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

Banned from Politics!

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Just to be clear, Fysh: there's a rule in Politics that means you're basically not allowed to call someone a liar unless you can prove it. irish1 has some sort of pathological need to call Bertie a liar, I'm not sure why.

    Wow. Well, that simplifies everything neatly then.

    Back to singing the umbrella song so, I guess...


  • Options
    #33
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    irish1 wrote:
    I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

    Does that actually matter? Rules can change or the setting in which discussion takes place on boards can change etc.

    You can have an opinion on it but calling Bertie a liar isn't having an opinion, it's a claim that the testimony that he gave was untrue and that he knew this at the time. That isn't simply an opinion, it's a very serious claim and unless you can provide evidence backing it up I cannot see why you should be allowed to make that claim here where you are not the one who will be held legally responsible for it.


  • Options
    #34
    Rock Climber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    oscarBravo wrote:
    I'm perfectly aware of what I said. I said it, remember? In this context, it's called a personal attack. You've explicitly accused a moderator of the Politics forum of allowing a presumed political bias to inform his moderation of the forum. That's a pretty serious accusation. Righto. This is the point where I get into a long-winded discussion, at the end of which you explain that when you said we let people call politicians liars you actually meant that we allowed something different. Right?

    Unless of course you're suggesting that we've actually said it was OK to breach the forum charter in the case of specific politicians. This would be another serious accusation, this time levelled at the entire team of Politics moderators. Naturally, you wouldn't make such a serious accusation without evidence, right? Ah, I see. You've made the accusation, but it's up to me to find your evidence for you.

    Sorry, I don't think so.
    I don't know how ye put up with all this nonsense all day.
    Not to mention the fact that now we've all been accused of lying.

    Irish1 I am banning you from the politics forum for a minimum of a month and subject to a discussion amongst the mods of the forum,it could be longer or permanent.
    We've loads of things to be doing aswell as modding the forum besides putting up with the kind of crapola you've been perpetuating all day.


  • Options
    #35
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Emm what am I been banned for, what rule have I broken??? Seriously I don't see what I have done that merits a ban??


  • Options
    #36
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    irish1 wrote:
    Emm what am I been banned for, what rule have I broken??? Seriously I don't see what I have done that merits a ban??

    Being an enormous pain in the hole, and refusing point blank to accept the rules as stated in this post, I would guess.

    You got told the rules, repeatedly, and whinged, argued, misrepresented what others had said and generally tried to kick up a stink in feedback to get your own way. You've failed miserably, and ended up getting banned for it. Enjoy! :)

    Edited to add:

    Huzzah for sneaky subject changes as well - nicely done, that! It lets on that the the two pages of discussion here concern your ban, rather than constituting exactly the argument that led to your ban.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users Posts: 17,008 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    In the politics forum, you can accuse politicians of being involved in murder & criminality without any evidence other than it is your opinion. Try calling someone a liar though and your history!


  • Options
    #38
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Rock Climber wrote:
    Irish1 I am banning you from the politics forum for a minimum of a month and subject to a discussion amongst the mods of the forum,it could be longer or permanent.
    Very poor form lads.

    Fysh, he wasn't refusing to accept the rules. He was contesting the rules and afaik is seeking a look-in from higher than the forum mods. If he doesn't accept an admin's view on this, well then ban away.

    I've made my argument that regardless of his previous behaviour, I think he should be allowed do whatever the hell he likes with his sig as long as it doesn't hurt Boards. He's arguing a separate point.

    This ban smells of a personal vendetta lads.


  • Options
    #39
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Somewhere in the distance, I can hear lambs bleating to the tune of the Umbrella..ella..ella..ella..


  • Options
    #40
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Ibid, I can see your point, but for the love of random fluctuations in the spacetime continuum, if I had to put up with the kind of rubbish irish1 has been coming out with in the pursuit of something so petty he'd have been banned long ago.

    I mean, let's face it. We're talking, essentially, about whether or not he's allowed to make libelous comments and in what manner. His defence is that it's been allowed previously and so should be allowed now. The mods are saying it's not. I don't think he's looking for an admin decision on the matter, nor do I think it really needs one - what possible advantage is there to the forum if posters are specifically allowed to state "I reckon yer man X is a lying gobsheen" without having to back it up with proof? Who benefits? All it would do is encourage more of the kind of rubbish this thread is already full to bursting of.

    For the record, I too agree that he can do what the hell he likes with his sig. I just don't understand why irish1 seems to think he's got a right to libel politicians everywhere on boards, nor why the notion should even be entertained by anyone else...


  • Options
    #41
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    I made a contribution on the rules thread over in politics, my position basically being the same as ibid there. I wasn't going to add anything more as although I felt the decision about his sig was OTT I didn't care enough to push it but after the 1 month ban (possibly perm ban) I feel I have to re-register my concern about the whole silly affair.

    I like the politics forum and the mods do a great job considering how difficult it is to mod that particular forum but in the interest of fairness I think maybe they should take a step back and maybe re-examine the decision. Maybe even nominate a neutral mod from another forum, not familiar with Irish1 to help making a judgment. I genuinely feel this one was personal lads, perhaps not intentionally but personal nonetheless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Ibid wrote:
    Very poor form lads.

    Fysh, he wasn't refusing to accept the rules. He was contesting the rules and afaik is seeking a look-in from higher than the forum mods. If he doesn't accept an admin's view on this, well then ban away.

    I've made my argument that regardless of his previous behaviour, I think he should be allowed do whatever the hell he likes with his sig as long as it doesn't hurt Boards. He's arguing a separate point.

    This ban smells of a personal vendetta lads.

    At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?


    I genuinely don't get the sig thing. If he had "Bertie is a liar" as a sig, yeah sure but linking to a blog? That's a very grey area.


  • Options
    #43
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    nesf wrote:
    At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?
    In fairness he was advised by an admin to link to a blog instead of comment in thread. He did so and was asked to remove it by a forum mod. He then took it to feedback. His grevience is not completly without substance. I still don't really understand the problem with his blog as long as he doesn''t direct people to it in thread tbh.

    I think the best solution would be for Irish1 to STFU and for his blog link to be left in the sig. If he breaks the forum rule then by all means ban him to oblivion given how much he now knows calling someone a liar is a no no.


  • Options
    #44
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Fysh wrote:
    I mean, let's face it. We're talking, essentially, about whether or not he's allowed to make libelous comments and in what manner.
    To be fair, that's not true at all. I entirely agree with the mods that accusing Bertie of being a liar just isn't on. But irish1's point is pretty reasonable. I've probably referred to Gerry Adams as a murderer/head of the IRA etc in my time and never faced a slap on the wrist. I'd do a search but I'm not that arsed. He's asking why we can make such statements about gob****es from the North but not from North Dublin. That's a fair question, though I think there is a distinction. (I can't quite put my finger on it. It might have something to do with it being an on-going trial.) Regardless, he's discussed this with the mods over there so now he is here. It doesn't matter that the Politics mods have replied 400 times on this thread, he's looking to go higher. Until the point is reached where e.g. DeV says feck off, I don't think he can be banned for pestering. He might be a pain in the ass (I don't know him), but he's not breaking any rules. He's doing this reasonably.
    nesf wrote:
    At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?
    To me, Feedback is where the line is drawn. No mods had to reply to this thread, whereas they sort of had to in the rules thread on Politics. He was encouraged to make a Feedback thread by one mod and that very night banned by another for moaning. That's not on. They, like you or me, have no say in Feedback. They run the Politics. That's why I shut up in the rules thread there and politely agreed to disagree and let the forces that be decide. I don't really give a sh*te about his rules for Bertie vs rules for Gerry argument, although he has a reasonable point, which he has made politely, and imho it's up to DeV or whoever to intervene. It's then irish1's option to accept the rules or shut up/piss off.
    I genuinely don't get the sig thing. If he had "Bertie is a liar" as a sig, yeah sure but linking to a blog? That's a very grey area.
    He's even had admin approval for this, as far as I can see.

    Oh and for the record, I've never met irish1 or had any dealings with him. I am only passingly familiar with him via the Soccer board.

    </rant>


  • Options
    #45
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    I'm quoting oscarBravo from the politics thread here, I'd just prefer to have this discussion in Feedback rather than Politics if that's ok?
    oscarBravo wrote:
    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.

    Honestly, I don't see the problem with it. He can't state it in this forum for libel reasons, presumably. If he wants to state it off-site in a blog and link to it in his sig then there isn't really a cause to get uppity about it. The rules against it are not to shush people who think Bertie lied but to prevent libellous statements on this forum because Boards.ie takes (at least presumably) responsibility for them.

    The issue here should be him stating it on here word for word, not him stating it somewhere else and linking to it. If he stated it in his sig it's a problem. Otherwise I don't get the issue here.


  • Options
    #46
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Ibid wrote:
    To me, Feedback is where the line is drawn.

    I agree pretty much. If people want to complain about me or a forum I mod in Feedback they can complain as much as they want as far as I am concerned.


  • Options
    #47
    cast_iron
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭cast_iron


    Ibid wrote:
    Until the point is reached where e.g. DeV says feck off, I don't think he can be banned for pestering. He might be a pain in the ass (I don't know him), but he's not breaking any rules. He's doing this reasonably.
    Yes, but are you not assuming the ban was purely for the Feedback thread? I don't think it is. It's for the constant harassment the Mods have gotten from irish1 (accentuated from today's contribution in the Rules discussion thread in Politics).

    They've had enough, can foresee even more problems with irish1 giving that Bertie's appearance in the Tribunal this week. Seems fair to me, giving his history (which IS relevant in this case as his constant harassment is the reason for the ban). Give these Mods a break. As we've seen from recent threads here in FB, they shouldn't have to deal with this sort of crap and all that goes with it.

    Is a rule really needed to explicitly say you cannot pester Mods? Dev's sentiments in the recent discussion (on Sig Rules) was not to introduce more rules - just don't be "a dick" and you'll be fine, he said. A fair rule site wide, I'd have thought. irish1 is doing just that - acting the dick, and feigning "what rule did I break" as a true, but irrelevant excuse.


  • Options
    #48
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    You make a good point cast_iron. I've said earlier that I acknowledge irish1 may be a dick, but I don't know him. I'm assuming, fairly reasonably, that the Feedback thread at least contributed to his banning.

    There was a precedent set on Politics a long time ago where a thread that was sent from AH earned Politics bans for the AH-posted comments. Obviously that was contentious, but fair enough, the posts made their way to Politics. On the other hand this thread required no further attention from the Politics mods as irish1 was going above their heads, as he is entitled and was encouraged to do.

    I feel the banning is out of line. I think the signature issue is out of line. And I think his argument about implications that Gerry Adams is a liar being allowed deserves a response from an admin. None of these things have happened.

    But hey it's not my battle. I'm sticking in my two cents because I agree with him. I think this conflict could be sorted rather quickly by an admin coming in and Judge Judy'ing on the above three. Then irish1, those who feel sympathy for him, and the mods have the choice of accepting it or going elsewhere.


  • Options
    #49
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Irish1; DeVores number one rule, don't be a dick.
    Ibid wrote:
    Very poor form lads.

    you don't know the background nor what assurances where given. You're sticking your ore in.


  • Options
    #50
    DeepBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 3,669 ✭✭✭DeepBlue


    Ibid wrote:
    You make a good point cast_iron. I've said earlier that I acknowledge irish1 may be a dick, but I don't know him. I'm assuming, fairly reasonably, that the Feedback thread at least contributed to his banning.

    From what I can see on this thread he wasn't banned from Politics at the start of the thread but got banned during the course of the thread. It would thus seem logical that he was banned because of something that happened in this thread.

    If that's the case (and that's an "if" i.e. I'm not saying that he's definitely been banned because of this thread but the circumstances certainly suggest that's the case) then it sets a poor precedent.


  • Options
    #51
    Fysh
    Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    DeepBlue wrote:
    From what I can see on this thread he wasn't banned from Politics at the start of the thread but got banned during the course of the thread. It would thus seem logical that he was banned because of something that happened in this thread.

    If that's the case (and that's an "if" i.e. I'm not saying that he's definitely been banned because of this thread but the circumstances certainly suggest that's the case) then it sets a poor precedent.

    Bear in mind that at the same time as this thread was ongoing, irish1 was still contributing to the "discussion about the rules" thread in the Politics forum (see here for example), and to all intents and purposes appears to have been hell-bent on acting the dick in that thread as much as he has been here. Hence the ban may not have been due to something done in this thread, but posted here as it's directly relevant to the subject of this thread.

    The more you look through that thread, the more it looks like irish1 deliberating acting the nonce because he wants to do something that's not allowed. Why is he being defended so much when he's asking to break the rules, and his fundamental claim of precedent is something he won't even back up? (He's yet to link to a concrete case of someone else being allowed to make the kind of comments he seems compelled to make about Bertie Ahern, and yet we're supposed to take it on faith that the evidence is there...)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    togster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭togster


    I think the problem is that irish1 made his point (A valid one IMO) and continued to pester the mods on the topic.(sigthing discrepencies with previous posts-we have yet to see) I think he should have posted these because they are (from my reading) the basis of his argument. He made his point and didn't substantiate it with proof.... (hmm happened somwhere here too recently shhh):)


  • Options
    #53
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Ok there is a lot of history here. Irish1 was originally perm banned from politics due to his constant badgering of mods, their decisions that he didn't agree with; all normally to do with one subject.

    After protracted discussions via an admin he was readmitted with the undertaking that he would not continue along this path on his readmittance. To be fair up until this topic he has and he has contributed to the forum well. Unfortunately he has gotten his knickers in a twist and has started off on a similar vein again. This is the reason for the ban. I have not been as active on the politics forum recently but I have been aware of the issues around this subject and irish1.

    As for Mr. Ahern I have no love for the man and my opinion of him and his conduct is well known but we do have to be careful about what we call him etc until the end of this tribunial.


  • Options
    #54
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    Boston wrote:
    Irish1; DeVores number one rule, don't be a dick.
    How come you have survived for so long then?


  • Options
    #55
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    gandalf wrote:

    After protracted discussions via an admin he was readmitted with the undertaking that he would not continue along this path on his readmittance. To be fair up until this topic he has and he has contributed to the forum well. Unfortunately he has gotten his knickers in a twist and has started off on a similar vein again. This is the reason for the ban. I have not been as active on the politics forum recently but I have been aware of the issues around this subject and irish1.
    Hang on Gandalf. He has as much right to question the workings of a board, as any of us. His knicker twisting is as much his right, as it is for you to twist yours.

    Banning him for doing the right thing, i.e. bringing his issue to feedback and discussing it, is wrong and starts a very very serious precedent. Should I start banning people from HR because I think that they are an arsehole/muppet/idiot?


  • Options
    #56
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Hobart wrote:
    How come you have survived for so long then?

    Because I have a massive Dick, as apposed to being a massive dick.
    Hang on Gandalf. He has as much right to question the workings of a board, as any of us. His knicker twisting is as much his right, as it is for you to twist yours.

    He agreed to special and specific terms in order to be reinstated to the politics forum. Its my understand that he has broken those terms. Simple really.


  • Options
    #57
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    Boston wrote:
    Because I have a massive Dick, as apposed to being a massive dick.
    Well we'll just have to take your word for that.

    He agreed to special and specific terms in order to be reinstated to the politics forum. Its my understand that he has broken those terms. Simple really.
    Really? You were party to these discussions? This "agreement" involved not questioning any decision made by the politics mods on feedback? Really?

    It was your understand?

    Ahhh...well that's it. Boston once more has hit the nail on the head, it was simple really. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #58
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Hobart wrote:
    Hang on Gandalf. He has as much right to question the workings of a board, as any of us. His knicker twisting is as much his right, as it is for you to twist yours.

    Banning him for doing the right thing, i.e. bringing his issue to feedback and discussing it, is wrong and starts a very very serious precedent. Should I start banning people from HR because I think that they are an arsehole/muppet/idiot?

    Sorry Hobart this is a perm banned user given one more chance under specific agreed terms that he understood so he doesn't have the right to nearly stalk the mods because he feels he is right and they are not.


  • Options
    #59
    Boston
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,163 ✭✭✭✭Boston


    Hobart wrote:
    Well we'll just have to take your word for that.
    A/S/L
    Really? You were party to these discussions? This "agreement" involved not questioning any decision made by the politics mods on feedback? Really?

    It was your understand?

    Ahhh...well that's it. Boston once more has hit the nail on the head, it was simple really. :rolleyes:

    I wasn't, thats my point. You wheren't either, so comments about 'rights' to complain are just speaking out of turn since you don't know that he had any such 'right'.


  • Options
    #60
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hobart wrote:
    Banning him for doing the right thing, i.e. bringing his issue to feedback and discussing it, is wrong and starts a very very serious precedent.
    You're assuming he was banned because of this thread. That's a tall assumption, and it's a particularly shakey foundation for an argument. Check your premises.
    Hobart wrote:
    Should I start banning people from HR because I think that they are an arsehole/muppet/idiot?
    If they were banned for arseholery in the past, and readmitted on condition that they would stop being an arsehole, then yes: absolutely.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Hobart
    Registered Users Posts: 4,839 ✭✭✭Hobart


    oscarBravo wrote:
    You're assuming he was banned because of this thread. That's a tall assumption, and it's a particularly shakey foundation for an argument.
    I'm not. I'm looking at the facts. His ban was announced here, not anywhere else. The mod in question stated clearly that he was banned from politics, on this forum while quoting a post from you which you posted on this forum. FFS it does not take a quantum leap to connect the parts.
    Check your premises.
    Sure...whatever.
    If they were banned for arseholery in the past, and readmitted on condition that they would stop being an arsehole, then yes: absolutely.
    Ok, fair enough. But stalking a poster around boards looking to see if he put his foot out of place on any board?????WTF.

    Tell you what OB, this is easily cleared up. Link me (us) to the post on politics which finally broke the camels back, and that should put to bed any ambiguity.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement