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

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…5758606263…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1772
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Sand wrote: »
    Genuine laugh. It might be confirmation bias on my part, but I do get a chuckle out of how many times I see people say something along the lines of "I'm not a Sinn Fein member/voter/activist, but...."
    Just like I get a chuckle when as soon as you don't condemn SF on each and every single topic you are a Shinerbot!

    I love how Sand et al get so worked up on making sure people can label SF and their supporters as they see yet when Bertie was telling lies to the Tribunal they screamed as soon as anyone attacked him based on FACTS.

    Irish Politics is changing, the boards politics forum just doesn't like it :)


  • Options
    #1773
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    Genuine laugh. It might be confirmation bias on my part, but I do get a chuckle out of how many times I see people say something along the lines of "I'm not a Sinn Fein member/voter/activist, but...."
    I get just as much of a laugh every time people like you make the lame and politically naïve assumption that anybody who would consider voting for SF is a republican.
    Says much more about you than me TBH.


  • Options
    #1774
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,559 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    http://www.webfactory.ie/clients/fine-gael/
    http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/10704/
    http://www.labour.ie/blog/2012/05/18/labour-scoops-social-media-award
    FGbot. FFbot. LBbot. "simply an observation".

    Okay. I'm not bothered by that.

    I'd make one remark - I searched for the occasion where you claimed your were called a shinnerbot. You weren't in my opinion, though you definitely were trying to portray that you were.

    I did notice though that you started that particular line of badgering by making an insinuation about the poster:
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Buzz points? Let me guess, FG sent out a leaflet with buzz points... now you've changed your story to say they do have policies but you can only handle buzz points?

    Treat others as you wish to be treated seems like a good rule of thumb. If you want to dish out digs to other posters, then be prepared to take a couple yourself.

    Just my 0.02
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I get just as much of a laugh every time people like you make the lame and politically naïve assumption that anybody who would consider voting for SF is a republican.
    Says much more about you than me TBH.

    Well, this is rapidly vanishing off onto a tangent so lets all part amused.


  • Options
    #1775
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    MOD REMINDER:
    Some of the above posts are getting a bit too personal. Please focus on "A discussion on the rules," and not each other.


  • Options
    #1776
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    Okay. I'm not bothered by that.
    Oh, now you've been proven wrong it wasn't important in the first place. Well that's convenient!
    Sand wrote: »
    I'd make one remark - I searched for the occasion where you claimed your were called a shinnerbot. You weren't in my opinion, though you definitely were trying to portray that you were.
    Wrong. Again.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93261097&postcount=254
    FreduianSlippers wrote:
    Defensive, argumentative, deflective and ad hominem? Those are the key characteristics of the shinnerbots on here; so if the shoe fits, I guess slide that mother****er on your foot.
    Absolutely 100% unequivocal. That's FreudianSlippers calling me a shinnerbot. Like I said, it used to get a card, but suddenly when a mod starts using it... hmm, not so much. And none of the mods can even muster a reply as to why it's become acceptable.
    Can anybody on the planet honestly say that post from FreudianSlippers isn't a ban but calling someone a "smearbot" is?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1777
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93261234&postcount=257
    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    I was lumping you in with the shinnerbots. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
    Can we have a clear pronouncement from the mods that calling somebody directly a "shinnerbot" is now welcome as adding to the debate whereas (apparently) "smearbot" is deeply offensive and an instant ban?


  • Options
    #1778
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Sand wrote: »
    Calling another poster an idiot or a shinnerbot will likely get you a card. Referring to the existence of idiots/shinnerbots on the other hand likely wont. As you say, idiots exist. Shinnerbots exist.

    I have to say I find it very ironic that an idealogical group who are happy to throw around loose and lazy terminology regarding their opponents (West Brits, Free Staters, securocrats, etc) would be so bothered about terminology. Last month it was "SF/IRA". This month its "Shinnerbot".


    It is all an attempt to control the language. If you control the language, you control the debate.

    Two reasons to attack the language. Long-term, if you succeed in banning terms such as SF/IRA, shinnerbot, you give SF the appearance of respectability. Short-term, you portray SF as victims and gain sympathy.

    So for SF acolytes (another term they would like see banned) the fight against the terms is as important as winning the battle against the terms. Hence this thread getting dragged into this discussion.

    Unfortunately, most people can't see through it and get sucked into the message, especially impressionable students who want to change the world, which is why SF are now so strong in third level colleges.


  • Options
    #1779
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    It is all an attempt to control the language. If you control the language, you control the debate.

    Two reasons to attack the language. Long-term, if you succeed in banning terms such as FG/Blueshirt, FGbot, you give FG the appearance of respectability. Short-term, you portray FG as victims and gain sympathy.

    So for FG acolytes (another term they would like see banned) the fight against the terms is as important as winning the battle against the terms. Hence this thread getting dragged into this discussion.

    Unfortunately, most people can't see through it and get sucked into the message, especially impressionable students who want to change the world, which is why FG are now so strong in third level colleges.
    So easy.
    So now we have acolyte and bot as fair game for everybody?
    Why not just allow "FG moron" and "FF imbecile" then?
    Your logic in incredible. No, not the good incredible.


  • Options
    #1780
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So easy.
    So now we have acolyte and bot as fair game for everybody?
    Why not just allow "FG moron" and "FF imbecile" then?
    Your logic in incredible. No, not the good incredible.


    For a start, acolyte is not an insult, in the way that "moron" and "imbecile" are.

    Secondly, "bot" (from ro-bot) is a way of describing a behaviour or an activity, a robotic, slavish following of a party line. Such behaviour and activity can be easily identified on internet boards throwing some weight of logic behind the term.


  • Options
    #1781
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    For a start, acolyte is not an insult, in the way that "moron" and "imbecile" are.
    So? It's still most definitely an insult. Are you even trying to make a point here?
    Godge wrote: »
    Secondly, "bot" (from ro-bot) is a way of describing a behaviour or an activity, a robotic, slavish following of a party line. Such behaviour and activity can be easily identified on internet boards throwing some weight of logic behind the term.
    bot comes from robot... wow. Never would've guessed that Godge. What a service to humanity.
    You see, I don't actually have any problem with people using the phrase, so long as it's not used directly against another poster, which the mods here have now decided is OK, yet "smearbot" is apparently deeply offensive.
    Idiots and morons exist. Shinnerbots and FGbots exist. It's utterly nonsensical to then turn around and say because they exist they are not insulting to call other posters these terms.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1782
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Sand wrote: »
    I have to say I find it very ironic that an idealogical group who are happy to throw around loose and lazy terminology regarding their opponents (West Brits, Free Staters, securocrats, etc) would be so bothered about terminology. Last month it was "SF/IRA". This month its "Shinnerbot".

    For the record, while I'm anti-censorship and will not call for phrases to be banned, I personally find all of the above absolutely idiotic. SF/IRA is a deliberate attempt to provoke and those who use it know that perfectly well. "West brits, free staters etc" are cheap debating tactics which add nothing to the debate and make the person using them look desperate. Not exactly sure what a securocrat is or what the term is supposed to mean but I'll assume it falls along the same lines.

    Personally I find the "too personal" thing is getting a little too restrictive. I can see why ye would prohibit personal abuse, but why is it that discussions of specific posters' allegiances or views is now becoming a little taboo? If someone mistakenly ascribed a particular political ideology to me I'd much rather openly clarify my own position than see them get moderated and thus continue to believe a misinterpretation or whatever - strikes me that in a community like this, expecting people to act as if we're posting on 4chan where all users are anonymous is pretty peculiar and stifles legitimate discussion on several occasions.


  • Options
    #1783
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge wrote: »
    Secondly, "bot" (from ro-bot) is a way of describing a behaviour or an activity, a robotic, slavish following of a party line. Such behaviour and activity can be easily identified on internet boards throwing some weight of logic behind the term.

    I could easily use that criteria to describe you as an establishment-bot, but I won't as I know well that you're simply a real human being with some unfortunate beliefs. ;)


  • Options
    #1784
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Incorrect. Freudian_Slippers is allowed to call people "Shinnerbot" directly. I don't know if non-mods have tested this. It used to be a card, but I guess they don't know what to do now one of their own has taken to using it.
    Saying "this place is full of idiots" also seems to be OK judging by the posts just a few back in this thread.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Absolutely 100% unequivocal. That's FreudianSlippers calling me a shinnerbot. Like I said, it used to get a card, but suddenly when a mod starts using it... hmm, not so much. And none of the mods can even muster a reply as to why it's become acceptable.

    You seem to be making the "mistake" (:rolleyes:) again of thinking I'm a mod here.


  • Options
    #1785
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You seem to be making the "mistake" (:rolleyes:) again of thinking I'm a mod here.
    You are a mod here at boards.ie. It says it quite clearly beside your nick. You seem very confused as to your own status here. I can't say that surprises me.
    Are you suggesting "shinnerbot" would be adding constructively to the discussion in certain forums but not in others? Or that "smearbot" would be a bannable term in certain forums but acceptable in others?
    Then again, no mod of this forum seems to want to touch this inexplicable double standard with a barge pole for some reason. Oh, kinda answered myself there didn't I.


  • Options
    #1786
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Being a mod on one forum makes no difference to your status on any other forum. You're treated exactly the same as any other poster.


  • Options
    #1787
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    Being a mod on one forum makes no difference to your status on any other forum. You're treated exactly the same as any other poster.
    Do you think anybody besides a mod would get away with this post?
    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    Defensive, argumentative, deflective and ad hominem? Those are the key characteristics of the shinnerbots on here; so if the shoe fits, I guess slide that mother****er on your foot.
    Don't see it happening myself.
    You might also explain why "shinnerbot" (formerly always a card) is now OK but "smearbot" is a ban?


  • Options
    #1788
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do you think anybody besides a mod would get away with this post?

    Yes. I've seen posts I might have carded myself in my own forum, by mods and non-mods, not actioned. I've even seen posts from you I would have thought cardable but they weren't. I've also seen some posts carded that I probably would have let go myself if it had been up to me.

    The issue is whether the post wasn't actioned because the person was a mod of another forum. There's zero evidence of this. Mods from other forums don't enjoy any special status. They're frequently carded and banned here, including the person you're complaining about.

    Mods ain't robots. They don't see every single post or get to respond to every single reported post. Every mod will have a slightly different opinion on what is and isn't actionable. Just because someone didn't get a card doesn't mean there's some kind of conspiracy underway.


  • Options
    #1789
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    Yes. I've seen posts I might have carded myself in my own forum, by mods and non-mods, not actioned. I've even seen posts from you I would have thought cardable but they weren't. I've also seen some posts carded that I probably would have let go myself if it had been up to me.

    The issue is whether the post wasn't actioned because the person was a mod of another forum. There's zero evidence of this. Mods from other forums don't enjoy any special status. They're frequently carded and banned here, including the person you're complaining about.

    Mods ain't robots. They don't see every single post or get to respond to every single reported post. Every mod will have a slightly different opinion on what is and isn't actionable. Just because someone didn't get a card doesn't mean there's some kind of conspiracy underway.
    So it's pot luck? How are we to possibly know whether terms like "shinnerbot" and "smearbot" or "mother****er" are actionable then until we try to use them? In the absence of clear, consistent rules on these terms it is impossible to predict whether they will be considered as adding to the debate or not.
    I know for a fact I would be carded for that post of course.


  • Options
    #1790
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So? It's still most definitely an insult. Are you even trying to make a point here?
    bot comes from robot... wow. Never would've guessed that Godge. What a service to humanity.
    You see, I don't actually have any problem with people using the phrase, so long as it's not used directly against another poster, which the mods here have now decided is OK, yet "smearbot" is apparently deeply offensive.
    Idiots and morons exist. Shinnerbots and FGbots exist. It's utterly nonsensical to then turn around and say because they exist they are not insulting to call other posters these terms.

    Acolyte as a word is in a completely different category to moron and imbecile. As is -bot.

    Moron and imbecile are insults equivalent to just calling a person stupid.

    An acolyte or a -bot, is not stupid, they just choose to follow the party line, be that SF, the Church, FG or whatever organisation they belong to.

    I have never come across anyone proud to be called a moron or imbecile but many people are proud to be described as acolytes.


  • Options
    #1791
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    I have never come across anyone proud to be called a moron or imbecile but many people are proud to be described as acolytes.
    That definition of an abusive term is ridiculous. Have you ever found somebody who was happy to be called a bot? No, so your whole theory is waffle. If I can find one person who is happy to be called a dumbass I can now call anybody I want a dumbass by that non-logic.
    In any case, if they are "choosing" to follow the party line that would make them not a bot, as in ro-bot, in the first place as they are using their own discretion by your very own admission.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's unacceptable to call another poster a "shinnerbot", for the same reasons as "smear drone" is unacceptable - they're both personally offensive because of their implied mindless following of a party line, and they're both ad hominems for the same reason.
    Clear enough?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1792
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That definition of an abusive term is ridiculous. Have you ever found somebody who was happy to be called a bot? No, so your whole theory is waffle. If I can find one person who is happy to be called a dumbass I can now call anybody I want a dumbass by that non-logic.
    In any case, if they are "choosing" to follow the party line that would make them not a bot, as in ro-bot, in the first place as they are using their own discretion by your very own admission.
    Clear enough?

    Seeing as I have never referred directly to an individual poster as a shinnerbot, the point is moot.


  • Options
    #1793
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So it's pot luck? How are we to possibly know whether terms like "shinnerbot" and "smearbot" or "mother****er" are actionable then until we try to use them? In the absence of clear, consistent rules on these terms it is impossible to predict whether they will be considered as adding to the debate or not.

    I know some terms are specifically barred, but I think with most, it depends on the context in which they're used. It's a judgement call.

    I've been posting on Politics for the past few years and I've never felt the need to have an exhaustive list of terms that are or aren't acceptable. I've certainly never felt the need to resort to insults just because I thought someone else was getting away with using them. By and large, if you try remain civil and constructive, you'll avoid any trouble.


  • Options
    #1794
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    Seeing as I have never referred directly to an individual poster as a shinnerbot, the point is moot.
    I never said you did, but you have still failed to make any case whatsoever that using it to refer to another poster wouldn't be an ad hominem. In fact, I quite clearly stated already I had no problem with the shinnerbot, FFbot, FGbot etc being used to describe people "out there", not other posters here directly.
    You haven't added anything here at all then TBH.


  • Options
    #1795
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    I know some terms are specifically barred, but I think with most, it depends on the context in which they're used. It's a judgement call.
    Could you explain to me what "context" might be applicable here that would make "shinnerbot" acceptable language, because I must be missing a smiley or something.
    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    Defensive, argumentative, deflective and ad hominem? Those are the key characteristics of the shinnerbots on here; so if the shoe fits, I guess slide that mother****er on your foot.


  • Options
    #1796
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I've no idea. It wasn't my decision. Why don't you PM the politics mods and ask?

    To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you about the post. I'm disagreeing with your assertion that some kind of favoritism is the reason it wasn't actioned.


  • Options
    #1797
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Oscar Gateaux wrote: »
    I've no idea. It wasn't my decision. Why don't you PM the politics mods and ask?
    I've asked for an explanation when I reported them a second time as they obviously weren't being actioned. No reply. I think it's the same mod who found "smearbot" to be "deeply offensive" who thinks "shinnerbot" and "mother****er" are just fine to post.


  • Options
    #1798
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So it's pot luck? How are we to possibly know whether terms like "shinnerbot" and "smearbot" or "mother****er" are actionable then until we try to use them?
    Another attempt to distort the truth by suggesting I called you a "mother****er"? I didn't and I'm frankly not surprised that you would attempt to claim that I did.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    In the absence of clear, consistent rules on these terms it is impossible to predict whether they will be considered as adding to the debate or not.
    I know for a fact I would be carded for that post of course.
    We've been through this before on this very thread - it's moderator discretion in how they deal with posts.

    I can only say for my own forum, but indiscretions from good posters are usually dealt with in a very different way from indiscretions from posters who continuously fall short of acceptably posting standards. Where one poster may get a warning via PM, the other needs a card for continuously bad posting.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You are a mod here at boards.ie. It says it quite clearly beside your nick.
    As I have said now many times, it's totally disingenuous to suggest that I'm a mod of this forum. But this nature of your posting is exactly why nobody takes your complaint about "shinnerbot" seriously. You are clearly attempting to be "clever" by framing this as though there is some TPTB conspiracy against SF on boards.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You seem very confused as to your own status here. I can't say that surprises me.
    It's a bit rich to complain about personal abuse and then dish it out in every post. IMHO, in discussing the rules, I'd like to see the standard of posting raised rather than the banning of words.

    You aren't around in the politics forum very long, but look back in this thread and you'll see I've had this discussion before and, in fact, I took a year off posting in this forum over the strict carding for using a word whilst posters were able to post completely inane stuff and get away with it.

    You would certainly have a lot more credibility if you weren’t constantly on the cusp of personal sniping in the majority of your posts, attempting to distort all situations and generally breaking the DBAD rule on boards.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Then again, no mod of this forum seems to want to touch this inexplicable double standard with a barge pole for some reason. Oh, kinda answered myself there didn't I.
    You've been on here ranting about this for quite some time now; I personally believe Scofflaw answered this ages ago. I don't see how someone who consistently and continuously spouts the party line can feel personally abused by being called a "shinnerbot"?


  • Options
    #1799
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I've asked for an explanation when I reported them a second time as they obviously weren't being actioned. No reply. I think it's the same mod who found "smearbot" to be "deeply offensive" who thinks "shinnerbot" and "mother****er" are just fine to post.
    In fairness, if you don't like the moderation here nobody is forcing you to continue to do so.


  • Options
    #1800
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Another attempt to distort the truth by suggesting I called you a "mother****er"? I didn't and I'm frankly not surprised that you would attempt to claim that I did.
    Where did I claim or even suggest that? Be specific now.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I can only say for my own forum, but indiscretions from good posters are usually dealt with in a very different way from indiscretions from posters who continuously fall short of acceptably posting standards. Where one poster may get a warning via PM, the other needs a card for continuously bad posting.
    Rubbish frankly. You posted what has been described here as a clear ad hominem twice and nothing happened.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You've been on here ranting about this for quite some time now; I personally believe Scofflaw answered this ages ago. I don't see how someone who consistently and continuously spouts the party line can feel personally abused by being called a "shinnerbot"?
    Scofflaw did indeed answer this ages ago and said VERY clearly that shinnerbot is a personal insult. Are you saying now he is wrong?
    I don't see how somebody who acts like an idiot can feel personally abused by being called an idiot. See? Your logic collapses utterly yet again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1801
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    In fairness, if you don't like the moderation here nobody is forcing you to continue to do so.
    Ah yes, we've all heard that one before. It stinks so much of an admission of double standards TBH I'm not sure why anybody deploys it any more.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement