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.

12357…54

Comments

  • #202
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Although, technically speaking, you could point out that Ahern stated in his resume that he graduated from UCD and studied at the LSE, but neither body had ever had him as a student and therefore he was a liar because the resume is a deliberately constructed document designed to be used for personal gain...

    ...but then, that'd be being a bit annoying really, wouldn't it?


  • #203
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53987179&postcount=65
    hullaball&#250 wrote:
    As far as I'm concerned, in no case is there to be allowed the accusation of lying levelled against any person(s).


  • #204
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    See, I've always thought that there's a small logical problem with that principle, in that it doesn't cover the case where the person actually is lying and is clearly caught doing so. It's more of a "we won't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table" approach than an article 40 approach, if you follow me. It just doesn't sit right. I mean, acting the eejit and calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is one thing, that's obviously on the wrong side of the line; I'm just saying that there actually is a line in the first place, however gray and fuzzy it is - the politics board's principle is stating that such a line is defined not to exist.


  • #205
    popebenny16
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭popebenny16


    Sparks wrote:
    Although, technically speaking, you could point out that Ahern stated in his resume that he graduated from UCD and studied at the LSE, but neither body had ever had him as a student and therefore he was a liar because the resume is a deliberately constructed document designed to be used for personal gain...

    ...but then, that'd be being a bit annoying really, wouldn't it?

    No, you could do the bit in bold all right, but you have to prove the intent to lie in the other bit. Since boards.ie publishes your statements it means that boards.ie would have to prove it if there was to be any nasty legals.


  • #206
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Sparks wrote:
    See, I've always thought that there's a small logical problem with that principle, in that it doesn't cover the case where the person actually is lying and is clearly caught doing so.
    If someone has been unequivocally proven to have deliberately deceived another, I personally have no issue with them being called a liar.


  • #207
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Ah siucra.

    I was reading a thread on feedback which reminded me of an issue I wanted to clarify with the politics mods. It looks like the issue is also being discussed here:o

    I've no interest in the particulars surrounding irish1's issue.

    I'm thankful that OscarBravo has spelt out when there is grounds to call someone a liar. Mabye it could be added to the "forum guidelines" for posterity? The existing idea of proving intent to deceive is not as clear-cut as proving that something is untrue and that the poster knew it at the time. Deception is based on more than just falseties.

    If someone feels that a lie has been posted, and has conclusive evidence that it is, can the post be reported??


  • #208
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    To_be_confirmed wrote:
    If someone feels that a lie has been posted, and has conclusive evidence that it is, can the post be reported??
    Wouldn't it be better to challenge the lie in-thread, presenting the evidence that disproves it?


  • #209
    lucernarian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    Based on personal experience, even if one's convinced of their case, the mods might disagree for good reasons for their own and will ban accordingly.

    I had in mind a way where either the mod would point out the lie after the post was reported, or else the "plaintiff" could call someone a liar with prior approval from a mod.


    So to answer your question, I don't agree with you for the reason above. If you still think your approach is better, well I can do nothing about it.


  • #210
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The alternative, which you don't appear to have considered, is to calmly present evidence that demonstrates the untruthfulness of the original post, rather than calling people names. It's called attacking the post instead of the poster, and it's a general principle of good behaviour on this site.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    The problem of who judges the conclusiveness of evidence does present itself - "self-evident" not being a term that gets a great deal of acceptance in political debates...


  • #212
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Agreed - that's why I'd recommend presenting the evidence, and letting people draw their own conclusions.


  • #213
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Originally Posted by irish1
    would it be ok to say that in my opinion he mislead the public when he stated that he didn't deal in dollars and that the lodgement was only in pounds and punts?


    (follwed by this response)
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.

    Are you saying here that if somebody formulates their own opinion, based on the evidence presented at the tribunal, that they will be banned?

    If as I expect yes, that's a hilarious, and over-bearing, stance. Debate is stifled in politics and it is now becoming clear to me why it is.

    Seriously, this is a national issue and I think that Boards are scared of open debate between people using the freedom of expression that we all derive from the laws of this land.


  • #214
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Are you saying here that if somebody formulates their own opinion, based on the evidence presented at the tribunal, that they will be banned?
    No. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I write.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    If as I expect yes, that's a hilarious, and over-bearing, stance. Debate is stifled in politics and it is now becoming clear to me why it is.

    Seriously, this is a national issue and I think that Boards are scared of open debate between people using the freedom of expression that we all derive from the laws of this land.
    If you genuinely believe that you have freedom to prejudice legal proceedings and publish potentially libellous comments, by all means feel free to do so on a website other than this one.

    You can formulate any opinion you want. Depending on what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to express it in this forum.


  • #215
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I write. If you genuinely believe that you have freedom to prejudice legal proceedings and publish potentially libellous comments, by all means feel free to do so on a website other than this one.

    You can formulate any opinion you want. Depending on what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to express it in this forum.

    Oh, I'm reading what you write. It is quite clear that forming your own opinion based on established facts is not allowed. The media are doing this everyday. Why is Boards any different? They don't seem to be too concerned with what legal action, at a very long shot, that named parties might try. Besides they will not want any more publicity and there is a thing called freedom of speech. Ever heard of it? I won't accept a "they are far larger than us and can afford all the lawyers in China" argument.

    Speaking of which, has Boards actually been threatened? That is what it is beginning to look like.


  • #216
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Oh, I'm reading what you write. It is quite clear that forming your own opinion based on established facts is not allowed.
    I'll repeat myself, since you seem to be having trouble grasping my point: you can form any opinion you want. Depending what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to post it here.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    The media are doing this everyday. Why is Boards any different? They don't seem to be too concerned with what legal action, at a very long shot, that named parties might try. Besides they will not want any more publicity...
    Great. I look forward to reading your interpretations of the tribunal's events on your blog.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    ...and there is a thing called freedom of speech. Ever heard of it?
    I have. What's it got to do with a privately-owned website?

    Lest that point was unclear, I'll be unequivocal: you have no freedom of speech on this website. Deal with it.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    I won't accept a "they are far larger than us and can afford all the lawyers in China" argument.
    With all due respect, I don't really care what you will and won't accept.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Speaking of which, has Boards actually been threatened? That is what it is beginning to look like.
    You think waiting for a lawsuit is the most appropriate course of action? Publish what you want on your own website.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'll repeat myself, since you seem to be having trouble grasping my point: you can form any opinion you want. Depending what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to post it here. Great. I look forward to reading your interpretations of the tribunal's events on your blog. I have. What's it got to do with a privately-owned website?

    Lest that point was unclear, I'll be unequivocal: you have no freedom of speech on this website. Deal with it. With all due respect, I don't really care what you will and won't accept. You think waiting for a lawsuit is the most appropriate course of action? Publish what you want on your own website.

    Looks like I struck a nerve. I hope I didn't hurt it too much.

    I got the response that I expected.


  • #218
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    Looks like I struck a nerve. I hope I didn't hurt it too much.
    Heh. You don't know me very well.
    kaiser sauze wrote: »
    I got the response that I expected.
    Always happy to live up to expectations.

    edit: I won't be holding my breath for your free-speech blog, all the same.


  • #219
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Can I possibly get a 2nd opinion here from another moderator ?

    On the politics forum sometimes I am asked to provide links to back up things I say. As everyone here knows links are pretty much the currency of many arguments on politics. Often the source of the links are questioned (wiki is serb propaganda, youtube is invalid etc) sometimes I am asked to provide more than one link. Thats all fine and I tend to go along as its easier providing you have nothing to hide.

    Yesterday in politics forum a dutch person posted - and I asked them a question in passing about something I heard about ages ago - it was about when the indigenous dutch may become a minority in holland. The said dutch person answered and that was fine and that should have been the end of that.

    However it was responded to by someone who posted a hyperlinked jpeg of a graph which showed the projected trend of population numbers into 2018.

    Fine too more information to assess - except there was something suspicious about it.

    I thought it was wierd for a couple of reasons :
    that over the course of the next 10 years the population of Native dutch in holland would decrease by 1%
    there didnt seem to be a margin of error whatsoever. Normally you would expect a margin of error of at least 2% in demographic studies
    I have also seen population studies where when they are projecting that far forward they provide 3 estimates (due to the number of variables), a best circumstance, a worst circumstance and a medium estimate. The medium estimate is arguably the more reliable. The person who posted the jpg link didnt specify which number theirs was - worst, best or medium estimate. I thought this was odd and asked for the source of the study, also what date it was from (which is always relevant) and where was it from - equally relevant.

    None of this was provided. So I asked again and the person who posted the jpeg replied to say that it was data they put together by himself in excel and then plotted forward.

    This was not stated at the time they provided the jpeg - it was presented as if it was part of an independent study and that the number of 1% was arrived at in a professional manner. Simply taking the previous 4/5 years numbers and graphing them forward is not necessarily very thorough - it does not take into account any expected change in any variable which can effect the outcome.

    I mentioned that I did not think it was acceptable to be your own source - and that perhaps a moderator could clarify.

    The reply I recieved was not overly helpful in my view - so I was wondering if other moderators would give an opinion on this ?

    Here is a link to the thread
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055212328

    The part where this person posted his jpeg (without mentioning date, independence or source)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54817646&postcount=68

    Where I questioned this x2 (this is before the source became known)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54818338&postcount=71
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54819365&postcount=74

    This is where the person clarified how he arrived at the numbers
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54819771&postcount=76

    Where the moderator replied:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54820180&postcount=79

    Anway without boring everyone to death - the gist of this all this is that in my opinion - if you post data that you have created in ms excel or any other document you create - you should clearly state that it was you who created it and how.

    This information was forthcoming eventually - however I think it should be a rule that you can not post anything you yourself create without clearly stating that fact.


  • #220
    cabinteelytom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭cabinteelytom


    I thought Morlar did a good job of exposing shady practice that pretended to authority; and bringing it up for debate , which is really what message boards are about. But I doubt if trying to police this kind of thing comprehensively is possible. I'm not sure it's desireable. We all know posts are not peer reviewed. 'There's lies, damned lies, and..then there's statistics'. '84% of statistics are made up on the spot.'


  • #221
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    On a minor pedantic point, should the new forum be called something more like "European Politics"? Referring it to as the EU Forum kind of excludes talk about the Commission etc.

    Of course I appreciate that the two are practically synonymous in Irish vernacular and that you'd be losing some of the advantages of the current name by changing it. Nonetheless, warrants a mention I think.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Any news on the China discussion rules?

    I learned something from that debate, then now it's gone....


  • #223
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,491 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Ibid wrote: »
    On a minor pedantic point, should the new forum be called something more like "European Politics"? Referring it to as the EU Forum kind of excludes talk about the Commission etc.

    Surely "European Union - Forum for discussing EU politics." allows discussion on the commission - are they not political?

    Your suggestion "European Politics" points towards discussing national and local politics in Europe without an EU slant.

    An American Politics board might be useful, so the subject doesn't hog the main board.


  • #224
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Victor wrote: »
    Surely "European Union - Forum for discussing EU politics." allows discussion on the commission - are they not political?
    The Commission is a bad example. I'm more pointing out that there are distinctions between the EU/EC/EEC and "the EU" is not quite all encompassing. The Commission is a bad example here because it is considered as part of the Union moreso than, say, the ECtHR. I imagine cases brought under the ECHR are fair game on this forum, but are not technically EU-related, and thus not quite covered by the name.
    Your suggestion "European Politics" points towards discussing national and local politics in Europe without an EU slant.
    I accept this.


  • #225
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Why do some Mod’s feel the need to diss posters just because they personally don’t like the legitimate (well at least some might consider legitimate anyway) sources provided by an individual, when that individual is requested to supply sources?


  • #226
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    Why is it that Mods teand to shut threads down if one or two step over the line?

    I'm talking about the United Ireland thread - It was shut down because of another post about Collins - surely punishing the poster is a better idea?

    Note: This has happened before - are we allowed discuss Tibet yet!?


  • #227
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Cliste wrote: »
    Why is it that Mods teand to shut threads down if one or two step over the line?

    I'm talking about the United Ireland thread - It was shut down because of another post about Collins - surely punishing the poster is a better idea?
    That thread had pretty much run its course anyway, the usual trenches had been retreated into.
    Note: This has happened before - are we allowed discuss Tibet yet!?
    Yes, but it would really help if everybody fully informed themselves about both sides of that story too.


  • #228
    kaiser sauze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kaiser sauze


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Why do some Mod’s feel the need to diss posters just because they personally don’t like the legitimate (well at least some might consider legitimate anyway) sources provided by an individual, when that individual is requested to supply sources?



    Politics forum has not changed, this is one of the many problems with it.
    I notice your query was ignored and a subsequent query has already had a response. No surprises there, either.


  • #229
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Without pointing fingers on-thread PJ, a few examples wouldn't hurt (it'd be easier for me to answer the question as a general one that way, obviously this thread isn't about answering specific incidents, that's what the Help Desk is for). I'm not actually aware of where that's happened, even when talking about the occasional krazee kidd we get in here (and we do get them and usually where they supply sources they're highly questionable).

    (to be honest, for me, the question is non-related to a discussion on the rules, which is what this thread is for and more a question about a practice you reckon is there, which would make the question more at home on the Help Desk anyway but I'm interested as long as it doesn't start an off-topic discussion, which would obviously belong outside of this thread)


  • #230
    Driseog
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭Driseog


    Bit off topic but how does one Thank? Can't see it in the FAQs


  • #231
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Driseog wrote: »
    Bit off topic but how does one Thank? Can't see it in the FAQs
    At the bottom-right of each post you'll see a line of buttons (anywhere between three and five depending on the post). The one all the way to the right looks like a thumbs-up. That's the one you click. You can't thank your own posts I'm afraid. And some forums (like the Help Desk) don't allow the feature.

    Short answer: click the thumbs-up button!


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Driseog
    Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭Driseog


    sceptre wrote: »
    At the bottom-right of each post you'll see a line of buttons (anywhere between three and five depending on the post). The one all the way to the right looks like a thumbs-up. That's the one you click. You can't thank your own posts I'm afraid. And some forums (like the Help Desk) don't allow the feature.

    Short answer: click the thumbs-up button!

    Go raibh maith agat but that thumbs up button is never there...


  • #233
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Driseog wrote: »
    Go raibh maith agat but that thumbs up button is never there...
    Ah, I just noticed, you've got 7 posts in total on boards.ie as a whole at the moment. The thanks feature only appears when you hit a higher number. 10 or 25 I think. Not an excuse to spam but a few more posts and it'll be available to you.


  • #234
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    I think some article should be amended to the politics charter governing the use of images. Ive discussed this on feedback previously, about how images are often mis-used to evoke emotion. It was rampant on the Israel-Palestine thread.

    Pointless image here for example:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59810428&postcount=98

    :confused:

    So I think guidelines for why and when to include images should be made.


  • #235
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    turgon wrote: »
    I think some article should be amended to the politics charter governing the use of images. Ive discussed this on feedback previously, about how images are often mis-used to evoke emotion. It was rampant on the Israel-Palestine thread.

    Pointless image here for example:

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59810428&postcount=98

    :confused:

    So I think guidelines for why and when to include images should be made.

    That image was used purely because other posters had been allowed to post up the Union Jack...

    Hmmmm, I agree - I would prefer if the Union Jack hadn't been allowed to be posted - in a clearly inflamitory way


  • #236
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Cliste wrote: »
    Hmmmm, I agree - I would prefer if the Union Jack hadn't been allowed to be posted - in a clearly inflamitory way

    Absolutely my point. Pictures should be used to prove a point. Posting a flag does not do this. It is meant to spark illogical emotions.

    TBH I find irrelevant pictures annoying, they reduce the flow of the conversation whilst contributing nothing.


  • #237
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    turgon wrote: »
    Absolutely my point. Pictures should be used to prove a point. Posting a flag does not do this. It is meant to spark illogical emotions.

    TBH I find irrelevant pictures annoying, they reduce the flow of the conversation whilst contributing nothing.

    I agree, and second the pointless image motion!


    However I feel that that thread has been dragged so off topic it's not funny.

    The thread was taken truely off topic at this point (And for the record I've given up reporting anything that isn't a clear insult because getting the mods to act is like pulling teeth):
    futurehope wrote: »
    I think it's worse than that jimmy. One only has to read through the posts on this forum (and indeed on other Irish forums) to realise what sort of place Ireland had/has become since it left The Union. Constant whining about The UK/GB/Britain. Is there any other country in the world that goes on about their nearest neighbours like The Irish? Personally I doubt it. If one goes on a German forum, do people there keep bleating about Germany's lost lands - Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, etc? Personally I doubt it. Does anyone on UK forums keep moaning about how terrible it was to lose The Empire and wouldn't it be great if it could be recreated? Again, unlikely. Does any civilised country anywhere have the arrogance to constantly keep harping on about taking over part of a neighbouring country's territory AGAINST the will of those who actually live there? If there are such civilised countries, I'd love to know their names. And yet many of these same bleaters, whiners and moaners have either lived in England, are living in England, or will live in England - either them, their parents, their children, etc. This can all be summed up in one word:

    EMBARRASSING!

    And yet the question remains - WHY do The Irish (or many of them) think like this and act like this? I can only give one answer. In order for corrupt, lazy and incompetent Irish politicians to prosper and in order for said politicians to maintain control over what was a very poor populace until relatively recently, they had to point the finger North and East. It was The terrible British and those nasty Prods who were to blame. And yet, said politicians could not have acted alone. No, they required the assistance of The RC church, which they received in abundance, particularly through the schools, where the anti-British and anti-Protestant bile was spewed out onto innocent children. In return The Irish state did not look to closely at what The RC priests were up to. Well, we all know now what they were up to don't we?

    So, instead of blaming The British for their plight (the same British who helped fund Ireland's prosperity through The EU and who welcomed The Irish into England as immigrants) or blaming Northern Protestants (the one's, who contrary to Irish speak, were actually incredibly slow to anger, even during the worst of The Provo outrages), The Irish should take a much closer look at themselves, and damn well grow up.


  • #238
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I agree that the modding in that thread as been terrible. Someone should have a word with futurehope on how to conduct himself on this board.

    Also whats the deal with Irish, are you not allowed to post it?


  • #239
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    jank wrote: »
    I agree that the modding in that thread as been terrible. Someone should have a word with futurehope on how to conduct himself on this board.

    Also whats the deal with Irish, are you not allowed to post it?

    I asked - someone complained I think...

    I didn't say anything about them in Irish - just invited people to Teach na Gealt for some banter. I think the general rule is that Irish is ok in moderation, too much is bad because the Mods don't understand, which is fair enough I suppose... Ó da mbeadh Éireann níos fearr ann...


  • #240
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Considering that only a small minority speak Irish well enough to converse in it, and that those who do speak Irish can also speak English, I think the use of Irish should be banned with the exception of Irish phrasing.

    The only reason otherwise to use Irish is to intentionally make your self misunderstood which is bad form. I think there is no merit in using it, but ye might disagree.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    turgon wrote: »
    Considering that only a small minority speak Irish well enough to converse in it, and that those who do speak Irish can also speak English, I think the use of Irish should be banned with the exception of Irish phrasing.

    The only reason otherwise to use Irish is to intentionally make your self misunderstood which is bad form. I think there is no merit in using it, but ye might disagree.

    I didn't do it maliciously at all.

    And there is much merit in using Irish - but this will be an issue that takes many locked threads to solve


  • #242
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    jank wrote: »
    Also whats the deal with Irish, are you not allowed to post it?
    As soon as you teach every other forum user how to read it...
    Cliste wrote: »
    And there is much merit in using Irish - but this will be an issue that takes many locked threads to solve
    Possibly, though the Politics forum isn't the place to start one. We've got a bigass Feedback forum, a Teach na nGealt forum and a Forums forum for that, depending on the discussion required.


  • #243
    Grudaire
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    sceptre wrote: »
    As soon as you teach every other forum user how to read it...

    Listen we give everyone how many years of education in the language for free? - what more teaching do you want?!:pac:


  • #244
    dingbat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭dingbat


    Am I ok with my latest version of the Fine Gael website thread?


  • #245
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Not picking on you, dingbat, but this thread was designed for feedback on the Politics charter, not for discussion of moderation. For future reference, if anyone wants clarity on a moderator's actions I'd respectfully ask that they take it up with the moderator by private message.


  • #246
    dingbat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 716 ✭✭✭dingbat


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not picking on you, dingbat, but this thread was designed for feedback on the Politics charter, not for discussion of moderation. For future reference, if anyone wants clarity on a moderator's actions I'd respectfully ask that they take it up with the moderator by private message.
    No probs. Thank you. I have done so.

    I will also post a message here querying that aspect of the charter.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    To be honest, I think the personal abuse rule should be applied in situations where posters personally abuse someone not on the forum.

    I may not agree with FF, but they do not deserve to be called pricks.

    Now that were in full pre-election swing Im getting sick of personal abuse directed at politicians. Its sad, and it does not contribute to debate in any meaningful way.

    Just my 2 cents. I read the charter and it didnt seem to be there.


  • #248
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    To be honest, I think the personal abuse rule should be (more lightly) applied in situations where posters personally abuse someone not on the forum.

    I may not agree with FF, but they do not deserve to be called pricks.

    No offence, but that second bit seems to contradict the first. I'm going to presume you mean 'more tightly'.


    'A certain amount of flack is the price of public office' would be my reply, if my guess is correct.


  • #249
    turgon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,762 ✭✭✭turgon


    Ooops, grammatical error. Asfaik, abusing someone not on boards is not really banned.


  • #250
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nodin wrote: »
    No offence, but that second bit seems to contradict the first. I'm going to presume you mean 'more tightly'.


    'A certain amount of flack is the price of public office' would be my reply, if my guess is correct.

    I'd agree with that, but calling people names is nothing more than the little dogs yapping. It's meaningless, particularly when the same epithets are applied indiscriminately to everybody from murderers to Ministers. Once a poster has called FF 'pricks', and then gone on to apply the same term to Hitler, GW Bush, the Gardai, and another poster for disagreeing with one of those uses, all it tells us is that 'pricks' is the posters favourite term for anyone that annoys him. Does it constitute discussion? No. Does it improve discussion? No. Does it even tell us anything about the people thus described? No. The poster might as well have repeatedly described his own testicles.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #251
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    If abuse is the sum total of the contribution eg "Cowan is a gobshite", certainly.

    However "Today Brian Cowan unveiled (yadda da yadda) - this will cause absolute chassis because (etc etc)" Is this man a total gobshite" would strike me as fair comment.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement