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,
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.

1…34689…89

Comments

  • #152
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I don't mean to be a pain here but whats the story with saying "Bertie lied in my opinion??"

    I mean Tristrame says its ok as long as you don't use IMO while OscarBravo seems to say it isn't ok unless the lie has been proven as fact by the tribunal surely one can look at the evidence and form their own opinion and post that, their opinion.

    I mean posters have been making all sort of accusations against certain politicians in the past here and as long as they stated it was in their opinion it seemed fine, just one example been accusations about Gerry Adams being a member of the IRA Army Council etc.

    Can someone please clarify?


  • #153
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    It's quite simple: accusations of lying have always been singled out for special attention on this forum. I didn't want anyone taking Tristrame's direction about clarifying personal opinions as carte blanche to trample on that rule by simple dint of saying "in my opinion".

    For example, someone expressed the opinion that Bertie was being hypocritical - fair enough. Expressing an opinion that someone is a liar isn't.

    Clear?


  • #154
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irish1 wrote:
    just one example been accusations about Gerry Adams being a member of the IRA Army Council etc.
    I knew you'd bring that up eventually...:rolleyes:

    Look it's even simpler now.
    No accusations of lying will be tolerated at all .
    Use something simple like I don't believe x or Y and this is why...
    How hard is that?


  • #155
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Its not hard it just seems the goalposts move depending on who the accusation is about.

    You can roll your eyes all you want but you know as well as I do what has been allowed on this forum in past, I'm sure I don't need to find you examples. Do you not agree that that is the case Tristrame?

    Although I think some people here will never agree that Bertie lied even if the tribunal states it in its findings while other Politician's here will be accused of a lot worse things without been censored.


  • #156
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    irish1 wrote:
    Its not hard it just seems the goalposts move depending on who the accusation is about.
    I'm really not sure how to make myself any clearer without typing more slowly: accusations of lying are a special case on this forum and will not be tolerated without proof. Accusations of all sorts of other things can be argued about on their merits, but I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

    Once again: clear?
    irish1 wrote:
    Although I think some people here will never agree that Bertie lied even if the tribunal states it in its findings while other Politician's here will be accused of a lot worse things without been censored.
    I don't give a goddamn rat's ass. I'm talking specifically about accusations of lying. It doesn't matter whether anything else is better, worse or indifferent - we'll deal with them on their merits. I'm talking about accusing people of lying.

    Now: is any of this unclear in any way?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Gerry Adams stated he was not a member of the IRA Army council yet posters here said he was over an over again is that not saying he lied?

    I get what your saying OscarBravo its just this wasn't the case in the past.


  • #158
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I honestly don't know how I can make myself any clearer, unless you're looking for an argument for the sake of it.


  • #159
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Your been very clear your obviously just not interested in discussing how the rules have changed, i.e. how it was ok to call one politician a lier in the past but its not ok to treat Bertie the same.

    Which is fair enough your the boss here, 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?


  • #160
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,791 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    irish1 wrote:
    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?
    Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.


  • #161
    Voipjunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Voipjunkie


    oscarBravo wrote:
    Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.

    I presume then it would be Ok to say

    "I do not believe Bertie Aherns account of the so called dollar transaction given the evidence that so far has been introduced at the tribunal"


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    But its still ok to say "Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA Army Council"?


  • #163
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm getting the vibe here that calling someone a liar (which is a deliberate action on the part of the person you are accusing) is going to be next and nigh on near impossible with some of the views already held by some posters (apparently).

    I'm closing that thread pending a discussion with the other mods on how best to proceed.
    Pending that decision,any other threads here on the subject will be closed/deleted on sight.
    This thread is also being temporarally closed pending a discussion between the mods on this topic.
    Thank you for your co operation.

    [EDIT-8/9/07]

    There is a new mahon thread which has been stuck.
    It will be opened on Tuesday at some stage.
    Please follow the instructions in the first post and hopefully what will come out of it will be a good thread.

    I'm re opening this thread now in the hope that the instructions in the new mahon thread couldn't be any clearer.

    If you still have any questions at all about this though,you can ask them here but be advised that depending on the question,you may just get a straight yes or no answer.

    Thank you for your co operation.

    [/EDIT]


  • #164
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    You say in the Tribunal thread that
    By that I mean strictly keep your own comments to being your own opinion and reason out your posts

    Just to clarify that means if one can clarifies their post as their opinion and provides reason for that opinion they can state that in their opinion someone has mislead/lied to the public?


  • #165
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    no


  • #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I might point out also irish1 that unless you remove the deliberate attempt to avoid my instruction on this from your signiture,you will not be allowed to post in that thread.


  • #167
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Trsitrame have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126328&page=6

    DeVore and Seamus have both said my sig is ok I wouldn't have put it there unless an Admin said it was ok?


  • #168
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,784 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    While it appears that Irish has only very recently set up his blog, more than likely for the purpose of venting about Bertie out of frustration at this forum I think asking him to remove the link in his sig might be a tad much in fairness.

    It is an off site link to a personal blog in no way connected with boards. The link doesn’t say “Bertie ate my babies” or “Bertie is bent”, it’s just a link to a political blog like many others have in their sigs. I know you two lads have had a somewhat personal battle over the past while about Berties "quirky" :) finances but I see no harm in Irish linking his own blog in his signature, so long as he doesn’t pimp it in all his posts by directing people to it during a discussion on the tribunal.


  • #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irish1 wrote:
    Trsitrame have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126328&page=6

    DeVore and Seamus have both said my sig is ok I wouldn't have put it there unless an Admin said it was ok?
    I said for the purpose of the thread,not for the purpose of the forum.
    It would be rather pointless putting strict criteria foward for that thread if you are going to flout said criteria in an obvious manner.

    It's quite simple.If you keep that link in your signiture,you will not be allowed post in that thread.
    There is an option before you submit your post to post without that signiture (under miscellaneous options) I suggest you use it.

    With regard to how this topic will be going foward here,I'll say the following rather obvious thing yet again
    As you know(or should know) there are several ways of expressing an opinion on what you think of Aherns evidence without flouting the instructions of the moderators as expressed on this thread and on others.
    Clownbag wrote:
    I know you two lads have had a somewhat personal battle over the past while about Berties "quirky" finances but I see no harm in Irish linking his own blog in his signature, so long as he doesn’t pimp it in all his posts by directing people to it during a discussion on the tribunal.
    Just to be perfectly clear-no links to the opposite kind of rant will be allowed in the tribunal thread either.


  • #170
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Well I think having one rule for one thread and another rule for every other forum and thread is a bit silly but if it keeps you off my back I'm quite happy to exclude my sig from posts in that thread.

    However I will post my frank opinion based on all the evidence that has been made public and it will be done no differently than all those posts which we have seen on this forum in the past, I don't think Bertie Ahern deserves any more protection than other political figure that has been accused of all sorts on this forum.


  • #171
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irish1 wrote:
    Well I think having one rule for one thread and another rule for every other forum and thread is a bit silly but if it keeps you off my back I'm quite happy to exclude my sig from posts in that thread.
    You are being facetious now.Quit acting the muppet or I will assist you by removing your access here.
    You know damn well that this topic is only being discussed in one place on boards.
    It also couldn't have been made clearer in my last post why your signiture is not being allowed in that thread.
    However I will post my frank opinion based on all the evidence that has been made public and it will be done no differently than all those posts which we have seen on this forum in the past, I don't think Bertie Ahern deserves any more protection than other political figure that has been accused of all sorts on this forum.
    You will follow the guidelines on what you can and cannot say as outlined in this thread and you will exclude that signiture from your posts.
    That thread is not to be treated as a soapbox or a rant thread ,it's for discussion.
    Any digression from that will result in a one month ban.
    Plenty of notice has been given for this approach to that thread and there will be zero tollerance for muppetrous attempts to flout that rule.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Can you explain why that thread has different rules than every other thread?


  • #173
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    no.


  • #174
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Fair enough I'll start a thread in feedback to see if we can get any answers as to why Berties appearance at the tribunal is been treated differently than every other topic, altough it will most likely result in pictures of Bertie's cat's.


  • #175
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Go right ahead.
    Though I think you know the answer to that is on this thread already which is why I'm not replying to your repeated for the crack posts on the matter in this thread.
    The instructions given could not be clearer.


  • #176
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    I think restricting a poster's signature in such a manner the facetious act here, Tristrame. We both know irish1 is a dirty ranting Shinner waffler (;) irish1 I kid, I kid), but if people wish to read his opinions/rants - on an entirely separate website - they're free to do so. Thus I consider the "signature matter" a broader question for Boards' sig rules on advertising etc. Which, to the best of my knowledge, he's within.

    It would be an entirely different subject if he wrote "I don't like Bertie. See my blog for more." Maybe I'm missing something, but unless/until he's just pimping his blog (rather than sticking to site and forum rules) with his sig, I think he's fine.

    I don't think it's doing any harm.


  • #177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ibid wrote:
    I think restricting a poster's signature in such a manner the facetious act here, Tristrame. We both know irish1 is a dirty ranting Shinner waffler (;) irish1 I kid, I kid), but if people wish to read his opinions/rants - on an entirely separate website - they're free to do so. Thus I consider the "signature matter" a broader question for Boards' sig rules on advertising etc. Which, to the best of my knowledge, he's within.
    Oh I'm not disputing the fact that he is within boards signiture rules.
    It would be an entirely different subject if he wrote "I don't like Bertie. See my blog for more." Maybe I'm missing something, but unless/until he's just pimping his blog (rather than sticking to site and forum rules) with his sig, I think he's fine.
    You are missing 1 thing : That this forum is expressly forbidding the use of or the allusion to the word liar in the mahon thread.
    Posting on a thread using a signiture as a link to the users wholesome opinion on who is a liar and who isn't flouts that instruction.
    Politics doesn't come into that.
    The only place where politics comes into it, is that we are talking about a politician and it is only right and proper for posters to question the evidence presented in a legal process like the mahon tribunal.
    It is not proper to draw definitive conclusions during the process.
    If you are going to post that someone is a liar,you had better be able to prove it and to be frank in this case at best that will have to wait untill this module is over.
    It will then be either possible or impossible to do so.


  • #178
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    Tristrame wrote:
    You are missing 1 thing : That this forum is expressly forbidding the use of or the allusion to the word liar in the mahon thread.
    As far as I can see, he is sticking to that rule. I'd agree that "the l word" should be banned for a whole host of reasons.
    Posting on a thread using a signiture as a link to the users wholesome opinion on who is a liar and who isn't flouts that instruction.
    I disagree. I wouldn't call Bertie a liar on this forum. I feel free to do in my own sitting room, and if I wish to welcome people into my sitting room that's none of your business. Your instruction is paramount to saying "Not only are you not allowed to call Bertie a liar on this thread, but we're not letting anyone call him a liar anywhere." I disagree with that.
    Politics doesn't come into that.
    The only place where politics comes into it, is that we are talking about a politician and it is only right and proper for posters to question the evidence presented in a legal process like the mahon tribunal.
    It is not proper to draw definitive conclusions during the process.
    If you are going to post that someone is a liar,you had better be able to prove it and to be frank in this case at best that will have to wait untill this module is over.
    It will then be either possible or impossible to do so.
    I entirely agree with that, and have bolded what I consider the most important bit. We are talking about it, here. Paraphrasing DeV, Boards doesn't control the whole web.

    And just in case you're thinking otherwise, this is not an attack on your modding. I just think you're making an error in judgement here.


  • #179
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ibid wrote:
    And just in case you're thinking otherwise, this is not an attack on your modding. I just think you're making an error in judgement here.
    To be frank,I don't think you are getting the reasoning I am using here yet.

    It's rather similar to the position we took here on the poster who was using his blog to declare who in his opinion supported the IRA on this forum.

    In this case the position is, a poster is not being allowed to have a link in his signiture to a blog used in a thread...just one thread discussing the same subject that the blog explicitly was set up for.

    Thats not censoring the blog,it might even be promoting it.
    It is though in actual fact protecting the thread from any flout of the instructions.
    Plenty of notice and room has been provided in the mean time to make the situation absolutely clear prior to the thread being opened.


  • #180
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    The funny thing is Lemming got away with that link to his signature, he didn't even get a ban and it was a boards blog too.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    popebenny16
    Registered Users Posts: 2,461 ✭✭✭popebenny16


    The rationale for this seems clear to me. Evidence and testimony will be given during the hearings. You can discuss what has been said, but you cant make a conclusion on it until the process is complete, but you can speculate on what the conclusions will be when it is completed.

    Legally the position is also fairly clear, you cannot call someone a liar due to a mistake in their testimony, but you can comment on occurrence's whereby their testimony contradicts itself or is contradicted by other testimony. To state that anyone is lying you would have to have proof of prior intent to lie, and unless you have that Boards.ie will be getting into trouble.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement