Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A discussion on the rules.

1…5681011…54

Comments

  • #352
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Lenny Lovett wrote: »
    It is already 'club' style. Or perhaps 'party' style in the political sense is a more appropriate description. It seems that if one doesn't 'toe the party line', the 'whip'/moderator shuts down the debate...

    Lenny, you've now posted a couple of threads that really weren't going to generate any political discussion. That may have been simply because of the way you phrased them, or it may have been because there wasn't really a political discussion to be had. I let the first one run, and as we can easily see, it didn't generate anything worthwhile at all.

    Trying to dress that up as some kind of oppression is nonsense. This isn't your blog - it's a political discussion forum. You don't get to just post any old stuff that you want to comment on - it needs to be political, and it needs to generate debate. Both have to be the case, because there are other forums where you can generate debate without it being political. This is about the quality of your OPs, and you're kidding yourself if you think it's not.

    Let's take some of your recent OPs:
    "Let 'em eat cake cheese!" was the cry from Leinster House, in answer to crys for help from the poor. Are these FF/Green guys trying to see how much they can insult us before we finally crack? They have no money to pay welfare to the poor or care for the sick but they can buy cheese and give it out to "the poor". How fúcking out of touch are these clowns? They have no idea of the pain and suffering that so many people are enduring in this country? What the fcuk are the outside world thinking of us as this latest act of imbecility flashes around the world? WHEN WILL WE COLLECTIVELY CRY STOP?!

    What political discussion comes out of that? It's a rant. People can either agree with you, or disagree with you, and that's it.

    Here's another:
    From today's Indo:
    http://www.independent.ie/national-n...b-2406939.html
    TAOISEACH Brian Cowen's brother has been appointed to a new post with the Irish Greyhound Board.He went for the job after the slowdown in his auctioneering and valuing business following the collapse of the property market.
    Barry Cowen, who is a Fianna Fail councillor for the Cowen family's home town of Clara in Co Offaly, is to take up his new job at Mullingar Greyhound Stadium next Monday.
    Mr Cowen has been appointed sales, commercial and operations manager in Mullingar and said he was looking forward to the challenge.
    And they insist it was not a Political Decision... Of course it wasn't Perish the thought...

    Again, what's the point of this? It either was, or was not, a political decision - but your OP is essentially just an invitation for people to weigh in behind you saying "yeah, right on, brother!".

    This isn't your echo chamber. Setting up these sort of "support me here please" threads isn't the point. That applies to everybody, regardless of political orientation.

    Your "recession, what recession?" OP was a bit better, but it was incredibly unclear what the point was. What you were asking was whether there should be incentives to get people's savings mobilised, but you actually managed to bury that point in the stuff about concert tickets.

    You need to learn how to start a thread. Until you do, you're not doing anything useful by starting threads - you're just cluttering the forum with your half-digested thoughts. And that's not any sort of right.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw



  • #353
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Lenny, you've now posted a couple of threads that really weren't going to generate any political discussion. That may have been simply because of the way you phrased them, or it may have been because there wasn't really a political discussion to be had. I let the first one run, and as we can easily see, it didn't generate anything worthwhile at all.
    Surely the substance of a thread is a matter of opinion. The Marie Antoinette thread was generating discussion several replies in under half an hour.... but then you shut it down. I know it may have been getting a bit uncomfortable for you but should that cloud your judgement?


    Your "recession, what recession?" OP was a bit better, but it was incredibly unclear what the point was. What you were asking was whether there should be incentives to get people's savings mobilised, but you actually managed to bury that point in the stuff about concert tickets.
    Recession? What Recession?
    So we've seen clear evidence that there is plenty of disposable cash available at short notice - for one example: Two major concerts selling out over 160,000 tickets in less than two hours at a value of nearly €12million. So, is it time in this coming budget to make substantial incentives for people to actually spend some of the money obviously stashed away and so kick off the economy? People saving for the rainy day need to realise that the rain is well and truly bucketing down...
    The mention of the concert was merely one sentence taking up the equivelant of one line in a seven line thread. It was and is a valid point for discussion/debate. We are all aware that there are tens of billions of Euro sitting in personal bank accounts and their circulation would do wonders for re-generation of the economy. That's not worthy of discussion? I question your judgement. With respect, I feel your allowing your political beliefs to cloud your moderation judgement!
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    You need to learn how to start a thread. Until you do, you're not doing anything useful by starting threads - you're just cluttering the forum with your half-digested thoughts. And that's not any sort of right.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw
    A matter of opinion...

    And yet threads such as this that refer to a happening years ago are allowed to run on...
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68869707&postcount=1


  • #354
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I have to say that while I can see why you might prefer to believe that I closed your threads out of political bias rather than because they're low quality, the latter is in fact the case.

    It's a pity you're not willing to accept that, because it means that next time you want to start a thread you'll ask yourself the wrong question - "will this pass Scofflaw's prejudices?" - and then you'll be very surprised when you discover that you're using the wrong yardstick.

    To save me issuing the advice then, and for the benefit of anyone reading this without their nose already in a sling, here's the advice: when you want to start a thread make your point clearly, and make it political. Don't indulge yourself, and don't bury the issue you want discussed in a mound of verbiage - separate the evidence from the question. A good pointer is to put the discussion issue in the form of a question at the end of the post, on its own, with a question mark - and, finally, a rhetorical question isn't usually a good thread starter.

    Here's Lenny's "recession, what recession?" post rephrased as per the above:
    So we've seen clear evidence that there is plenty of disposable cash available at short notice - for one example: Two major concerts selling out over 160,000 tickets in less than two hours at a value of nearly €12million. There's obviously wealth out there!

    So, is it time in this coming budget to make substantial incentives for people to actually spend some of the money obviously stashed away and so kick off the economy?

    That's a political discussion question, and it was there in Lenny's original OP, but hard to spot.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #355
    Lenny Lovett
    Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Lenny Lovett


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I have to say that while I can see why you might prefer to believe that I closed your threads out of political bias rather than because they're low quality, the latter is in fact the case.

    It's a pity you're not willing to accept that, because it means that next time you want to start a thread you'll ask yourself the wrong question - "will this pass Scofflaw's prejudices?" - and then you'll be very surprised when you discover that you're using the wrong yardstick.
    LOL! You've a high opinion of yourself! Do you really think I'll give a sh1t whether it'll pass your ridiculous prejudices? You're even more deluded than I previously thought!

    To save me issuing the advice then, and for the benefit of anyone reading this without their nose already in a sling, here's the advice: when you want to start a thread make your point clearly, and make it political. Don't indulge yourself, and don't bury the issue you want discussed in a mound of verbiage - separate the evidence from the question. A good pointer is to put the discussion issue in the form of a question at the end of the post, on its own, with a question mark - and, finally, a rhetorical question isn't usually a good thread starter.

    That's a political discussion question, and it was there in Lenny's original OP, but hard to spot.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw    [/QUOTE]
    So, in effect, you want all posts/political questions shortened and no expansion of points? Is that to be a standard or just a selected/randomly applied rule?


  • #356
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Fair enough - you don't get that the rules apply to you, so we'll part ways now to save some time. The forum is moderated for a reason, and part of the reason is to keep standards above a certain minimum, rather than simply being the delusions of tinpot megalomaniacs whose every action is the result of having a political axe to grind.

    We're expecting to be very busy between now and Christmas, what with the by-election and the Budget, so my tolerance for people who either can't understand the rules, or can't understand that they apply to them, is low.

    Permabanned. I'm sure we'll talk in DR.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #357
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    We're expecting to be very busy between now and Christmas, what with the by-election and the Budget, so my tolerance for people who either can't understand the rules, or can't understand that they apply to them, is low.

    Based on the quality of some of the posts today I really wish the mods would start to enforce this. Some of the posts have been of a disgracefully low standard and the very fact they are even been left on the threads in question is only encouraging more posts of an equally low standard.

    I know that you are looking at getting more mods on board but I really think an effort needs to be brought on now to maintain and increase standards of discourse on the Politics board. You have had offers of temporary mods which you have said were not desirable or not necessary. If thats the case can you put a request into the admins to keep an eye on the forum as well. I know DeVore has been posting here on a semi-regular basis maybe he could use his unique and direct style to help restore sanity to the forum.


  • #358
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gandalf wrote: »
    Based on the quality of some of the posts today I really wish the mods would start to enforce this. Some of the posts have been of a disgracefully low standard and the very fact they are even been left on the threads in question is only encouraging more posts of an equally low standard.

    I know that you are looking at getting more mods on board but I really think an effort needs to be brought on now to maintain and increase standards of discourse on the Politics board. You have had offers of temporary mods which you have said were not desirable or not necessary. If thats the case can you put a request into the admins to keep an eye on the forum as well. I know DeVore has been posting here on a semi-regular basis maybe he could use his unique and direct style to help restore sanity to the forum.


    Hi Gandalf,

    One of the main problems I'm seeing straight away is the absence of reported posts. For instance, today has been quite a busy day on the forum, yet there are only 25 reported posts (since 12 am until now, 21:36) The mods need help from the community in reporting posts they have a problem with. We will have a look at all reported posts, and take action when necessary. And obviously we will carry on taking action when we see posts that haven't been reported, yet warrant action.

    I will be focussing a lot on the quality of posting in politics and while I will not be "ruling with an iron fist" (yet :D) I will be asking people to rephrase if necessary, or go back to AH.

    Any advice you can offer, my inbox is always open.

    Yours,

    Papa


  • #359
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    I think people are not entirely sure what should be reported.... I dont wanna be reporting stuff which shouldnt be.


  • #360
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    If you think it is dodgy or substandard report it and let the mods decide whether it is.

    Papa Smut I think a lot of the regulars like myself have gotten disheartened over the last few months so they may have said "what's the point" in reporting posts. I know I have pissed off one mod a least with the way I have reported posts recently as well but again that has been borne from the degradation of standards here recently.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Ive been diligently reporting every post I have seen with any variation of the word "scum" in it... my pet peeve.


  • #362
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    Ive been diligently reporting every post I have seen with any variation of the word "scum" in it... my pet peeve.

    Did you report this one?


  • #363
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Well, there's three new mods here now who need help from you guys. I knew (had a slight idea) of the workload that would be involved, so please, use the report button anytime you see fit.

    As Gandalf said:
    If you think it is dodgy or substandard, report it.


  • #364
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    Will somebody allow us to include a poll with our post rather than having to annoy moderators?

    The vast majority of fora on Boards.ie appear to allow contributors do this.


  • #365
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Rebelheart wrote: »
    Will somebody allow us to include a poll with our post rather than having to annoy moderators?

    The vast majority of fora on Boards.ie appear to allow contributors do this.
    We've consciously chosen to turn off polls. Polls are a useful way to do a quick headcount for various different purposes across the site, but on the Politics forum they're more likely to be used as a points-scoring exercise. ("See? Most people agree with me.")

    The purpose of the forum is discussion, not popularity contests. I don't see us allowing polls anytime soon.


  • #366
    Rebelheart
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,077 ✭✭✭Rebelheart


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    We've consciously chosen to turn off polls. Polls are a useful way to do a quick headcount for various different purposes across the site, but on the Politics forum they're more likely to be used as a points-scoring exercise. ("See? Most people agree with me.")

    The purpose of the forum is discussion, not popularity contests. I don't see us allowing polls anytime soon.

    Well, I only wanted to get the general view on the success of Irish negotiations with the ECB/IMF, so there's really, really, really no need for paranoia on this issue. It's, at best, childish, particularly given that fora across Boards.ie can allow such a simple function without reading things into it.

    At any rate, the vast majority of posts on the Politics forum, and very many posts on other fora, are already used as "point-scoring exercises". Even when a poster is agreeing with somebody they are storing up "points" for their next battle, or being thanked by people as part of the general "points-scoring" shenanigans. Why, therefore, is a poll being singled out as something unique in this regard?

    And for God's sake: if you're so against "popularity contests" in this forum, please cut the hypocrisy and disable the "thanks" feature.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I was just explaining the reasoning. No need to read too much into it.

    You may not agree with the reasoning; so be it. Like I said, I don't see it happening.

    Apart from anything else, there seems to be a vBulletin bug that breaks the "first unread" function in threads with polls, which can make it very hard to follow busy threads.

    You should be able to get a general view on whether people believe the negotiations were successful by reading their posts on the subject. Hopefully, posts will flesh out the reasons why people believe they were or were not successful, which provides a lot more insight and opportunity for discussion than a yes/no poll.


  • #368
    Kiki10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Kiki10


    It very hard to describe an insult. What is acceptable to one is unacceptable to others. People often use, been insulted as a method of silencing a point of view. its like a soccer player going down anytime some one looks at them. I think there must be a cut off point where personal stuff is off limits unless its the issue of the debate. Language is dependent on age, I hate profanity's but I will use them where required. Its interesting to think that in Hebrew there is few insults so Israelis use Arabic to swear at each other.. in a roundabout way insults have eased integration of two different peoples??


  • #369
    CnaG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭CnaG


    Kickoutthejams on Fintan O'Toole's petition:
    Cut out the Gender Quotas stuff. We had to close a thread on the subject already as it got so out of hand.

    This is the thread where we can comment on moderation, no? I'm fairly new to the politics board, but this particular warning seemed a bit, well, I don't think it's the right tact for the thread. The discussion has already started, and thread is meant to be about discussing FOT's petition. #6 (gender quotas) is part of that.

    If mods were concerned with #6 becoming an issue, shouldn't the intervention have come 3 days ago when Red Alert said (in the very second post on the thread) "I don't agree with Point 6, but otherwise it's all good", inviting discussion of #6. Which posters were doing, fairly civilly (though more stating their opinion rather than actually discussing it) until The Corinthian described it as 'crap' (post #32). After that it was 'Absolutely obnoxious, disgusting anti-democratic, sexist nonsense" (#33), 'a joke' (#41) and just plain 'ridiculous' (#44).

    In this sense, the moderator's comment seems reasonable. Those descriptions of #6 were provocative. Fair enough, tell everyone to back off. Maybe even lay down some guidelines for the thread, but cut out the discussion of #6 completely? A bit heavy handed, no? :confused:

    Also, it's been three days since the gender quota discussion started on the FOT thread, provocations about #6 flying left, right and centre. But it's only when TRunner got involved (within a day of it) that there's a mod warning. I had a look at that other thread on gender quotas too, TRunner's one which is closed. I hadn't seen it before, and it did go in circles a bit, but why close it? Are gender quotas now a banned topic on politics? If a thread to discuss FOT's #6 is started so as not to derail/'hijack' (TC - #46) the original thread, will that too get closed down?

    It just seems a bit like no-one can be bothered to keep an eye on the conversation and, rather than attempt to, they just say don't discuss it at all. I really think better guidelines are in order here, rather than an out-and-out 'cut it out' kind of thing.

    Just my humble opinion.

    P.S. the post directly after kickoutthejams calls #6 PC crap - just to point that out.


  • #370
    Kiki10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Kiki10


    CnaG wrote: »
    Kickoutthejams on Fintan O'Toole's petition:
    Cut out the Gender Quotas stuff. We had to close a thread on the subject already as it got so out of hand.

    This is the thread where we can comment on moderation, no? I'm fairly new to the politics board, but this particular warning seemed a bit, well, I don't think it's the right tact for the thread. The discussion has already started, and thread is meant to be about discussing FOT's petition. #6 (gender quotas) is part of that.

    If mods were concerned with #6 becoming an issue, shouldn't the intervention have come 3 days ago when Red Alert said (in the very second post on the thread) "I don't agree with Point 6, but otherwise it's all good", inviting discussion of #6. Which posters were doing, fairly civilly (though more stating their opinion rather than actually discussing it) until The Corinthian described it as 'crap' (post #32). After that it was 'Absolutely obnoxious, disgusting anti-democratic, sexist nonsense" (#33), 'a joke' (#41) and just plain 'ridiculous' (#44).

    In this sense, the moderator's comment seems reasonable. Those descriptions of #6 were provocative. Fair enough, tell everyone to back off. Maybe even lay down some guidelines for the thread, but cut out the discussion of #6 completely? A bit heavy handed, no? :confused:

    Also, it's been three days since the gender quota discussion started on the FOT thread, provocations about #6 flying left, right and centre. But it's only when TRunner got involved (within a day of it) that there's a mod warning. I had a look at that other thread on gender quotas too, TRunner's one which is closed. I hadn't seen it before, and it did go in circles a bit, but why close it? Are gender quotas now a banned topic on politics? If a thread to discuss FOT's #6 is started so as not to derail/'hijack' (TC - #46) the original thread, will that too get closed down?

    It just seems a bit like no-one can be bothered to keep an eye on the conversation and, rather than attempt to, they just say don't discuss it at all. I really think better guidelines are in order here, rather than an out-and-out 'cut it out' kind of thing.

    Just my humble opinion.

    P.S. the post directly after kickoutthejams calls #6 PC crap - just to point that out.
    the mods here are unpaid so its probably unfair to ask them to be more detailed in there interaction. This entire forum has no importance in the real world bar light entertainment & academic research. I think a lot of people at all levels here take this whole topic too seriously.


  • #371
    CnaG
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭CnaG


    Kiki10 wrote: »
    the mods here are unpaid so its probably unfair to ask them to be more detailed in there interaction. This entire forum has no importance in the real world bar light entertainment & academic research. I think a lot of people at all levels here take this whole topic too seriously.
    See, I think you're actually wrong there. Can you take politics too seriously? Probably yes, but saying what goes on here has no importance at all is unneccesarily dismissive. After all, people are just as likely to form and solidify opinions during discussions here as they are in the 'real world'. About things like gender quotas.

    I take your point about the mods being unpaid. Why bother intervening at all though, if not going to do so in a constructive manner?


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Lockstep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,026 ✭✭✭Lockstep


    CnaG wrote: »
    Kickoutthejams on Fintan O'Toole's petition:
    Cut out the Gender Quotas stuff. We had to close a thread on the subject already as it got so out of hand.

    This is the thread where we can comment on moderation, no? I'm fairly new to the politics board, but this particular warning seemed a bit, well, I don't think it's the right tact for the thread. The discussion has already started, and thread is meant to be about discussing FOT's petition. #6 (gender quotas) is part of that.

    If mods were concerned with #6 becoming an issue, shouldn't the intervention have come 3 days ago when Red Alert said (in the very second post on the thread) "I don't agree with Point 6, but otherwise it's all good", inviting discussion of #6. Which posters were doing, fairly civilly (though more stating their opinion rather than actually discussing it) until The Corinthian described it as 'crap' (post #32). After that it was 'Absolutely obnoxious, disgusting anti-democratic, sexist nonsense" (#33), 'a joke' (#41) and just plain 'ridiculous' (#44).

    In this sense, the moderator's comment seems reasonable. Those descriptions of #6 were provocative. Fair enough, tell everyone to back off. Maybe even lay down some guidelines for the thread, but cut out the discussion of #6 completely? A bit heavy handed, no? :confused:

    Also, it's been three days since the gender quota discussion started on the FOT thread, provocations about #6 flying left, right and centre. But it's only when TRunner got involved (within a day of it) that there's a mod warning. I had a look at that other thread on gender quotas too, TRunner's one which is closed. I hadn't seen it before, and it did go in circles a bit, but why close it? Are gender quotas now a banned topic on politics? If a thread to discuss FOT's #6 is started so as not to derail/'hijack' (TC - #46) the original thread, will that too get closed down?

    It just seems a bit like no-one can be bothered to keep an eye on the conversation and, rather than attempt to, they just say don't discuss it at all. I really think better guidelines are in order here, rather than an out-and-out 'cut it out' kind of thing.

    Just my humble opinion.

    P.S. the post directly after kickoutthejams calls #6 PC crap - just to point that out.
    The reason that a warning was given after Trunner's post was that was as soon as I became aware that the thread was descending into another flame war over gender quotas. One thread was already derailed and a separate thread became one of recycled arguments between the two posters in question.
    We moderate in our spare time and the sheer amount of posts in the Politics forum means we can't be everywhere at once. We're reliant on users reporting posts to see where we're needed. Once a user reported that the thread had become a rerun of an epic dual (and the posts came to my attention) I posted in the thread. Had I been aware of it before, I would have warned against derailing the thread into gender quotas as soon as it started veering in that direction.
    I know you'd like us to deal with posts as soon as they are made (I would too) but we're unpaid volunteers that can't be viewing every single thread for fun. We intervene as soon as we become aware of things, not as soon as they are posted.

    Noone is saying "No discussions on points 6". What is being said is "Cut out these endless repeats of gender quota arguments". Discussing it in a general sense is grand but as you've seen, the gender quotas thread became completely stale with all sides reporting posts, claiming personal attacks when the other poster was just disagreeing with them. Posting about #6 is fine, but turning it into Gender Quotas Flame War 2.0 isn't on, which is where the thread was going.


  • #373
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dear Santa,

    This Christmas, I don't want any presents. Instead, please remove ":rolleyes:" from the politics forum, so condescending and patronising posts decrease by approximately 47%.

    Yours,

    Papa Smut


  • #374
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Papa Smut wrote: »
    Dear Santa,

    This Christmas, I don't want any presents. Instead, please remove ":rolleyes:" from the politics forum, so condescending and patronising posts decrease by approximately 47%.

    Yours,

    Papa Smut

    :mad:

    :rolleyes:

    :pac:


  • #375
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I think there is something wrong with the rules in this forum when infractions are given for this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69622768&postcount=62 and this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69613629&postcount=41. Mild, but unpleasant abuse aimed at a group seems not to be tolerated if the word "scum" is used.

    But this seems to be accepted as being within the rules: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69611319&postcount=32. It seems you can accuse an individual of causing the deaths of others, and wish harm on that individual.


  • #376
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Guys, I guess this is the place to say it, but why dont we have a "poster of the year" type dealey? Like on the soccer forum, would be a bit of a laugh!


  • #377
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    You're not getting it Mussolini! :p

    Seriously though, peoples' opinions of other posters are based a lot on their own political opinions, and thus it would be impossible to find some "poster of the year".


  • #378
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    You're not getting it Mussolini! :p

    Seriously though, peoples' opinions of other posters are based a lot on their own political opinions, and thus it would be impossible to find some "poster of the year".
    Not true, works well in the soccer forum where everyone is literally divided into teams, I even voted for a pool supporter! :D

    Maybe not "poster of the year" but perhaps ones for people like donegalfella who seem to put a deal of effort into the post, would illustrate the type of standard to aim for and stuff. Just a thought.


  • #379
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    Something I have noticed recently is posters writing a large chunks, or chunks of their posts in bold type. Should this be against forum rules? If everybody did it, it would make a thread extremely tiresome to read, in my opinion it's as bad as typing whole paragraphs in capital letters. It only seeks to catch attention in a way that it could (usually, in my experience) never manage through written expression or in light of the merit of its logic.

    the use of bold in the above paragraph is just done to illustrate what I mean, I'm not actually talking anybody down but you can see how it reads. If nothing else it certainly isn't conducive to a calm and logical discussion.


  • #380
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,842 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'd certainly rather people didn't do it. Apart from anything else, it's one way we signify moderator instructions on-thread, and having non-mods posting like that is obtrusive.


  • #381
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    Didn't think this would fall into the category of a rule but this is where GuanYin has pointed me to request that we have a new topic (as we always seemed to have and other political sites do) to discuss each opinion poll that comes out. Reporting the post isn't right and my short explanation on thread was removed.

    Anyway, polls for December 2010 and January 2011 are done for two different companies and produced a different set of results. Having them merged in together as they are now makes it hard to follow. Personally I would like to discuss January and Decembers separately and the same with each new poll that comes out. Its a different discussion, not the same one.

    GuanYin suggests having them altogether and just change the topic title. I disagree and think this change should be reverted so that we can discuss them separately. I think there is room for separate discussions on separate political issues.

    Appreciate peoples thoughts and the political mods thoughts also. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Both polls were carried out by Red C research.

    Having a thread for every poll that is carried out is a non starter.

    We have the same policy in US Politics, I don't believe the main forum should have a different one.


  • #383
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    I don't think we should merge polls from different months.


  • #384
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    nesf wrote: »
    I don't think we should merge polls from different months.

    Its just my view that different months, even from the same research company, are a separate discussion. A month is a long time in Irish politics, not sure about the American system, especially in the current climate. Id personally prefer to discuss them separately and not have them jumbled up as its confusing, in my view. Its not just about numbers - the documentation released after I posted it gives much more detailed information which would be different then previous polls.

    On the other hand, sometimes you may see a couple of polls in the same month and discussing them in one thread I would be happy with as they can be interesting to compare.


  • #385
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Just a quick question for the Politics mods: how recent should a post have to be to report it? I sometimes see posts 2 or 3 or 4 days old that merit reporting, but is it a little late/silly to report them then? Especially given the heavy work load ye have anyway?


  • #386
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Just a quick question for the Politics mods: how recent should a post have to be to report it? I sometimes see posts 2 or 3 or 4 days old that merit reporting, but is it a little late/silly to report them then? Especially given the heavy work load ye have anyway?

    Reporting stuff that's under a week old is fine. We might not action it but it will be noted etc.


  • #387
    Fitzerb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭Fitzerb


    GuanYin wrote: »
    MOD:

    In your opinion. Because until there is a legal statement which charges all Sinn Fein members with being IRA terrorists, that's exactly all it is, opinion.

    And I'm quite aware that often, popular opinion is the truth, just as I'm aware that it often isn't.

    In this case, for the sake of debate and discussion, if you are going to make such accusations I EXPECT you will link to the actual documented charges and convictions against all individuals.

    I'm quite fed up with the mudslinging on both sides of this particular divide. We will be looking at better ways to moderate these threads.

    In the mean time, those employing hyperbole, rumor or conjecture as fact will be admonished.


    I have no problem adhering to that rule on the basis that you apply that rule to all others. I can prove Martin Mc Guinness was a member of the IRA , I can prove Martin Ferris was a member and ther are many other less prominent SF memebrs who were found guilty in the courts of law of membership of the IRA. However I accept your point that there is no proff that all SF members are IRA no more than all FF members are corrupt. But as a mod you seem to all that muck slinging to carry on. No problem with you applying the rules but its important and in the interest of fair debate that they are applied in a fair and uncensored manner


  • #388
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Moved to the appropriate thread.
    Fitzerb wrote: »
    I have no problem adhering to that rule on the basis that you apply that rule to all others. I can prove Martin Mc Guinness was a member of the IRA , I can prove Martin Ferris was a member and ther are many other less prominent SF memebrs who were found guilty in the courts of law of membership of the IRA. However I accept your point that there is no proff that all SF members are IRA no more than all FF members are corrupt. But as a mod you seem to all that muck slinging to carry on. No problem with you applying the rules but its important and in the interest of fair debate that they are applied in a fair and uncensored manner

    I have no problem applying the rules equally to all sectors, I will say that we require the forums help in doing so.

    If you see a post that you feel is taking liberties with fact, ask for clarification in a polite way. If the poster does not follow through, report the post for our attention.

    I may only nudge them on thread, but we won't tolerate that style of posting for long.


  • #389
    Fitzerb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 619 ✭✭✭Fitzerb


    GuanYin wrote: »
    Moved to the appropriate thread.



    I have no problem applying the rules equally to all sectors, I will say that we require the forums help in doing so.

    If you see a post that you feel is taking liberties with fact, ask for clarification in a polite way. If the poster does not follow through, report the post for our attention.

    I may only nudge them on thread, but we won't tolerate that style of posting for long.


    Thank You


  • #390
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Remember last election there was this really petty carry on of calling political parties by a derogatory version of their name. "Feel and Fail" etc.

    Can this crap be banned outright? It isn't big, funny or clever. Just immature and embarrassing.


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Remember last election there was this really petty carry on of calling political parties by a derogatory version of their name. "Feel and Fail" etc.

    Can this crap be banned outright? It isn't big, funny or clever. Just immature and embarrassing.

    I share your dislike of such silliness, but I fear the bus has already departed: we have had months of similar stuff playing on the names of politicians. I briefly considered citing examples, but the inevitable responses would be that the particular cases were justified.

    It is becoming increasingly difficult to find proper political discussion here.


  • #392
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    We are currently discussing the preparations for dealing with the upcoming elections. I will add these concerns to the agenda.


  • #393
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    Probably been asked before but I'm asking anyway, simple yes/no answers would suffice - I'm making no accusations, merely asking the questions which I'd like answered and will accept whatever the answers may be...

    1) Do the rules of boards and these forums apply to all users or is there some lee-way or special dispensation to not have the rules applied to users who continually bring any topics related to SF in particular, off topic at (it seems) every opportunity ?

    2) In relation to the above, if reports are made, sometimes many reports made against these users who continually bring topics related to SF off topic at every opportunity - are these reports just ignored and fobbed off out of hand by the mods or Cmods on politics or are you being ordered in any way to do so (ignore these reports) by Boards themselves ?

    3) In relation to point 2 above, do the reports made by users have a private, I suppose mod/cmod/admin only viewable section, where action or inaction is viewable to other mods responsible for Politics forums - to prevent/deter any opportunity if ever such a heinous deed was attempted by any type of rogue admin/mod ignoring, taking no action and then deleting such reports before any other mod/cmod/admin got a chance to view same ?

    4) Lastly, Is Boards in any way funded or associated with Fine Gael, it's Youth wing or any any other inkling of association with FG in any way ?

    Thanks.


  • #394
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    Probably been asked before but I'm asking anyway, simple yes/no answers would suffice -

    1. All rules are applied equally - if you feel we've missed something, report the post.
    2. We aren't ordered to do anything by anyone. We judge each report based on the charter and rules, if someone is walking the line, we note it, we won't infract or ban based on a reported post.
    3. a log of all moderation is available for any post.
    4. Are you seriously asking that? NO and it's a ridiculous question.

    [personal opinion]
    It should be noted that too many posters take the view of "if you don't agree with me, you must be one of them".

    This is, in my view, an arrogant and childish view that plagues this forum. I've been accused of being pro-sinn fein and pro-FF in the same thread (I'm not even eligible to vote in Ireland), pro/anti-Israel, pro/anti PRC etc often on the same page.

    People need to grow up and realize that just because they don't get their way, there isn't some huge agenda against them.


  • #395
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    GuanYin wrote: »
    1. All rules are applied equally - if you feel we've missed something, report the post.

    I have, many times. I don't report willy nilly, I report in particular a few users who continually at every opportunity bring threads relating any way to SF off topic. I don't think there's a single thread relating to SF on politics forum that has not been brought off topic by the same few people.
    No (publicly viewable) action is ever taken against these people who continue to do the same thing again and again, hence my perception is that those few people and rule breaking in general if aimed against anything SF is fair game.
    I have given up reporting these users as I felt it was a waste of time and now just no longer participate in those threads as what starts out with what you might read on page 1, click the last post button and the thread has descended into farce (usually from page 2 onwards).
    I however accept your reply and shall say no more. I had to ask, you've answered I believe honestly and therefore I'm content in that I was wrong in my perception.
    However, I will still refrain from participating in same discussions once the Irish version of Godwins law has once again been invoked and the threads then descend into farce from thereon.
    2. We aren't ordered to do anything by anyone. We judge each report based on the charter and rules, if someone is walking the line, we note it, we won't infract or ban based on a reported post.
    3. a log of all moderation is available for any post.

    Thanks.
    4. Are you seriously asking that? NO and it's a ridiculous question.

    Yes. I felt the need to ask and I accept your response, thank you.
    [personal opinion]
    It should be noted that too many posters take the view of "if you don't agree with me, you must be one of them".
    People need to grow up and realize that just because they don't get their way, there isn't some huge agenda against them.

    It wasn't about "getting my way" or anything to do with others not agreeing. I had honest grievances in the lack of moderation as I saw it, particularly in relation to SF threads and again, a few users intent on bringing said threads off topic at every single opportunity, even when said users are reported for doing same, yet continue on it would seem, unabated and without a care as to breaking any rules the rest of us have to abide by.

    Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.


  • #396
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,299 ✭✭✭✭later12


    I'm not a Sinn Feiner, and in fact I have a serious problem with the party from a policy perspective alone, but I would have to reluctantly agree with the poster Nehaxak on the issue of Sinn Fein threads being constantly derailed.

    The party should be discredited for its policies, absolutely; while that could often be done quite easily, threads relating to SF inevitably descend into the same sort of rubbish about kneecappings and Enniskillen. In my mind, that's allowed to happen in a way that would be considered way off topic for other parties like FF or FG. Imagine a thread on FG economic policy where all anybody could talk about was Fine Gael taxing children's shoes in the 1980s.

    All that irrelevant derailing with history lessons actually achieves is to serve as a distraction from how loony Sinn Féin really are, in my opinion. I understand that politics must be a demanding forum to moderate, but really I think it's safe to say that a troublemaker would feel a lot more safe bashing Sinn Finers on here than he would feel bashing the Fine Gaelers or even the Greens.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    It wasn't about "getting my way" or anything to do with others not agreeing. I had honest grievances in the lack of moderation as I saw it, particularly in relation to SF threads and again, a few users intent on bringing said threads off topic at every single opportunity, even when said users are reported for doing same, yet continue on it would seem, unabated and without a care as to breaking any rules the rest of us have to abide by.

    There is a difficulty with 'derailment' from a moderator perspective, which is that in some cases it is obvious, while in others it's not very cut and dried.

    There are quite a few people whose objections to Sinn Fein are precisely those that are being described here as derailment - kneecappings and Enniskillen. Whether those objections are relevant to the topic in hand depends on the exact topic under discussion. They're fairly irrelevant when the thread intends to discuss, say, the potential impacts of a specific item in Sinn Fein's economic policies, but they're not automatically irrelevant in a discussion of Gerry Adams' chances of taking a seat in Louth - some people won't vote Sinn Fein for those reasons, and think other people should not vote Sinn Fein for those reasons.

    In respect of other parties, it's not so much of an issue, except where Green Party threads get derailed by people who don't accept climate change is actually happening. It's not even so much of an issue that every discussion of Fianna Fáil tends to wind up with people complaining about NAMA and the bank bailout, because NAMA and the bank bailout are part of the recent record of Fianna Fáil in government.

    If we don't allow people to express their genuine reasons for objecting to Sinn Fein, we are effectively intervening in support of Sinn Fein, because their association with terrorist acts in the relatively recent past is a very large factor for a good proportion of the electorate, and we'd be in effect saying that people cannot put forward that point of view. The price of that is, indeed, derailment of threads into trench warfare, their eventual closure by the mods, and a rash of red spots.

    Another one of those cases where there isn't a perfect solution, I'm afraid.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #398
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    I take your points/views Scofflaw and I do understand that side of things, but do we have to put up with this in every single thread in relation to SF ?

    Also, labelling a whole party (and thusly, it's supporters/voters) merely by perceived association is unfair and wrong.
    I support, admire and vote SF - yet I do not nor ever did support the IRA, nor will I ever.
    While I understand your wording or intentions when saying "their association with terrorist acts" may not have meant to come across in a way meant to be insulting to me as a voter/supporter of SF, it nonetheless did and hence another wrong perception is thrown about which is all too common on here.

    I do however take some comfort in the belief that if the only thing to be constantly thrown around here in opposition of SF, is their perceived association and involvement with wrongful deeds carried out in the past by the PIRA - Then an awful lot of you who are opposed merely on those grounds, are just wasting opportunities to discuss actual policies.
    If there's anything I've picked up and learned from SF supporters and those who would possibly consider voting for them, it's that they know damn well what the perceptions and perceived associations are in regards the PIRA - and it doesn't effect them to reconsider their voting either way.

    The only thing you're (not you personally Scofflaw, I'm addressing this in general...) doing by constantly whacking out the same old stuff is just pissing people like me off who post here as I can see past all of that and would rather discuss policies and politics - yet I'm left to either place people on ignore or just ignore a whole thread once it's descended into farce.
    Which is a shame as an election is looming large, SF should up their vote significantly in same and if the last few months is anything to go by, you really cannot be certain what way things will turn out once the election is over and a government needs to be formed.

    I appreciate you taking the time to respond and though I could go on arguing "my side of the fence" as I see it, I shan't - merely because I hope people themselves at some stage rise above the usual and we can discuss actual policies and politics.

    Which will probably be after Gerry Adams is declared Taoiseach...


  • #399
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    I take your points/views Scofflaw and I do understand that side of things, but do we have to put up with this in every single thread in relation to SF ?

    Also, labelling a whole party (and thusly, it's supporters/voters) merely by perceived association is unfair and wrong.
    I support, admire and vote SF - yet I do not nor ever did support the IRA, nor will I ever.
    While I understand your wording or intentions when saying "their association with terrorist acts" may not have meant to come across in a way meant to be insulting to me as a voter/supporter of SF, it nonetheless did and hence another wrong perception is thrown about which is all too common on here.

    I did originally have slightly different phrasing there which made it clearer that I meant the association in the public's mind, and I probably should have kept that, although it made the sentence more awkward.
    Nehaxak wrote: »
    I do however take some comfort in the belief that if the only thing to be constantly thrown around here in opposition of SF, is their perceived association and involvement with wrongful deeds carried out in the past by the PIRA - Then an awful lot of you who are opposed merely on those grounds, are just wasting opportunities to discuss actual policies.
    If there's anything I've picked up and learned from SF supporters and those who would possibly consider voting for them, it's that they know damn well what the perceptions and perceived associations are in regards the PIRA - and it doesn't effect them to reconsider their voting either way.

    The only thing you're (not you personally Scofflaw, I'm addressing this in general...) doing by constantly whacking out the same old stuff is just pissing people like me off who post here as I can see past all of that and would rather discuss policies and politics - yet I'm left to either place people on ignore or just ignore a whole thread once it's descended into farce.
    Which is a shame as an election is looming large, SF should up their vote significantly in same and if the last few months is anything to go by, you really cannot be certain what way things will turn out once the election is over and a government needs to be formed.

    I appreciate you taking the time to respond and though I could go on arguing "my side of the fence" as I see it, I shan't - merely because I hope people themselves at some stage rise above the usual and we can discuss actual policies and politics.

    Which will probably be after Gerry Adams is declared Taoiseach...

    I'm afraid that it's unlikely to be any time in the conceivable Irish future at all.

    Also, just looking at the Jean McConville thread there, I have to say that while there are people who are very visibly pursuing the question of Adams' involvement in the killing, there are also people who are defending her killing on the basis that she was a tout, while denying Adams' involvement in it. More or less a post a minute, 13 ruddy pages of it, and into the trench warfare by the end of page one.

    The problem there is that Jean McConville's daughter is standing because her mother was shot by the PIRA, on the orders, she believes, of the man she's running against. How is the discussion supposed to "rise above the usual and...discuss actual policies and politics" when the politics of the situation itself revolve around questions of culpability in murder?

    It's not up to the mods to square that circle for Sinn Fein.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #400
    GuanYin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,552 ✭✭✭✭GuanYin


    Also, as per the rules of the charter, ANYONE celebrating murder or death, be it of a soldier, informant, IRA member or anyone alleged to be one of these, will be removed from the forum.


  • #401
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    I take your points/views Scofflaw and I do understand that side of things, but do we have to put up with this in every single thread in relation to SF ?[/SIZE]

    There's a horrible issue here in that SF's past is horribly relevant to the question of SF in the present for much and many of the electorate. It's extremely difficult to come up with anything other than an extremely narrow topic where it doesn't become relevant enough for someone to genuinely bring it up in a thread.

    Now there is very understandable annoyance on the side of SF voters/supporters because they have to defend against the same old type of accusations over and over in every thread, but the exact same thing could be said of FF and Green threads where they are constantly derailed into stuff about NAMA etc even when the topic is actually something completely separate.

    This is an extremely difficult issue to moderate on because people do have a right to complain about SF's relationship with the IRA as much as they have the right to complain about FF's bringing about of NAMA or the IMF deal or whatever. In fact, we're probably going to be dealing with IMF and NAMA issues on FF threads on sites for a decade at least if FF remain around as a party in their current form and FF canvassers will have it thrown in their faces for longer similar to how SF canvassers are hunted from doorsteps in some areas for their history with the IRA.


    I'd honestly love if people were able to stick narrowly to the topic at hand in threads but really human nature just isn't made up that way and people will constantly drag threads off on relevant tangents and there's not much we can do to change this without draconian measures that will blatantly favour one side or the other (picture us banning all discussion of Budget, Banker dealings, Financial misregulation, NAMA and the IMF deal outside of threads that specifically include them as topics if you want to see how this looks from the perspective of a party you don't support).


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement