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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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.

24567…54

Comments

  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Hi moderators and users of this forum.
    Seeing this thread in politics this morning when its probably more suited to somewhere else.
    I'm wondering if a sticky thread might be in order in the politics forum for links to threads elsewhere that aren't necessarally politically related but that would interest and might generate a post or two from the regulars in the politics board.

    If people see a debate of note on another forum then they could link to it and give a brief description of what it's about.

    Just a thought.


  • #53
    dahamsta
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,659 ✭✭✭✭dahamsta


    How about a News forum under Politics, where the thread starter doesn't have to comment on the article? I wanted to post this story for example, but according to the rules I'd have to comment on it, and I really don't want to --I just though it might interest other people, and it's political, and there's nowhere else to post it.

    adam


  • #54
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    dahamsta wrote:
    How about a News forum under Politics, where the thread starter doesn't have to comment on the article? I wanted to post this story for example, but according to the rules I'd have to comment on it, and I really don't want to --I just though it might interest other people, and it's political, and there's nowhere else to post it.

    I don't think there's a need for a sub-forum.

    Within reason, we've no major problem with people posting articles (with [ARTICLE] at the start of the topic) "sans comment". We're somewhat more wary of anyone doing this as their first post (as it smacks of advertising), but for anyone who has clearly been around a while, just make sure its noticeable in the subject and you'll be fine.

    Also...isn't there an entirely seperate news forum now anyway?
    jc


  • #55
    chewy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭chewy


    explain to me this article thing...

    whats the difference to posting a an article with or without the [article] title

    when ya moved the mobo racist/homophobe thread to music it died....

    i too would like to post political questions without commenting, cos i'd prefer to hear other peoples thoughts on a subject rather then a reaction to mine?


  • #56
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    chewy wrote:
    explain to me this article thing...

    whats the difference to posting a an article with or without the [article] title
    The idea behind it is that if ppl feel there is stuff important enough to post as some sort of "discussionless" content, it gives them the ability to do so.

    It kinda marks an intent that you aren't really interested in discussing what you've posted....which may or may not determine whether or not other ppl will bother posting responses to it.

    The idea for [Article] and [announcement] arose (I think) out of the RTS guys posting stuff up here about their latest meeting, event or whatever, and then after a couple of posts coming up with something along the lines of "I didn't really want to discuss this anyway...just wanted to let ppl know about X".

    As I said...I'm going from memory, but I think Swiss brought up the idea with gandalf and myself that we should allow this stuff as long as its clearly marked...and as long as it doesn't subsequently turn into a big "rash" of announcement and article postings.

    Our general stance is that this is a discussion forum, so we're somewhat wary of encouraging ppl to use it for other purposes, but like I said...as long as the volume is reasonable, and the stuff is clearly marked ....
    too would like to post political questions without commenting, cos i'd prefer to hear other peoples thoughts on a subject rather then a reaction to mine

    Aren't they the same thing tho? Ppl who post up that they agree with you, obviously have the same (or similar) thoughts. Ppl who disagree with you end up explaining their own thoughts.

    Personally speaking, I generally dislike the stance of "tell me your thoughts on X, but I'm not telling you mine", because I don't see it as being conducive to discussion (which is what I see as the major function of the board). Maybe I'm wrong....but I really don't get how ppl can be interested in a discussion that they don't want to participate in....and I don't get how you can participate in a discussion without taking a position in one way or another.

    jc


  • #57
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Fair enough the rules dictate that if a thread goes of topic it will be closed;

    I would, however, like to ask gandalf why was the Paisley thread closed considering the final post made on it was to do with the original topic, ie the putting of arms beyond use?


  • #58
    poneill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 47 ✭poneill


    FTA69 wrote:
    I would, however, like to ask gandalf why was the Paisley thread closed considering the final post made on it was to do with the original topic, ie the putting of arms beyond use?

    Probably because Mods get bored too ;)


  • #59
    FTA69
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    Many discussions taking place here also bore me to tears but I recognise that people having a discussion is their own business and it is boorish to shut it down mid-flow.


  • #60
    Alex27
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭Alex27


    Perhaps in order to make threads more clear posts that are merely repeat opinions posted before are to be deleted.

    Alot depends on the vision for this board. Should it be the place were everyone just post whatever their think about certain topic related to politics? Should it be the place were constructive discussions are to be held? Place to be heard? :D


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    arcadegame2004
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭arcadegame2004


    I think the polls should be brought back, at least sometimes. I think the complete banning of polls is a bit far-reaching and unfair. :mad:


  • #62
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Remember they were removed because certain people *cough* were abusing them.


  • #63
    pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭pete


    Mods,

    Can anything be done about people that repeatedly post made up statistics and ignore requests for sources?

    thanks.


  • #64
    therecklessone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭therecklessone


    arcadegame2004 wrote:
    I think the polls should be brought back, at least sometimes. I think the complete banning of polls is a bit far-reaching and unfair. :mad:
    arcadegame2004 wrote:
    This poll was very unrepresentative of the referendum result last time. It is a poll of internet-users, not registered voters.

    Whats the point if you're so quick to discount their outcome?


  • #65
    arcadegame2004
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭arcadegame2004


    therecklessone wrote:
    Whats the point if you're so quick to discount their outcome?

    Well, as more persons join they would presumably become more representative. And anyway, they are interesting.


  • #66
    pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭pete


    vBulletin 3 allows Moderators to attach a poll to a thread at any time after it has been posted, so perhaps leaving it at the Mod's discretion whether a given thread is deserving of a poll or not is the answer?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭pete


    pete wrote:
    Mods,

    Can anything be done about people that repeatedly post made up statistics and ignore requests for sources?

    thanks.
    Mods,

    Can I add "people that refuse to engage in anything even approximating debate" to that?

    thanks


  • #68
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I'll 2nd petes concerns....

    Mike.


  • #69
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    If you're concerned about a poster, I'd suggest reporting them....or PMing a mod directly to discuss your concerns in a bit more detail.

    We have in the past contacted posters to discuss issues such as this, as we have felt that their posting had gotten to the point of disrupting whatever thread-relevant discussion had gone on, in favour of a back and fro of the type I'm sure you're all too familiar with.

    I'm not terribly sure how we could write up rules about this stuff, as it really strikes me as being somewhat subjective.

    I will say this, though...there is always the option of simply not getting into discussions with these people.

    jc


  • #70
    pete
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭pete


    bonkey wrote:
    If you're concerned about a poster, I'd suggest reporting them....or PMing a mod directly to discuss your concerns in a bit more detail.

    We have in the past contacted posters to discuss issues such as this, as we have felt that their posting had gotten to the point of disrupting whatever thread-relevant discussion had gone on, in favour of a back and fro of the type I'm sure you're all too familiar with.

    I'm not terribly sure how we could write up rules about this stuff, as it really strikes me as being somewhat subjective.

    I will say this, though...there is always the option of simply not getting into discussions with these people.

    jc
    I find it incredibly difficult to just close my eyes and hope it will all go away.


  • #71
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Could something be done about deliberate misquoting


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    mycroft
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,862 ✭✭✭mycroft


    Oh come on, deliberate misquoting, and people deliberately refusing to enter a debate? It's impossible to adjucate and would for the mods to examine previous posts, and the tone and context of the suspect post.

    Face it guys both are tactics that are as old as debating itself, and either ignore the poster or try and argue with them.

    I think someone like our "end to immigiration" wasn't interested in an actual debate or having his POV reasoned with. Arguing with someone who using the above tactics is like wrestling an octopus, kind of futile and just plain pointless.


  • #73
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    pete wrote:
    Mods,

    Can anything be done about people that repeatedly post made up statistics and ignore requests for sources?

    thanks.

    This annoys the hell out of me, people hue and cry "wheres your link" and when one is posted "that website is rubbish" when they dont agree with the view on it.

    for example "sadam was a wonderful leader, heres my link to prove it"
    http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68454

    see what i mean


  • #74
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Nuttzz wrote:
    This annoys the hell out of me, people hue and cry "wheres your link" and when one is posted "that website is rubbish" when they dont agree with the view on it.

    for example "sadam was a wonderful leader, heres my link to prove it"
    http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68454

    see what i mean

    The issue isn't that they point to a stupid link. It is that they aren't quoting from any source at all.

    A stupid link is better then nothing. For starters it helps you determine where the person is getting their information from. Second it allows you refute it with your own sources.

    It is up to the person making the claim to back up that claim with sources. Once that is done if anyone disagrees still it is up to them to refute that claim with thier own sources.


    I believe that should be a set in stone rule. If you cannot give any sources to your claims you either have to say it is personal opinion or the debate is over.


  • #75
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    I totally agree, but who decides that its a stupid link? I believe the person who posted that on Indymedia totally believes that POV however just because I think it is utter nonsense doesnt automatically make it so.


  • #76
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Nuttzz wrote:
    I totally agree, but who decides that its a stupid link? I believe the person who posted that on Indymedia totally believes that POV however just because I think it is utter nonsense doesnt automatically make it so.

    I agree, however posting something as facts without sources is dangerous. There are a lot of people who will take things at face value (and probably even link to the comments as facts elsewhere).

    The point isn't to say who has the stupid link but to understand where a person is coming from. It also can in certain instances show that a person is basing their facts off opinion pieces (like the link you just posted).

    It also allows a jumping point for further research. For example. I from time to time read the www.whatreallyhappened.com. However I take everything with a pinch of salt there and any link to a news story I try to find more information elsewhere about it.

    Lastly it gives you another point of view. If you read Raeds blog for example, a lot of stuff posted there does not show up on Western news but gives an insight to what the people are seeing in Iraq at the moment. So even a wrong source can tell you more.

    But the rule is really to stop people posting their personal opinions as given facts.


  • #77
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Nuttzz wrote:
    but who decides that its a stupid link?

    Whoever wants to, I would say.

    I would hazard a guess that what you consider a stupid link is not what I would, nor what a Ra-Ra-Go-Team-USA poster would. The Republicans will no doubt have their chosen sources, as will the Stormfronters and every other group / individual you like to mention.

    For any given person and/or political "leaning", there will be different lists of what constitutes stupid and not-stupid links. So how could the mods adjudicate?

    If someone is rubbishing your links, ask them to provide their own links countering the claims, rather than simply complaining about the source. If they're unwilling or unable to do so, then the most they can conclude is that in their opinion the link is not true because its source is unreliable.

    Remember...no linkage means no presentation as fact. This applies to the "thats rubbish because its from commondreams/stormfront/flat-earth dot-com" argument as much as it does to everything else here. If you want to say a link is rubbish, then either link to back up your claim, or make it clear that its only opinion you're offering.

    At the end of the day, the source of a link should only serve as a guideline for how much faith one can put in it - which is subjective. It doesn't, in and of itself, constitute proof of accoracy of falsity, no matter where that source is. Anyone claiming otherwise is - quite frankly - the idiot in the argument.

    Ultimately, if someone continues to use made-up stuff as fact despite their being challenged, then I will step in on request...but more because I believe such behaviour demonstrates an unwillingnses to discuss a point than because I have a major issue with such people proving their inability to argue it.

    However, if linkage is provided, then all I can do is leave it to other posters to provide better counter-sources, or to make their own minds up about the reliability of the source.


  • #78
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    It's a moot point to discuss the relevance of sources or references. There are always going to be disagreements over the quality sources, there's simply no single authoratitive view on anything.

    The issue to discuss is what to do when posters who are asked to back up their claims with sources (hopefully on the web) refuse to do so, and refuse to do so in a way that degrades the quality of debate on Boards.

    There's nothing wrong with people stating opinion - personally I'm of the opinion that everything to a degree is opinion, even facts - the problem arises when people hide behind it in an effort to lazily affirm their own prejudices, stroke their own ego or deliberately antagonise people.

    Personally, I think mods treat these situations the right way. If someone is asked to support their point with proof and don't, then tough.


  • #79
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    Grand, give stats give links, insofar as I cant say that 90% of all Nigerians are credit card scammers with showing some government stat to back that up.

    The thing is not everything is on the web. I had a "debate" with a person of republican opinions a while back were I said that the aim of the provos was to overthrow the current government of Ireland and NI and replace it with a 32 county socialist republic, the source was Ed Moloneys "The secert history of the IRA" which isnt available on the web (as it is a book). He told me I was bullsh!ting him (which I wasnt)

    So two things can happen here, firstly I claim to have read it in the book and you accept it or you dont, the only way you will know if I am truthful is if you read the book which very few people will do just to find one quote. Secondly I say I have read it in the book and just bullsh1t the stats/quotes and hope no one else has read it.

    I agree that people should back their "facts" with stats/quotes but it isnt always possible


  • #80
    Hobbes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Nuttzz wrote:
    The thing is not everything is on the web. I had a "debate" with a person of republican opinions a while back were I said that the aim of the provos was to overthrow the current government of Ireland and NI and replace it with a 32 county socialist republic, the source was Ed Moloneys "The secert history of the IRA" which isnt available on the web (as it is a book). He told me I was bullsh!ting him (which I wasnt)

    The person has the option to go read the book for themselves. That is really the point at the end of the day.

    However if you do quote books did you know you can search books in Amazon? (although I have never used it).


  • #81
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    Hobbes wrote:

    However if you do quote books did you know you can search books in Amazon? (although I have never used it).

    I think that is only for a few selected books, anyway this is what I was talking about

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2136017#post2136017

    read fromthis post down a bit


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    I frequently cite books as source. I fail to see the problem.

    Someone saying "its not on teh intar-web, ergo its a bullsh1t source" is making - at best - as intelligent an argument as the person who dismisses something purely and solely because they don't like the site it came from (and probably even less so).

    Maybe I'm not a good subject to use as a "typical reader", but someone ignoring a reference purely because its in a book is shooting themselves in the foot, and has effectively already lost the argument.....but I don't see why its an offence we should do something about, or what we could do about it.

    I know its frustrating, but seriously...I see such tactics as a symptom, not a problem. They are indicative of someone who will not engage in discussion, but who is instead using the forum as soapbox (no matter how they disguise it). That, we can and will do something about once it becomes clear that its a trend of a given poster.

    I'm open to suggestions though.

    jc


  • #83
    ecksor
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭ecksor


    Nuttzz, if you give a source and the person is too lazy or unwilling to check it or accept it then I think you've reached the end of your discussion ...

    On a forum like this one I'd prefer a print published reference to be honest because if it is something that I actually give a toss about to go check up myself then at least having made it into print probably puts it ahead of the game in terms of being a quality source and then I could go read it and see for myself if I agreed with it (and your interpretation ;) ) or found it useful.


  • #84
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Nuttzz wrote:
    The thing is not everything is on the web. I had a "debate" with a person of republican opinions a while back were I said that the aim of the provos was to overthrow the current government of Ireland and NI and replace it with a 32 county socialist republic, the source was Ed Moloneys "The secert history of the IRA" which isnt available on the web (as it is a book). He told me I was bullsh!ting him (which I wasnt)
    If he didn't know that, did he have any back-up that he's a republican? :D

    A book is a valid source, whether it is believed or not is another matter.


  • #85
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    In the last two threadas ive participated in on politics defamation law has played a big part. In both cases it was stated as fact that failure to sue for slander = guilt.
    I have poster so very many times the intricacies of defamtion law as to why its not alawys possible to sue and occasions where the logic of no action=guilt would work against some of these ppl yet the logic persists to the level where I believe it to be nothing more than a troll.

    Im not sure what it is I want you to do, a statement that the logic is flawed perhaps, a sticky setting out irish defamation law, warning trolls :)...


  • #86
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    IMO the only reason they won't accept the explanation of the law given is because it's been used to show why adams hasn't sued, and you see people here like to bash SF.


  • #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irish1 wrote:
    and you see people here like to bash SF.

    Ah jaysus Not that again...
    Perhaps ye could go back to the thread now and clarify why my point from weeks back was ignored-I've posted it again as it implies that there are grounds to sue the sunday times... which was never done why?
    Answers in the relevant thread please :)


  • #88
    Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭Meh


    Necromancer wrote:
    In the last two threadas ive participated in on politics defamation law has played a big part. In both cases it was stated as fact that failure to sue for slander = guilt.
    I have poster so very many times the intricacies of defamtion law as to why its not alawys possible to sue and occasions where the logic of no action=guilt would work against some of these ppl yet the logic persists to the level where I believe it to be nothing more than a troll.
    You haven't backed your assertions up with any links to judgements, laws etc. I think if you did that, it would help your case. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll doesn't help you either.


  • #89
    ecksor
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭ecksor


    On the whole I personally agree that "failure to sue = guilt" is a nonsense argument, but I'd imagine that sceptre is well enough qualified to analyse any argument that Necromancer is putting forward.


  • #90
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    irish1 wrote:
    and you see people here like to bash SF.

    Politics is all about bashing your opposition. SF gets bashed, American Republican gets bashed, PD's get bashed, and FF gets bashed in this forum at some stage.

    You couldn’t move for GWB bashing threads in the run up to the November elections, SF are getting it at the moment, and when the EU constitution referendum is going to be held here you will get find both side bashing each other over it. To me its what politics is about.

    http://www.projectauditors.com/Dictionary/P.html
    [politics is the] Competition for power and leadership between competing interests or groups. May be characterized by artful and sometimes dishonest practices


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I have done a few so called tests in the past, and people here are more interested in bashing SF than discussing governments issues such as health or the jailing of a former Minister for Justice.

    I'm all for debate pitty people care more about the rise of SF than other issues, but hey thats their right.


  • #92
    BuffyBot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,924 ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    people here are more interested in bashing SF than discussing governments issues such as health or the jailing of a former Minister for Justice.

    Nice rose tint ya have there..


  • #93
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,777 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    irish1 wrote:
    I have done a few so called tests in the past, and people here are more interested in bashing SF than discussing governments issues such as health or the jailing of a former Minister for Justice.

    I'm all for debate pitty people care more about the rise of SF than other issues, but hey thats their right.


    As an unrepentant supporter of the PD’s it is in my party’s interest to bash SF at every possible opportunity as it deflects from our own shortcomings, you can easily start a thread entitled “PD’s damning health record” and attack the PD’s and I would defend them just as you have defended SF in the many SF bashing threads. That’s just politics IMO.


  • #94
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Meh wrote:
    You haven't backed your assertions up with any links to judgements, laws etc. I think if you did that, it would help your case. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll doesn't help you either.
    im not calling everyone, you are the person im calling a troll. when i highlight elements of your posts that are trollish you say its off topic.
    The first thing I did was quote the law and you said I had crazy notions and inventing libel law. Ive now given you the sources you ask for, a reasonable request, but youve given sources and links that are totally irrelevent, Reynalds Vs Irish times. Other sources conflict with your opinion not support it yet you keep repeating the source, an opinion article ?!!
    Sources arent always debate swingers, i was talking about basic things very easily verified and you demand sources, and you give sources that add nothing to the discussion at hand!

    You refuse to accept that the words "choose to believe" are in an article you quoted.
    You accuse me of inventing laws, Im quoting my text book.
    No matter how many times, in how many ways I explain different elements of Irish law as to why Adams cant sue you always reply, if he was innocent he would sue. Im not saying he is innocent, but even if he is he wont win a libel action


  • #95
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Nuttzz wrote:
    As an unrepentant supporter of the PD’s it is in my party’s interest to bash SF at every possible opportunity as it deflects from our own shortcomings, you can easily start a thread entitled “PD’s damning health record” and attack the PD’s and I would defend them just as you have defended SF in the many SF bashing threads. That’s just politics IMO.
    When the health service is being debated saying the IRA killed more ppl than (insert FF mistake) is totally irrelevant and a cheap shot at SF


  • #96
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    OK, firstly guys...this isn't really a thread for re-hashing the arguments, nor for venting steam that <thing> really bugs you, but you accep that you'll have to live with it.

    If you've a problem with something, please consider what you'd like done - or what you think should/could be done - about it yourself....don't just be chiming in with examples or defences of posts unless they're asked for by a mod please.
    irish1 wrote:
    I have done a few so called tests in the past, and people here are more interested in bashing SF than discussing governments issues such as health or the jailing of a former Minister for Justice.

    And only recently, we had another poster making a remark that Irish issues weren't discussed enough at all....and on-cue (as if planned, which it obviously wasn't), the main focus of the board shifted to being predominantly about Irish issues.

    The thing is, that people are entitled to discuss whatever political issue they see fit. One thing is, though, that it takes two sides to have a long-running discussion. Those threads take people's interest because both sides see putting their case forward in that thread as being worthwhile or somehow necessary.

    If you look at the trends over a period of time, you see a large number of posters (of which I am possibly currently one, or becoming one) who post less and less often - mostly because its the same stuff over and over and you tire of saying the same thing ad nauseum. They do still chime in with salient points when the feel necessary, and typically do not re-engage in the ensuing to-and-fro's once they quickly settle down (as they generally do) into repetition-mode.

    If you are interested in continuously voicing support for or defending SF, its a bit unfair to suggest that others should not be interested in - or allowed to express that interest in - their side.
    I'm all for debate pitty people care more about the rise of SF than other issues, but hey thats their right.

    Glad you believe that :)

    If they are more numerous, and some/many/all are less or differently informed, or of illogical opinion...I would draw a comparison to the fact that in a democracy, those of differing, less-informed, illogical and downright wrong opinions have just as loud a voice as each of us here, should they choose to use it....no matter how numerous they may be.

    How you react to them is your choice. And here, as in a democracy, as long as each person remains within the relevant laws, they should not be prevented in any way from voicing their opinion.

    Having said that, I am considering discussing with the other mods that we may consider being more ruthless in terms of how we handle close-to-carbon-copy threads running simultaneously. I'm becoming less and less sure that they serve any beneficial purpose....although I do recognise that taking the wrong approach could risk stifling genuinely seperate discussions.

    jc


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    At this stage I am convinced Meh is trolling and Ive compiled a sound arguement that Ill pm to you.
    I would like specifically for measures to be taken to ensure he doesnt waste anyone elses time trolling. Because it wasates ppls time is why its against the charter no?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=227865
    Is the thread in question, in post 119 I identify where Meh is deliberatly lying, what I would like specifically done is the comments removed from his post, an appology/clarification that I did indeed not say those things and whatever it is ye do to those who break the charter in this way


  • #98
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Necromancer wrote:
    what I would like specifically done is

    So you're not actually looknig to discuss the rules at all....but rather you want us to do something about a poster which you believe is breaking the existing ones. So, in simpler terms...you're reporting a poster for what you believe is behaviour in contravention of the existing rules.

    Again, this is not the place. Why would we create a stickied thread who's purpose is to duplicate functionality which is built into the system (the "report this post" button for a start).

    If people continue to show an inability or unwillingness to use this thread for what it is intended for - discussing/suggesting/advocating/opposing changes to the rules - then we will have no option but to close the thread, thereby removing any input any of you may have into the betterment of this forum's policy.

    jc


  • #99
    Villain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,951 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Mods PM sent.


  • #100
    ecksor
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭ecksor


    bonkey, I think Necromancer just misunderstood what you meant by
    bonkey wrote:
    If you've a problem with something, please consider what you'd like done - or what you think should/could be done - about it yourself....don't just be chiming in with examples or defences of posts unless they're asked for by a mod please.


  • #101
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    bonkey wrote:
    So you're not actually looknig to discuss the rules at all....but rather you want us to do something about a poster which you believe is breaking the existing ones. So, in simpler terms...you're reporting a poster for what you believe is behaviour in contravention of the existing rules.

    Again, this is not the place. Why would we create a stickied thread who's purpose is to duplicate functionality which is built into the system (the "report this post" button for a start).

    If people continue to show an inability or unwillingness to use this thread for what it is intended for - discussing/suggesting/advocating/opposing changes to the rules - then we will have no option but to close the thread, thereby removing any input any of you may have into the betterment of this forum's policy.

    jc
    No, I had a problem that a poster was doing something that was effecting the quality of a thread but which the rules dont deal with.
    That problem was libel law, his misunderstanding of it. I wanted to discuss what could/should be done to make it clear and what to do with ppl who ignore it/accuse others of inventing it.

    My suggestion is a sticy of irish libel law or an inclusion of it in the "useful links thread" so it could be easily linked to.
    Second that ignoring how it works/acusing a poster of inventing it/elements of it be made against the rules.
    Third that a general policy be set out as to whether the logic "failure to sue=guilt" is acceptable or not.

    Is this thread the right place to make these three suggestions?

    It was in response to the part of your post ecksor highlighted that I made the post you found a problem with. I thought you were asking me for a specific problem and my desired remedy.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement