on their merits, but I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Once again: clear?

irish1 wrote:

Although I think some people here will never agree that Bertie lied even if the tribunal states it in its findings while other Politician's here will be accused of a lot worse things without been censored.

I don't give a goddamn rat's ass. I'm talking specifically about accusations of lying. It doesn't matter whether anything else is better, worse or indifferent - we'll deal with them on their merits. I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

Now: is any of this unclear in any way?

Villain

Gerry Adams stated he was not a member of the IRA Army council yet posters here said he was over an over again is that not saying he lied?

I get what your saying OscarBravo its just this wasn't the case in the past.

oscarBravo

I honestly don't know how I can make myself any clearer, unless you're looking for an argument for the sake of it.

Villain

Your been very clear your obviously just not interested in discussing how the rules have changed, i.e. how it was ok to call one politician a lier in the past but its not ok to treat Bertie the same.

Which is fair enough your the boss here, would it be ok to say that in my opinion he mislead the public when he stated that he didn't deal in dollars and that the lodgement was only in pounds and punts?

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

would it be ok to say that in my opinion he mislead the public when he stated that he didn't deal in dollars and that the lodgement was only in pounds and punts?

Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.

Voipjunkie

oscarBravo wrote:

Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.

I presume then it would be Ok to say

"I do not believe Bertie Aherns account of the so called dollar transaction given the evidence that so far has been introduced at the tribunal"

Villain

But its still ok to say "Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA Army Council"?

I'm getting the vibe here that calling someone a liar (which is a deliberate action on the part of the person you are accusing) is going to be next and nigh on near impossible with some of the views already held by some posters (apparently).

I'm closing that thread pending a discussion with the other mods on how best to proceed.
Pending that decision,any other threads here on the subject will be closed/deleted on sight.
This thread is also being temporarally closed pending a discussion between the mods on this topic.
Thank you for your co operation.

[EDIT-8/9/07]

There is a new mahon thread which has been stuck.
It will be opened on Tuesday at some stage.
Please follow the instructions in the first post and hopefully what will come out of it will be a good thread.

I'm re opening this thread now in the hope that the instructions in the new mahon thread couldn't be any clearer.

If you still have any questions at all about this though,you can ask them here but be advised that depending on the question,you may just get a straight yes or no answer.

Thank you for your co operation.

[/EDIT]

Villain

You say in the Tribunal thread that

By that I mean strictly keep your own comments to being your own opinion and reason out your posts

Just to clarify that means if one can clarifies their post as their opinion and provides reason for that opinion they can state that in their opinion someone has mislead/lied to the public?

no

I might point out also irish1 that unless you remove the deliberate attempt to avoid my instruction on this from your signiture,you will not be allowed to post in that thread.

Villain

Trsitrame have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126328&page=6

DeVore and Seamus have both said my sig is ok I wouldn't have put it there unless an Admin said it was ok?

Dirk Gently

While it appears that Irish has only very recently set up his blog, more than likely for the purpose of venting about Bertie out of frustration at this forum I think asking him to remove the link in his sig might be a tad much in fairness.

It is an off site link to a personal blog in no way connected with boards. The link doesn’t say “Bertie ate my babies” or “Bertie is bent”, it’s just a link to a political blog like many others have in their sigs. I know you two lads have had a somewhat personal battle over the past while about Berties "quirky" finances but I see no harm in Irish linking his own blog in his signature, so long as he doesn’t pimp it in all his posts by directing people to it during a discussion on the tribunal.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Trsitrame have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126328&page=6

DeVore and Seamus have both said my sig is ok I wouldn't have put it there unless an Admin said it was ok?

I said for the purpose of the thread,not for the purpose of the forum.
It would be rather pointless putting strict criteria foward for that thread if you are going to flout said criteria in an obvious manner.

It's quite simple.If you keep that link in your signiture,you will not be allowed post in that thread.
There is an option before you submit your post to post without that signiture (under miscellaneous options) I suggest you use it.

With regard to how this topic will be going foward here,I'll say the following rather obvious thing yet again
As you know(or should know) there are several ways of expressing an opinion on what you think of Aherns evidence without flouting the instructions of the moderators as expressed on this thread and on others.

Clownbag wrote:

I know you two lads have had a somewhat personal battle over the past while about Berties "quirky" finances but I see no harm in Irish linking his own blog in his signature, so long as he doesn’t pimp it in all his posts by directing people to it during a discussion on the tribunal.

Just to be perfectly clear-no links to the opposite kind of rant will be allowed in the tribunal thread either.

Villain

Well I think having one rule for one thread and another rule for every other forum and thread is a bit silly but if it keeps you off my back I'm quite happy to exclude my sig from posts in that thread.

However I will post my frank opinion based on all the evidence that has been made public and it will be done no differently than all those posts which we have seen on this forum in the past, I don't think Bertie Ahern deserves any more protection than other political figure that has been accused of all sorts on this forum.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well I think having one rule for one thread and another rule for every other forum and thread is a bit silly but if it keeps you off my back I'm quite happy to exclude my sig from posts in that thread.

You are being facetious now.Quit acting the muppet or I will assist you by removing your access here.
You know damn well that this topic is only being discussed in one place on boards.
It also couldn't have been made clearer in my last post why your signiture is not being allowed in that thread.

However I will post my frank opinion based on all the evidence that has been made public and it will be done no differently than all those posts which we have seen on this forum in the past, I don't think Bertie Ahern deserves any more protection than other political figure that has been accused of all sorts on this forum.

You will follow the guidelines on what you can and cannot say as outlined in this thread and you will exclude that signiture from your posts.
That thread is not to be treated as a soapbox or a rant thread ,it's for discussion.
Any digression from that will result in a one month ban.
Plenty of notice has been given for this approach to that thread and there will be zero tollerance for muppetrous attempts to flout that rule.

Villain

Can you explain why that thread has different rules than every other thread?

no.

Villain

Fair enough I'll start a thread in feedback to see if we can get any answers as to why Berties appearance at the tribunal is been treated differently than every other topic, altough it will most likely result in pictures of Bertie's cat's.

Go right ahead.
Though I think you know the answer to that is on this thread already which is why I'm not replying to your repeated for the crack posts on the matter in this thread.
The instructions given could not be clearer.

Time Magazine

I think restricting a poster's signature in such a manner the facetious act here, Tristrame. We both know irish1 is a dirty ranting Shinner waffler (;) irish1 I kid, I kid), but if people wish to read his opinions/rants - on an entirely separate website - they're free to do so. Thus I consider the "signature matter" a broader question for Boards' sig rules on advertising etc. Which, to the best of my knowledge, he's within.

It would be an entirely different subject if he wrote "I don't like Bertie. See my blog for more." Maybe I'm missing something, but unless/until he's just pimping his blog (rather than sticking to site and forum rules) with his sig, I think he's fine.

I don't think it's doing any harm.

Ibid

Ibid wrote:

I think restricting a poster's signature in such a manner the facetious act here, Tristrame. We both know irish1 is a dirty ranting Shinner waffler (;) irish1 I kid, I kid), but if people wish to read his opinions/rants - on an entirely separate website - they're free to do so. Thus I consider the "signature matter" a broader question for Boards' sig rules on advertising etc. Which, to the best of my knowledge, he's within.

Oh I'm not disputing the fact that he is within boards signiture rules.

It would be an entirely different subject if he wrote "I don't like Bertie. See my blog for more." Maybe I'm missing something, but unless/until he's just pimping his blog (rather than sticking to site and forum rules) with his sig, I think he's fine.

You are missing 1 thing : That this forum is expressly forbidding the use of or the allusion to the word liar in the mahon thread.
Posting on a thread using a signiture as a link to the users wholesome opinion on who is a liar and who isn't flouts that instruction.
Politics doesn't come into that.
The only place where politics comes into it, is that we are talking about a politician and it is only right and proper for posters to question the evidence presented in a legal process like the mahon tribunal.
It is not proper to draw definitive conclusions during the process.
If you are going to post that someone is a liar,you had better be able to prove it and to be frank in this case at best that will have to wait untill this module is over.
It will then be either possible or impossible to do so.

Time Magazine

Tristrame wrote:

You are missing 1 thing : That this forum is expressly forbidding the use of or the allusion to the word liar in the mahon thread.

As far as I can see, he is sticking to that rule. I'd agree that "the l word" should be banned for a whole host of reasons.

Posting on a thread using a signiture as a link to the users wholesome opinion on who is a liar and who isn't flouts that instruction.

I disagree. I wouldn't call Bertie a liar on this forum. I feel free to do in my own sitting room, and if I wish to welcome people into my sitting room that's none of your business. Your instruction is paramount to saying "Not only are you not allowed to call Bertie a liar on this thread, but we're not letting anyone call him a liar anywhere." I disagree with that.

Politics doesn't come into that.
The only place where politics comes into it, is that we are talking about a politician and it is only right and proper for posters to question the evidence presented in a legal process like the mahon tribunal.
It is not proper to draw definitive conclusions during the process.
If you are going to post that someone is a liar,you had better be able to prove it and to be frank in this case at best that will have to wait untill this module is over.
It will then be either possible or impossible to do so.

I entirely agree with that, and have bolded what I consider the most important bit. We are talking about it, here. Paraphrasing DeV, Boards doesn't control the whole web.

And just in case you're thinking otherwise, this is not an attack on your modding. I just think you're making an error in judgement here.

Ibid

Ibid wrote:

And just in case you're thinking otherwise, this is not an attack on your modding. I just think you're making an error in judgement here.

To be frank,I don't think you are getting the reasoning I am using here yet.

It's rather similar to the position we took here on the poster who was using his blog to declare who in his opinion supported the IRA on this forum.

In this case the position is, a poster is not being allowed to have a link in his signiture to a blog used in a thread...just one thread discussing the same subject that the blog explicitly was set up for.

Thats not censoring the blog,it might even be promoting it.
It is though in actual fact protecting the thread from any flout of the instructions.
Plenty of notice and room has been provided in the mean time to make the situation absolutely clear prior to the thread being opened.

Villain

The funny thing is Lemming got away with that link to his signature, he didn't even get a ban and it was a boards blog too.

popebenny16

The rationale for this seems clear to me. Evidence and testimony will be given during the hearings. You can discuss what has been said, but you cant make a conclusion on it until the process is complete, but you can speculate on what the conclusions will be when it is completed.

Legally the position is also fairly clear, you cannot call someone a liar due to a mistake in their testimony, but you can comment on occurrence's whereby their testimony contradicts itself or is contradicted by other testimony. To state that anyone is lying you would have to have proof of prior intent to lie, and unless you have that Boards.ie will be getting into trouble.

Villain

An opinion is just that popebenny16 it isn't making a factual statment its stating an opinion and the person who states that opinion is responsible for that opinion, thats why for years on Politics forum people have got away with saying all sorts of things because it was their opinion if my opinion having looked at all the infromation available is that someone mislead someone and I can reason that opinion there is nothing wrong with it except that you may choose to agree or disagree with the my opinion and give your opinion.

Time Magazine

Tristrame wrote:

To be frank,I don't think you are getting the reasoning I am using here yet.

Oh trust me, I understand it. I just disagree with it.

It's rather similar to the position we took here on the poster who was using his blog to declare who in his opinion supported the IRA on this forum.

The difference is that blog could cast Boards users/Boards in general in a bad light and thus Boards has a right (imo) to interfere. AFAIK, irish1 doesn't go and say "Oh that Blueshirt bastard Ibid on boards.ie refuses to accept Enda Kenny's part to do with this." He states his opinion - which he may or may not get in trouble for - but it's not Boards' problem.

In this case the position is, a poster is not being allowed to have a link in his signiture to a blog used in a thread...just one thread discussing the same subject that the blog explicitly was set up for.

Just because it's one thread doesn't mean I think it's allowable.

Thats not censoring the blog,it might even be promoting it.

No it's not censoring his blog, as I said Boards has no ability to censor his blog. What I do think it is, however, is restricting his signature rights.

It is though in actual fact protecting the thread from any flout of the instructions.

I appreciate its motive. In the same way you could request everyone send in a photo of their mouths muzzled to make sure they make no such utterance against An Taoiseach.

Plenty of notice and room has been provided in the mean time to make the situation absolutely clear prior to the thread being opened.

First off, well done on providing notice. It's a good way to deal with it, as it provides time for debate. Regardless, I still think it's wrong. Wrong with advance warning is still wrong.

Ibid

Ibid wrote:

Oh trust me, I understand it. I just disagree with it.

Fair enough.

The difference is that blog could cast Boards users/Boards in general in a bad light and thus Boards has a right (imo) to interfere. AFAIK, irish1 doesn't go and say "Oh that Blueshirt bastard Ibid on boards.ie refuses to accept Enda Kenny's part to do with this." He states his opinion - which he may or may not get in trouble for - but it's not Boards' problem.

You're unilaterally stating that as if it's the case without recourse to any discussion behind the scenes [referred to earlier].Thats also fair enough but I'll reserve the right not to make you privy to that discussion-this place not being a democracy.
You'll just have to trust me on that score

Just because it's one thread doesn't mean I think it's allowable.

Again and with respect,thats not a decision for you to take.
The thread in question is being moderated in this way for good reason.

No it's not censoring his blog, as I said Boards has no ability to censor his blog. What I do think it is, however, is restricting his signature rights.

Lol

I appreciate its motive. In the same way you could request everyone send in a photo of their mouths muzzled to make sure they make no such utterance against An Taoiseach.

That has no relevance whatsoever though to decisions in relation to the moderating of the conduit that is the thread on Mahon.

First off, well done on providing notice. It's a good way to deal with it, as it provides time for debate. Regardless, I still think it's wrong. Wrong with advance warning is still wrong.

Fair enough.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Can you explain why that thread has different rules than every other thread?

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules? I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

I just told you why the rule is in place. Why are you stating something different from what I said? I don't give a damn what opinions you hold.

irish1 wrote:

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules?

It hasn't. Read what I wrote.

irish1 wrote:

I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

His membership or otherwise of the army council is not the subject of a tribunal of inquiry, as far as I'm aware.

I don't know what contraption you are putting those posts through before posting them irish1 but you've posted yet another obvious bit of sophistry and mis direction.

This is getting to the stage where I'll start getting blunt.
Your sophistry and mis direction won't wash in this thread either.
You know damn well what OscarBravo said-he is upholding a specefic value here with regard to this forum.

Villain

I'm not talking about the rule on my sig, I've already said I won't post my sig in that thread.

I'm talking about how I can't post my opinion of Bertie's dealings and how people were allowed to do so in the past on otehr topics on this forum as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

I'm talking about how I can't post my opinion of Bertie's dealings...

Who said you can't post your opinion of Bertie's dealings?

Villain

Oh sorry I meant I can only post my opinion of Bertie's dealings if I don't say he mislead or lied before the election.

oscarBravo

It's amazing how much more smoothly a discussion goes when you say what you mean.

I'll generalise further from your statement: you can only post your opinion on any topic if you stay within the forum's rules. Apologies if you feel that's overly restrictive.

Glad we could clear all that up.

Villain

Its also amazing how the rules change depending on who you are talking about, it was ok to say any other politician lied in the past as long as the poster stated it was their opinon, however when it comes to Bertie its different?

oscarBravo

Tell you what: why don't you link me an example of where someone called Gerry Adams a liar, you brought it to my attention and I chose to let it stand.

You've already explicitly accused one moderator of political bias, and you're drifting dangerously close to making a similar blanket allegation for the entire moderating team.

Villain

OscarBravo I'm not sure how long you are a Mod in the Politics forum but this issue was brought up in the past and the mods said it was ok as long as people said it was their opinion and didn't offer their post as fact, go ask the other mods if this is the case, if they tell you that isn't the case I will go searching for examples.

oscarBravo

I'm not sure what the point of this little crusade is, but allow me to be clear and unambivalent for you: as long as I have been a moderator here, it has not been acceptable to call anyone a liar unless you can prove both that what they said was untrue (which immediately rules out any accusations of lying to the tribunal, unless you're arrogant enough to think that you're more competent to make that judgement than the tribunal itself), and that they knew it to be untrue at the time.

This is the way it currently stands. For the purpose of the avoidance of doubt, it has been made particularly clear that accusations of lying in the context of evidence given to a currently sitting tribunal will be dealt with particularly firmly.

The rules have been stated and clarified. Your questions have been answered. If you can prove that a moderator is allowing a political bias to inform his moderation, do so - if not, stop making snide accusations.

If you have nothing further to contribute to this discussion other than continued whinging that we won't let you break the rules, I suggest you accept the status quo and, frankly, deal with it.

Villain

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer, Gerry Adams has said he was not a member of the IRA Army Council however posters have said here in the past that he was and the mods allowed them to post that as long as they said it was their opinion i.e. call him a liar.

However when it comes to Bertie the rules are different, that is my point OscarBravo and I wanted a reason as to why the rule is different, I've been around long enough to know the Mods aren't going to change their mind and this isn't anything like a democracy however I don't see a problem with discussing the rules or rule changes.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

However when it comes to Bertie the rules are different...

You know, I could have sworn I said this already on this thread, but maybe I'm losing my memory, or I said it in Danish, or in some way was unclear, so allow me to state my position clearly and unambiguously for you: as long as I have been a moderator here, it has not been acceptable to call anyone a liar unless you can prove both that what they said was untrue and that they knew it to be untrue at the time.

That's the position. If you suggest one more time that the rules don't apply to one particular politician, I will take it that you have accused me of lying, and I will deal with it appropriately.

bonkey

Interesting.

What we now have is a thread on Feedback and a thread here where Irish1 doesn't even have to make his claim, but rather has others make it for him repeatedly, making sure that all are clear that this is the opinion of irish1, which is exactly what he was setting out to do in the first place.

So the longer he keeps this "the system is gaming me" line going, the more he games the system.

Nice.

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

Interesting.

What we now have is a thread on Feedback and a thread here where Irish1 doesn't even have to make his claim, but rather has others make it for him repeatedly, making sure that all are clear that this is the opinion of irish1, which is exactly what he was setting out to do in the first place.

So the longer he keeps this "the system is gaming me" line going, the more he games the system.

Nice.

Yes he does seem to love the oxygen of publicity and couldn't care less it seems about wasting moderators time with a trail of nonsense and obfuscation.
The implication that we the politics mods are liars too kind of capped it all for it's ridiculousness.

Well anyhow I've withdrawn the oxygen of publicity rights of irish1 from this forum for a minimum of a month.
I suspect when we the mods get round to discussing the length of the ban,it will be permanent.
Thats my current thinking on it anyway.

popebenny16

irish1 wrote:

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer, Gerry Adams has said he was not a member of the IRA Army Council however posters have said here in the past that he was and the mods allowed them to post that as long as they said it was their opinion i.e. call him a liar.

That is not correct. You are either deliberately or accidentally mixing up two different things.

Gerry Adams says "I am not a member of the army council" a poster says "I think he was" or "he was". That is opinion. If that poster says "Gerry Adams is telling a lie when he says he was not on the army council" that is a statement of fact and not an opinion.

Similarly, BA can say "I did not deal in dollars" you can say "I think he did" or "He did" because you can then base your opinion on the evidence of the bank official. You cannot say "Bertie is telling a lie".

That's what I said to you yesterday, and it is also what oscarBravo has also said.