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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

A discussion on the rules.

bonkey · 2003-05-22 08:54:42

Hi all, some time ago, myself, Gandalf and Swiss were discussing what we saw as the failings of our forum's rules. We - naturally - took this mostly from a moderator's stance. Since then, I've promised the guys I'd draft up a new set of rules - something I've successfully managed not to do since well before Easter :) So,…

Comments

#62 25-01-2005 6:16am

Hobbes

Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 18308

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

0
#63 27-01-2005 10:26pm

pete

Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 1693

Mods,

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

thanks.

0
#64 27-01-2005 10:46pm

therecklessone

Registered Users Posts: 17,213 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2002

Posts: 16176

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?

0
#65 27-01-2005 10:56pm

arcadegame2004

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,406 ✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2004

Posts: 1340

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.

0
#66 27-01-2005 11:00pm

pete

Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 1693

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?

0
Advertisement
#67 29-01-2005 1:29am

pete

Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 1693

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

0
#68 29-01-2005 12:00pm

mike65

Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2001

Posts: 84063

I'll 2nd petes concerns....

Mike.

0
#69 29-01-2005 5:03pm

bonkey

Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2001

Posts: 14635

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

0
#70 29-01-2005 5:11pm

pete

Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2001

Posts: 1693

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.

0
#71 29-01-2005 5:32pm

Stabshauptmann

Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4437

Could something be done about deliberate misquoting

0
Advertisement
#72 29-01-2005 7:40pm

mycroft

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,862 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 2804

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.

0
#73 02-02-2005 11:34am

Nuttzz

Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2003

Posts: 3530

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

0
#74 02-02-2005 12:58pm

Hobbes

Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 18308

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.

0
#75 02-02-2005 1:19pm

Nuttzz

Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2003

Posts: 3530

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.

0
#76 02-02-2005 1:39pm

Hobbes

Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 18308

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.

0
#77 02-02-2005 2:12pm

bonkey

Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2001

Posts: 14635

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.

0
#78 02-02-2005 2:31pm

DadaKopf

Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭

Join Date: February 2001

Posts: 4454

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.

0
#79 02-02-2005 3:41pm

Nuttzz

Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2003

Posts: 3530

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

0
#80 02-02-2005 4:33pm

Hobbes

Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: February 1998

Posts: 18308

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).

0
#81 02-02-2005 4:56pm

Nuttzz

Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2003

Posts: 3530

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

0
Advertisement
#82 02-02-2005 5:39pm

bonkey

Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2001

Posts: 14635

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

0
#83 03-02-2005 12:35am

ecksor

Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2000

Posts: 10322

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.

0
#84 04-02-2005 10:16pm

Victor

Registered Users Posts: 78,239 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: December 2000

Posts: 68604

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?

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

0
#85 22-02-2005 2:48pm

Stabshauptmann

Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭

Join Date: May 2004

Posts: 4437

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 ...

0
#86 22-02-2005 2:57pm

Villain

Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2002

Posts: 15308

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.

0
#87 22-02-2005 3:08pm

[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 ✭

Join Date: -

Posts: 0

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

0
#88 22-02-2005 3:33pm

Meh

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,295 ✭✭✭

Join Date: June 2001

Posts: 1286

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.

0
#89 22-02-2005 5:03pm

ecksor

Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 10,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2000

Posts: 10322

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.

0
#90 22-02-2005 6:08pm

Nuttzz

Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2003

Posts: 3530

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

0
Advertisement
#91 22-02-2005 7:21pm

Villain

Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2002

Posts: 15308

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.

0

This discussion has been closed.