A discussion on the rules.

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

Well if we missed the way some wanted we'd just have a few users back slapping each other about how great and right they are and no debate whatsoever. That would really be the death knell of the forum.

It only appears that way because the 10-15 posters with common sense and standards of debate are clearly siding with each other against the trolls.

Thin out the trolls and you'll see (as was the case previously) that we don't all agree with everything the other says and slap each other on the backs, we actually have very disparate views - but actually keep a standard of debate.

I have been wrong many times on this forum, but in the face of a logical argument backed up by facts, I actually learn something and thank that person who corrected me. What we have in the Cafe is 10-15 posters with disparate views who are attempting to use logic and facts against 20+ posters who are refusing to present any facts and regurgitate buzz words in the face of being proven wrong many times.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tramps Like Us

There are other irish political forums out there

Eugene Norman

Judging by his posting history in feedback forums this guy Permabear seems to be continually surprised by being contradicted, or opposed, even though his anarcho-capitalist views are held by <0.01% of the population.

I don't fully understand the use of the term troll in a general politics forum. You can troll a Liverpool forum by joking about Hillsborough, you can troll an Apple forum by posting links to "better" Android devices which would be of no interest to Apple fans, you just cannot troll a political forum. The use of the term "troll" is telling in fact, since the people who claim there are trolls seem to think the moderation and posting should be politically biased to their views.

The content of the post may be inarticulate but thats not a reason for moderation unless its incomprehensible.

Chips Lovell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It only appears that way because the 10-15 posters with common sense and standards of debate are clearly siding with each other against the trolls.

Thin out the trolls and you'll see (as was the case previously) that we don't all agree with everything the other says and slap each other on the backs, we actually have very disparate views - but actually keep a standard of debate.

This is an interesting point. I'm pretty sure that myself and Permabear, for example, are near the opposite ends of the political spectrum but I frequently find myself on the same side of a discussion as him, not because politically we agree, but rather that he's one of the few people who's being constructive and arguing a position supported by facts.

It's often not a debate on the merits of one policy vs. another, but a debate between people making unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "it's illegal to install water meters") and people demonstrating that these claims are untrue.

Eugene Norman

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This is an interesting point. I'm pretty sure that myself and Permabear, for example, are near the opposite ends of the political spectrum but I frequently find myself on the same side of a discussion as him, not because politically we agree, but rather that he's one of the few people who's being constructive and arguing a position supported by facts.

It's often not a debate on the merits of one policy vs. another, but a debate between people making unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "it's illegal to install water meters") and people demonstrating that these claims are untrue.

Its not the mods duty to determine "truth" but to stop the posters getting out of hand, the "don't be a dick" rule with more specific per-forum rules. It somebody is wrong prove it to other posters to prove him wrong. Thats surely not a mod to determine or prove ( except in their capacity as posters).

Chips Lovell

If you're interested in playing whack-a-mole of debunking wild claim after wild claim, that's fair enough. But you have to acknowledge it may hold limited appeal for others.

FreudianSlippers

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Its not the mods duty to determine "truth" but to stop the posters getting out of hand, the "don't be a dick" rule with more specific per-forum rules. It somebody is wrong prove it to other posters to prove him wrong. Thats surely not a mod to determine or prove ( except in their capacity as posters).

Isn't that the point we've been making the past few posts? When does blanket refusal to acknowledge facts become trolling?

Note: I don't believe you know what trolling is based on your previous post tbh.

Eugene Norman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Isn't that the point we've been making the past few posts? When does blanket refusal to acknowledge facts become trolling?

Note: I don't believe you know what trolling is based on your previous post tbh.

Why wouldn't that apply to PB.

He continuously seems to think the crash was caused by FF and social welfare spending, or the Greeks. Empirically it was not over-spending or over-indebtedness of Governments very few of which were over leveraged before the bust, but by the collapse of the banking sector.

When that is pointed out he blames the bank overloading solely on the Central Banks ( note the inconsistency here - the banks can't be expected to control their lending if central banks have low rates but governments should control lending if the Central banks have low rates generating temporary income).

As far as I am concerned if its trolling to keep repeating the same arguments the PB is the master of trolling.

FreudianSlippers

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why wouldn't that apply to PB.

He continuously seems to think the crash was caused by FF and social welfare spending, or the Greeks. Empirically it was not over-spending or over-indebtedness of Governments very few of which were over leveraged before the bust, but by the collapse of the banking sector.

When that is pointed out he blames the bank overloading solely on the Central Banks ( note the inconsistency here - the banks can't be expected to control their lending if central banks have low rates but governments should control lending if the Central banks have low rates generating temporary income).

As far as I am concerned if its trolling to keep repeating the same arguments the PB is the master of trolling.

Do you have factual evidence to prove his opinion incorrect?

If not, then it's a difference of opinion.


What we're discussing is the issue surrounding facts and evidence on one side and contrary and unsupported opinion on the other.

I trust you can see the difference?

nesf

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Why wouldn't that apply to PB.

It'd be trolling if he was a communist with a lot of time on their hands and little to do stirring the pot for their own amusement. It's a political forum, if you start banning people for unpopular political views it'd get boring.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

It'd be trolling if he was a communist with a lot of time on their hands and little to do stirring the pot for their own amusement. It's a political forum, if you start banning people for unpopular political views it'd get boring.

Although the idea of banning people for unpopular political views remains as popular as ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

It's often not a debate on the merits of one policy vs. another, but a debate between people making unsubstantiated claims (e.g. "it's illegal to install water meters") and people demonstrating that these claims are untrue.

Um, most political discussions are like the above. The specific problem here is not that they are unsubstantiated claims but there are clearly false claims being made, e.g. Irish Water is privately owned because it is a private company.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Although the idea of banning people for unpopular political views remains as popular as ever.

cordially,
Scofflaw

When in Rome.

Chips Lovell

nesf wrote: »

Um, most political discussions are like the above. The specific problem here is not that they are unsubstantiated claims but there are clearly false claims being made, e.g. Irish Water is privately owned because it is a private company.

That's probably a better way of putting it alright.

Godge

Eugene Norman wrote: »

As far as I am concerned if its trolling to keep repeating the same arguments the PB is the master of trolling.

In my opinion, it is not trolling to simply keep repeating the same arguments.

It is trolling to keep repeating the same unsubstantiated or disproved arguments.

In an astronomy forum it wouldn't be trolling to argue for an alternative theory to the Big Bang Theory but it would be trolling to argue that the sun revolves around the earth.

Similarly in this forum it is not trolling to argue that the economic crash was caused by X or Y, neither is it trolling to argue that we should ignore the environmental arguments and the EU and not charge for water. However, in my opinion, it is trolling if you repeatedly argue that unless you sign up you don't have a contract with Irish Water (the law clearly says you do have a contract) or you repeatedly say that the Derek Byrne 5 were jailed for protesting (when the court judgement clearly says otherwise) or that Irish Water is a private company (it takes a high level of ignorance for this one).

It is more difficult with cases where someone complains repeatedly that we are paying twice or three times for water (because we are) and thinks this is somehow unique or special when we are clearly paying several times for many many other public services (or pork chops:D).

I think the point the mods are making is that it is one thing to address repeatedly untrue arguments or lies, it is another thing to impose bans and infractions for ridiculous, absurd arguments. Unfortunately, not only have the anti-water charges posters got a large number of ridiculous, absurd arguments, they are also full of lies and mistruths mixed in (as the three above examples show) and many people are getting tired of no action being taken.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don't think there's a problem removing posters doing that from any forum (or at least I can't see any other than correctly identifying them from people merely saying unsubstantiated stuff). I think the impact of doing it won't be large though. People will just insist Irish Water will be sold off to the private sector rather than is privately owned and you can't and shouldn't do anything about them saying that.

Eugene Norman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Do you have factual evidence to prove his opinion incorrect?

If not, then it's a difference of opinion.


What we're discussing is the issue surrounding facts and evidence on one side and contrary and unsupported opinion on the other.

I trust you can see the difference?

Of course I have the facts. The collapse of the world economy wasn't down to Greek teachers. For the love of Christ how can there be an argument about that.

But I am happy enough to ridicule his ludicrous arguments rather than demand he be banned for trolling, as tireless a task it is.

Eugene Norman

nesf wrote: »

It'd be trolling if he was a communist with a lot of time on their hands and little to do stirring the pot for their own amusement. It's a political forum, if you start banning people for unpopular political views it'd get boring.

Yeah, Thats my point. It is PB who wants to ban "trolls" not me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Eugene Norman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well you do have a lot of time on your hands.

why is a "communist" a troll but an "anarcho-capitalist" as equally devoid from logic as any far-leftist not a troll?

Its clear the libertarians want to run the political forum as a libertarians only zone. I suggest giving them a sub-forum to do that, and being less tolerant of them in politics.

Eugene Norman

Godge wrote: »

In my opinion, it is not trolling to simply keep repeating the same arguments.

It is trolling to keep repeating the same unsubstantiated or disproved arguments.

In an astronomy forum it wouldn't be trolling to argue for an alternative theory to the Big Bang Theory but it would be trolling to argue that the sun revolves around the earth.

Similarly in this forum it is not trolling to argue that the economic crash was caused by X or Y, neither is it trolling to argue that we should ignore the environmental arguments and the EU and not charge for water. However, in my opinion, it is trolling if you repeatedly argue that unless you sign up you don't have a contract with Irish Water (the law clearly says you do have a contract) or you repeatedly say that the Derek Byrne 5 were jailed for protesting (when the court judgement clearly says otherwise) or that Irish Water is a private company (it takes a high level of ignorance for this one).

It is more difficult with cases where someone complains repeatedly that we are paying twice or three times for water (because we are) and thinks this is somehow unique or special when we are clearly paying several times for many many other public services (or pork chops:D).

I think the point the mods are making is that it is one thing to address repeatedly untrue arguments or lies, it is another thing to impose bans and infractions for ridiculous, absurd arguments. Unfortunately, not only have the anti-water charges posters got a large number of ridiculous, absurd arguments, they are also full of lies and mistruths mixed in (as the three above examples show) and many people are getting tired of no action being taken.

Let them argue and defeat them in argument. Thats the nature of argument.

This isn't some modern university with trigger alerts, standards are higher, this is the internet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Eugene Norman wrote: »

why is a "communist" a troll but an "anarcho-capitalist" as equally devoid from logic as any far-leftist not a troll?

Trolling is intentionally trying to work someone up not merely saying something that worked someone up. Both left and right are equally capable of both.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Charters don't make as much of a difference as you'd like to think. If you try to make them more detailed people will argue finer and finer points over whether what they said was technically a false claim from the definition/example given in the charter and things get worse not better. Drawing a clear and simple line between unsubstantiated claims and untrue claims would be a nightmare mainly because of how hard it is to prove a negative.

Charters are just guidelines, the mods can rule outside and inside what the charter states.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, this is my basic point around why we won't get the old Boards back. Different crowd these days.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, I just don't agree a better charter and more mod time being applied will fix this. It's not that easy a problem and no I don't know the solution other than restricted access. It's a case of you get out what you put in here.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not often we agree. However...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's not the logical conclusion of my argument. Sorry but you're being deliberately obtuse here about the difference between the results of moderating group A and a different group B.

I'm not saying don't put up a better charter, I'm not saying don't add another mod, what I'm saying that these will make little difference because as we agreed earlier people will just switch tactics if one gets banned but the intent and mindset of the posters won't change and that's the core problem.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you really giving me a lecture about the importance of people putting work into this site? Seriously?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I "seem to be suggesting" do I? And you take an opposing viewpoint to what I "seem to suggest?" You're as bad as the ones you're complaining about you know, you just use fancier words to dress it up.

Nodin

Evidently you gentlemen are referring to a far more refined "trollfest" to the one I've been witnessing.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Lee Majors, this isnt the cafe so please debate the issue without getting into swipes against other posters or questioning their motives.

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

Nodin

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

Well I've been on such forums, so as long as there are no rules at all I can live with it. However I feel at this stage if I do tell various deserving individuals what exactly they are I will be carded.

I reported a post, Saturday or so, which highlights the problem, if any mod is interested. How a discussion can continue from that kind of thing, save in the direction of "fuck you" escapes me.

K-9

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Has any action been taken over the post I reported?

blackwhite

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

Thanks for the response.

My assumption was the reported posts had been ignored, given that there was mod actions later in the thread without any sign of the earlier post being addressed.

Seeing the mod note that I quoted above, together with the way the discussion this thread has been headed, seemed to imply that the Cafe was being allowed turn into an "anything goes" environment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

I was the person to whom the edited swipe was aimed at. I didn't see it as it was edited before I saw the post. I do note the following.

K-9 wrote: »

Well that isn't true, Lee is banned

This has me confused because it was posted at 2.00 today suggesting "Lee is banned" yet here is a post from him at 16.20

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94610901&postcount=117

And another at 13.07

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94607693&postcount=112


Maybe I am mixing up the wrong poster and the wrong thread but there was nothing on the thread at any stage to say he was banned and the first I saw was K-9's post at 14.01 which technically isn't true. It is also possible he had a very short ban and it had expired.

I don't really care about the ins and outs but one of the real problems with the forum is not the quality of the modding but the visibility of it. If you are to return now to the thread on which Lee Majors was warned, you will see the post he made (and the thanks) and the warning, you won't see the offence (so no guidance to future offenders) as it was snipped but you will not see any clear action against the offence even though on this thread we are told he was banned.

blackwhite

Godge wrote: »

I don't really care about the ins and outs but one of the real problems with the forum is not the quality of the modding but the visibility of it.

This is the nub of the issue with the Café at the minute.
Unless people click into this thread (which isn't even in the Café), all they will see is the trolling, the personal abuse, and the general petty rubbish that threatens to drag it into the sewer.

Just taking the SF thread, there is a massive number of abusive and/or trolling posts which have been left untouched, with no indicator anywhere in the thread, or the Café in general, that these are unacceptable or that any action has been taken.

Whether or not behind the scenes action is taking place, this stuff all adds to the perception that the Café has no rules, no standards, and serves no more than a place for trolls to abuse to their heart's content.

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

................................
This has me confused because it was posted at 2.00 today suggesting "Lee is banned" yet here is a post from him at 16.20

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94610901&postcount=117

And another at 13.07

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94607693&postcount=112

Given the discussion, presumably he means banned from the Café.

Godge

Nodin wrote: »

Given the discussion, presumably he means banned from the Café.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94606779&postcount=2040

But the post that started the discussion on that poster references a post and thread in the main forum

as far as i remember the cafe was established so it would act as a shunt, diverting all of the poop from Politics forum?

what do we expect? just slip on your safety goggles and overalls when you go in there and wash them down before coming back to the main forum.

johnnyskeleton

blackwhite wrote: »

Does this mean that personal swipes, etc are acceptable in the Cafe?

Over the past weekend there's been a few posters whose only contribution has been name-calling a direct personal insults, with no action against them.

If this is what the cafe is intended for then it's going to turn into nothing more than the comments section from the journal

If you have a specific issue with a moderation decision youcan take it to PM. Personal abuse is not allowed in any politics subforum, including the Cafe. The above quote relates to the type of one liner jibe against another poster short of personal abuse that is not permitted in the main forum but is given more latitude in the cafe.

So yeah, one liners like:

I dont believe a word you say, bro.

etc are given more latitude in the Cafe because it is intended to have a much more relaxed/bantering atmosphere than the main forum.

The Cafe is not intended for direct personal abuse so if you see actual personal abuse please report it.