What do you think of the politics of boards.ie

thegent

I like to read through the posts on this site and would like to know what you all think of the politics of this site.
The Moderators/Administrators seem to be on some sort of power trip cutting in on interesting debates like fascists treating those involved like children telling them that if they 'ever see them doing this again' they will be blacklisted, banned even.
It reminds me of the Christian Brothers in school.
Any thoughts or does anyone care.
I wonder if my post will get through the censors

biko

Long time listener, first time caller eh? Or second account
The mods are our sheperds, leading us back on-topic again when we stray into longwinded personal attacks etc etc
All hail the Mods ( sorry, will just have to wipe something of my nose)

mike65

More suited to feedback methinks.

Mike.

Zombrex

thegent wrote:

I like to read through the posts on this site and would like to know what you all think of the politics of this site.
The Moderators/Administrators seem to be on some sort of power trip cutting in on interesting debates like fascists treating those involved like children telling them that if they 'ever see them doing this again' they will be blacklisted, banned even.
It reminds me of the Christian Brothers in school.
Any thoughts or does anyone care.
I wonder if my post will get through the censors

Probably not considerin there are other, better, places on Boards.ie to complain about the running of this site

Ghost Rider

Well I'm just wondering why a thread I started about 911 earlier today was moved to the Conspiracy Theory board without anyone even PM-ing me.

I took considerable efforts to delimit my usage of the term "conspiracy theory" because I think it restricts the debate unnecessarily. Yet a moderator or moderators saw fit to re-classify the thread without discussion. Is that not a political gesture?

And by the way, I hope the moderators will recognise this discussion to be a properly political one too, and thus to fall under the stated remit of this board.

Zombrex

Ghost Rider wrote:

Yet a moderator or moderators saw fit to re-classify the thread without discussion. Is that not a political gesture?

Not really, you were asking for evidence supporting the 9/11 conspiricy theory of an inside job. Is that discussion not better suited in Conspiricy Theories? It certainly wasn't very political in nature.

bonkey

Ghost Rider wrote:

Well I'm just wondering why a thread I started about 911 earlier today was moved to the Conspiracy Theory board without anyone even PM-ing me.

At a guess, I'd say the following:

1) There was nothing political in it
2) It directly stated it was dealing with conspiracy theories
3) One or more posters complained to the moderators

Point 3 is well worth paying attention to here. Are you aware as to whether or not this happened? If it did, how can you decide that its the moderators who disagree with your decisions when they waited until someone complained to them before acting?

Is that not a political gesture?

No, its a gesture of moderation. The whole concept of moderation revolves around someone deciding what does and does not fall within the remit of the forum.

And by the way, I hope the moderators will recognise this discussion to be a properly political one too, and thus to fall under the stated remit of this board.

I don't see it as political at all. You've yet to establish that the moderation you're complaining about is politically motivated. All you've established is that you don't agree with it.

That sounds like an issue for Feedback to me, because it concerns how the board is run, which is not a political issue.

Also note that yoru title mentions the politics of boards.ie. Would you like to expand on that and explain to me how it is political leanings of moderators which will cause them to lock threads in the cooking forum, or perhaps in the fantasy/sci-fi one?

You're not questioning the politics of boards.ie at all. You're questioning the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the moderators of the politics forum. You're doing so because you disagree with what they moderate. Thats not politics - thats an issue for Feedback from what I can see.

In my experience, the complaints about moderators typically come from people who don't like how they've been moderated, and either blame the rules or moderators for being deliberately skewed against them.

Oh, and lest there be any confusion....I am not a mod of this forum nor any other, nor am I privy to their decision making process since I ceased to be a mod.

jc

m1ke

If this board wasn't moderated the way it is..... it would just contain two giant threads - one on a utd ireland and one on everything not related to a utd ireland.

thegent

bonkey wrote:

At a guess, I'd say the following:

am I privy to their decision making process since I ceased to be a mod.

jc

BONKEY

I’m happy that you feel so strongly about my post which has, in your opinion, no merit.
The truth is the moderators run the site, they are the police of the site the judges the juries and ultimately the executioners. If you feel that’s not political then I’m open to your opinion as to what is.
I don’t want this to fall into a 'I hate the moderators' section they are obviously needed. Its their obvious abuse of their position of power I have trouble with, they talk to people like they are children, threatening this and tha,t its a website not a country, show some respect.
Human dignity and treating people fairly IS a political debate, it went on in London today with the terrorism law, it IS politics. I know the politics of boards.ie is not the same argument as the terrorism law but boards.ie is not as large a forum as the UK but the arguments about respect for people are the same.

(thats for u too wicknight)

Zombrex

thegent wrote:

they talk to people like they are children,

Normally when posters are acting like children, when threads have decended into like more than name calling and pointless arguements (and oh yes I've been involved in a few of those! woohoo, fun times)

thegent wrote:

Human dignity and treating people fairly IS a political debate

Are you talking about something specific, or are you just ranting in general? Cause if you have a specific complaint about a particular mod or decision there are a load of ways of dealing with it rather than posting rather irrelivent threads that seem to have no point. I have complained (privately) about mods on Boards.ie before, and got quite satisfactory results.

thegent wrote:

I know the politics of boards.ie is not the same argument as the terrorism law but boards.ie is not as large a forum as the UK but the arguments about respect for people are the same.

Who is not respecting you? And in what way?

Ghost Rider

Firstly, bonkey, I did not entitle this thread anything because I didn't initiate it. You're confusing me with someone else.

To address the substance of what you said: if there were complaints about the 911 thread which I started, I didn't hear about them. So either (a) there were complaints yet no-one saw fit to let me know about them, thus not giving me a chance to address them. Or (b) there were no complaints. At this point I can't say which is true.

Nonetheless, I can still quite consistently believe that that particular act of moderation was political. That's not the same as saying it was "politically motivated". Do I think the board is run by neo-con sympathisers? No, but I do think that moving a thread can be a political act in the same way that any act of labelling or categorisation can be, depending on the context.

In this case, labelling the belief that 911 is an inside job a "conspiracy" is political in so far as it serves to damage its credibility. As it happens, I am skeptical of the 911 inside job theory, but I also believe it is prematurely rubbished by far too many people. That is why I took great pains in my original post to not take an a priori position on the subject. That, it turns out, was a complete waste of my time.

I have a lot more to say on this subject but I'm going to hold my tongue for now.

bonkey wrote:

At a guess, I'd say the following:

1) There was nothing political in it
2) It directly stated it was dealing with conspiracy theories
3) One or more posters complained to the moderators

Point 3 is well worth paying attention to here. Are you aware as to whether or not this happened? If it did, how can you decide that its the moderators who disagree with your decisions when they waited until someone complained to them before acting?


No, its a gesture of moderation. The whole concept of moderation revolves around someone deciding what does and does not fall within the remit of the forum.


I don't see it as political at all. You've yet to establish that the moderation you're complaining about is politically motivated. All you've established is that you don't agree with it.

That sounds like an issue for Feedback to me, because it concerns how the board is run, which is not a political issue.

Also note that yoru title mentions the politics of boards.ie. Would you like to expand on that and explain to me how it is political leanings of moderators which will cause them to lock threads in the cooking forum, or perhaps in the fantasy/sci-fi one?

You're not questioning the politics of boards.ie at all. You're questioning the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the moderators of the politics forum. You're doing so because you disagree with what they moderate. Thats not politics - thats an issue for Feedback from what I can see.

In my experience, the complaints about moderators typically come from people who don't like how they've been moderated, and either blame the rules or moderators for being deliberately skewed against them.

Oh, and lest there be any confusion....I am not a mod of this forum nor any other, nor am I privy to their decision making process since I ceased to be a mod.

jc

thegent

Wicknight wrote:

Who is not respecting you? And in what way?

You seem to be the only one wicknight.
If you read what I’ve written you'll see that I don't have any personal complaint here. If you read what I've written you'll see that I have a problem with the moderators' (plural) treatment of people on their website boards.ie I have no problem with you attacking the argument wick! but I do have a problem when you attack me and not the argument.
Anyone have anything productive to say.

bonkey

thegent wrote:

BONKEY

I’m happy that you feel so strongly about my post which has, in your opinion, no merit.

It has merit....its just not relevant to the politics board and so has no reason to be there - an opinion I still hold.

The truth is the moderators run the site,

Teh mods run the individual boards. Some run multiple boards. The admins run the site, which is why there's a Feedback board and a Helpdesk for dealing with issues relevant to moderation.

they are the police of the site the judges the juries and ultimately the executioners.

Yup. The police if you will.

If you feel that’s not political then I’m open to your opinion as to what is.

Its judicial. One should seperate judiciary and politics as they are not the same issue.

Its their obvious abuse of their position of power I have trouble with,

Which is what the feedback board is for, not the politics board. The discussion of what policy should be is arguably a political issue, but I believe there's still a stick at the top of the forum for exactly that purpose.

Politicians set laws. They don't enforce them. Unfortunately, our mods are in a position where they have to do both, but we should seperate our criticism to the relevant area. If they are unjust in enforcing laws, that is not a political problem. If they are unjust in the laws they define, that is/.

I don't see that you're saying you did break the rules, but the rules themselves are unfair. You're saying the rules are unfairly policed. This is not political.

Human dignity and treating people fairly IS a political debate,

But complaints about abuse of power is not. It is a complaint which - as in the real world - should be dealt with by the judiciary.

Its not a political debate to argue that the chief of police is abusing his power.

In relation to the content, I get the impression that this board contains two people who are pro-FF, being myself and Cork, a few posters who are neutral and are able to both praise and condemn, and hordes and hordes who HATE FF and will do nothing other than condemn...or maybe I'm just paranoid of course...

In relation to moderating, think they get it pretty spot on and do a very good job in what must be the most difficult forum of all to moderate. I can't imagine people clashin like this on the film or course angling or dance music sites. So think credit where it's due. The only change I'd suggest is that as so few defend FF, maybe we should get a bit more leeway to insult and abuse...to even things up slightly as it were...;)

bonkey

Ghost Rider wrote:

Firstly, bonkey, I did not entitle this thread anything because I didn't initiate it. You're confusing me with someone else.

I never suggested you entitled this thread anything. I was referring to the thread you did start - the one you were complaining was moved - and I never referred to the title of it in the first place.

To address the substance of what you said: if there were complaints about the 911 thread which I started, I didn't hear about them. So either (a) there were complaints yet no-one saw fit to let me know about them, thus not giving me a chance to address them. Or (b) there were no complaints. At this point I can't say which is true.

Neither the mods nor people reporting posts are under any obligation to discuss the issue with you. It might seem discourteous, but there are good reasons why you don't want the reporter and reportee going at it. As for the mods...if they see it as an open-and-shut case, I see no reason why they should have to discuss it first.

As to whether or not there were complaints...there may not have to be. A mod can also decide to act unilaterally.

Arguably its discourteous to not inform you, but on the flip-side, there was a redirect left in the politics forum, which will let anyone interested in the discsussion to follow it, which they are under no obligation to provide. Its not like you've been stopped from having the discussion, so I'm not really sure where any abuse of power or political sway comes into it.

Nonetheless, I can still quite consistently believe that that particular act of moderation was political.

Fair enough, but you've offered nothing except the possibility that it could be political, which I'll address. You're arguing that it is becase its not impossible for it to be, and insisting you have a case just because you believe it to be so.

I do think that moving a thread can be a political act in the same way that any act of labelling or categorisation can be, depending on the context.

No more than it can be a political move to deliberately start a thread in an inappropriate location to garner false respectability.

Empty accusations can be applied equally to both sides if you generalise both sides equally, so it doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of understanding who did what, why, and whether or not they were correct to do so.

It just tells us that both sides may or may not have ulterior motives for what they have done.

In this case, labelling the belief that 911 is an inside job a "conspiracy" is political in so far as it serves to damage its credibility.

Incorrect. It is political on that basis only if it was moved in order to damage its credibility.

If it was moved because the moderator did not believe it was a political topic, and that there was a more suitable forum, then their motives were not political.

You your self admitted to choosing "theory" over "conspiracy theory" simply in order to try and engender reasonable debate. However, if its a theory and it involves a conspiracy (which almost by definition an inside job requires), then its a conspiracy theory.

So...you wanted to discuss the credibility of a theory of conspiratorial nature, and not specifically the political ramifications of such a theory were it to be true, and you see it as a political decision to discredit the theory that it was moved from the form for political discussion to the forum of discussion of theories of a conspiratorial nature.

I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree not to see eye to eye on this. I see nothing that makes the moving a political act other than that it could be. Given that there's 4 moderators, that would suggest a conspiracy theory. What's that you were saying...plenty of the "they should have done this, but didn't, so something is awry" evidence???

As I said, arguably not informing you was discourteous, but thats a far cry from this second thread being a politically-relevant issue as I still don't see how raising the issue of inappropriate moderator behaviour is anything but a complaint for Feedback.

That is why I took great pains in my original post to not take an a priori position on the subject. That, it turns out, was a complete waste of my time.

Why was it a complete waste of time? Because its been moved to a different board? Because its subject to different moderation? Hell, if the moderators here are as bad as you seem to suggest, you should be glad to have somewhere to post where you won't be under their power.

biko

m1ke wrote:

If this board wasn't moderated the way it is..... it would just contain two giant threads - one on a utd ireland and one on everything not related to a utd ireland.

hahaha how true

thegent

bonkey wrote:

It has merit....its just not relevant to the politics board and so has no reason to be there - an opinion I still hold.

fair enough- your opinion


Teh mods run the individual boards. Some run multiple boards. The admins run the site,

Its judicial. One should seperate judiciary and politics as they are not the same issue.

ok but,

Politicians set laws.

and

our mods are in a position where they have to do both

so in the case of boards.ie there is no point in talking about it like its a state with different divisions and everything in its place because as you say its not that way.I've seen admins come in and close an argument or threaten eviction from the site and i apologise if i didn't specify moderators and administrators instead of just moderaters but i think you know what i meant

Ghost Rider

Bonkey, please re-read what you wrote. You replied with multiple quotes from my post, then you followed it with this (I'm quoting you directly):

"Also note that yoru title mentions the politics of boards.ie. Would you like to expand on that and explain to me how it is political leanings of moderators which will cause them to lock threads in the cooking forum, or perhaps in the fantasy/sci-fi one?"

As the title of my original post was "Theories about 911", and nothing whatsoever to do with boards.ie, I continue to assume that your comments were intended for someone else. This was probably a simple error and I would gladly have skipped over it - but you insisted!

Rather more curiously, you also insinuated that I tried to "deliberately start a thread in an inappropriate location to garner false respectability".

Well... what can I say? This seems to be a personal remark - specifically, an accusation of disingenousness. Now I'm not sensitive about such things but I do find it amusing that in your staunch defence of the integrity of the board and of its moderators, you felt the need to infringe one of its rules. I hope you appreciate the irony.

While there are interesting issues at hand and you have made some good points in your last post, I'm starting to feel one of those "zero sum" threads coming on. The pragmatic solution is of course for one party to bow out of the discussion, which is what I'm going to do now.

Yes, we'll agree to differ on the issues at hand. And, on today's evidence, we may even differ on the very usefulness of this forum.

bonkey wrote:

I never suggested you entitled this thread anything. I was referring to the thread you did start - the one you were complaining was moved - and I never referred to the title of it in the first place.



Neither the mods nor people reporting posts are under any obligation to discuss the issue with you. It might seem discourteous, but there are good reasons why you don't want the reporter and reportee going at it. As for the mods...if they see it as an open-and-shut case, I see no reason why they should have to discuss it first.

As to whether or not there were complaints...there may not have to be. A mod can also decide to act unilaterally.

Arguably its discourteous to not inform you, but on the flip-side, there was a redirect left in the politics forum, which will let anyone interested in the discsussion to follow it, which they are under no obligation to provide. Its not like you've been stopped from having the discussion, so I'm not really sure where any abuse of power or political sway comes into it.


Fair enough, but you've offered nothing except the possibility that it could be political, which I'll address. You're arguing that it is becase its not impossible for it to be, and insisting you have a case just because you believe it to be so.


No more than it can be a political move to deliberately start a thread in an inappropriate location to garner false respectability.

Empty accusations can be applied equally to both sides if you generalise both sides equally, so it doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of understanding who did what, why, and whether or not they were correct to do so.

It just tells us that both sides may or may not have ulterior motives for what they have done.



Incorrect. It is political on that basis only if it was moved in order to damage its credibility.

If it was moved because the moderator did not believe it was a political topic, and that there was a more suitable forum, then their motives were not political.

You your self admitted to choosing "theory" over "conspiracy theory" simply in order to try and engender reasonable debate. However, if its a theory and it involves a conspiracy (which almost by definition an inside job requires), then its a conspiracy theory.

So...you wanted to discuss the credibility of a theory of conspiratorial nature, and not specifically the political ramifications of such a theory were it to be true, and you see it as a political decision to discredit the theory that it was moved from the form for political discussion to the forum of discussion of theories of a conspiratorial nature.

I'm sorry, but we'll have to agree not to see eye to eye on this. I see nothing that makes the moving a political act other than that it could be. Given that there's 4 moderators, that would suggest a conspiracy theory. What's that you were saying...plenty of the "they should have done this, but didn't, so something is awry" evidence???

As I said, arguably not informing you was discourteous, but thats a far cry from this second thread being a politically-relevant issue as I still don't see how raising the issue of inappropriate moderator behaviour is anything but a complaint for Feedback.




Why was it a complete waste of time? Because its been moved to a different board? Because its subject to different moderation? Hell, if the moderators here are as bad as you seem to suggest, you should be glad to have somewhere to post where you won't be under their power.

bonkey

Ghost Rider wrote:

Bonkey, please re-read what you wrote.

My apologies. You are perfectly correct. I mixed my posters up while replying to both. Or rather...I meant to reply to both, and lost the run of myself. As I said...apologies.

Well... what can I say? This seems to be a personal remark - specifically, an accusation of disingenousness.

No, its not. I never referred to you. I made a general comment about what could be the motives for posting a thread, just as you made a general comment about what could be the motives for moving a thread.

The point I was trying - and obviously failing - to make is that supplying a possible reason does not in any way suggest that this is what happened. It simply suggests that it is not impossible that this is what happened.

I don't believe for a second that your reasons were underhanded, nor did I suggest it. I simply pointed out that its not impossible. This is all you have done regarding the moderation of your thread - you've successfully argued that its not impossible that it could be politically motivated, and offered this as the sole reason to back up your belief that it was politically motivated.

As you no doubt feel my "personal remark" about you is completely unfounded and unreasonable, I ask you why your reasoning regarding the mods is any different considering it uses the exact same methodology.

Now I'm not sensitive about such things but I do find it amusing that in your staunch defence of the integrity of the board and of its moderators, you felt the need to infringe one of its rules. I hope you appreciate the irony.

You'll notice that I never made a comment about you. I made a comment about what could be said to be true if we used generalities about posters motives to the same extent that you were doing about moderators motives. I clarified that I did so to highlight that it gets us nowhere and doesn't answer any of the important questions.

If you chose to interpret what I said as a personal remark, I'm afraid thats between you and the moderators to discuss. But as a general rule, I'm quite careful to walk that particular line very carefully.

If I have stepped over it, then so be it. I will most certainly enjoy the irony.

While there are interesting issues at hand and you have made some good points in your last post, I'm starting to feel one of those "zero sum" threads coming on. The pragmatic solution is of course for one party to bow out of the discussion, which is what I'm going to do now.

Heh. Maybe that was my motive all along

Indeed, its not impossible that I'm in collusion with the mods and agreed to try and do exactly this to the thread to protect their political motives.

That, of course, is no more an accusation or suggestion of truth than my previous comments regarding poster motives was....but it might illustrate the point I was making.

Yes, we'll agree to differ on the issues at hand. And, on today's evidence, we may even differ on the very usefulness of this forum.

Its a discussion forum, for discussing.

Despite my belief that this thread doesn't belong in this particular forum, it - like yours - is a thread I believe has merit. So, I discuss. If the mods want to move it, they'll move it. If the lock it, they lock it. I can live with these things.

I guess that unlike you I don't see zero-sum, locked or moved threads and all the rest of it as a big problem, because I prefer the journey to the destination anyway.

jc

sceptre

Moving to Feedback. As people have said, it's an issue for Feedback (at best) and well, it's not the first time, nor will it be the last that it needs to be pointed out or something similar moved there.

thegent wrote:

The Moderators/Administrators seem to be on some sort of power trip cutting in on interesting debates like fascists treating those involved like children telling them that if they 'ever see them doing this again' they will be blacklisted, banned even.
It reminds me of the Christian Brothers in school.

I've no experience of the Christian brothers, I went to a Patrician brothers school myself. I don't recall ever telling anyone that they'd be "blacklisted" as I've little idea of how I'd blacklist anyone as it isn't a vbulletin option.

I'll have a look at the non-"OMG, fascism!" comments and perhaps address a few when time permits (time is currently tight). In the meantime I'm sure anyone with an opinion will present it.

Zombrex

thegent wrote:

If you read what I've written you'll see that I have a problem with the moderators' (plural) treatment of people on their website boards.ie

Without specific examples of this "treatment" it is kinda hard to see what you are talking about?

thegent wrote:

I have no problem with you attacking the argument wick! but I do have a problem when you attack me and not the argument.

Where did I personally attack you?

You asked (wondered?) if your post would get past the mods. I replied "probably not" as there better places to post these types of posts. That was it...

If you think that is was a personal attack on you then I apologise for hurting your feelings, but I really feel you need to get a bit thicker skin when posting here so you don't mistake someone criticising your post (I wasn't even criticising it, only explaining that yes it will probably be moved as the Politics forum is not the place to complain or debate the running of Boards.ie) with someone criticising you personally

CuLT

I am a bitter old man who has nothing better to do than try to make every posters life more difficult.

In fact, I hate all life, I wish everyone would just DIE, yet despite this I devote hours of my time poring over threads every day to make sure people aren't getting screwed over.

I'm such a bastard.

In the end though, in all seriousness: , it is not.

And from my brief scanning of the posts on the thread it just seems to be "oh, you hurt my feelings ;*( *cry* "

kaimera

is it that time again?

and I thought there had been enough 'me against the world' threads this month.

:v:

Gone West

Didnt you hear? the internet police upped our quota, and in exchange the mods get 33.3% more coke and hookers.

And cult isnt a bitter old man. She is a young college girl with flowing curly locks.

*thread descends into complete drivel*

[Jackass]

thegent wrote:

I like to read through the posts on this site and would like to know what you all think of the politics of this site.
The Moderators/Administrators seem to be on some sort of power trip cutting in on interesting debates like fascists treating those involved like children telling them that if they 'ever see them doing this again' they will be blacklisted, banned even.
It reminds me of the Christian Brothers in school.
Any thoughts or does anyone care.
I wonder if my post will get through the censors

Let's get this over with shall we...

Kevin_RC_IE

Man, aint these things getting boring yet?

kaimera

FuzzyLogic wrote:

the mods get 33.3%

w00t!

:v:

Ghost Rider

Apology accepted. I also accept that I may have mis-interpreted your remark as a personal one. Although that may not have been your intention, the construction of another's intentions is only one of the ways in which we make sense of another - especially their writing. I maintain that my interpretation was not without basis even if I accept your explanation as an act designed to move this thing along in a civil manner. (It's also "about the journey" for me, just not when the trajectory is ever decreasing circles.) So let's move on.

I stand by my comments regarding the moving of the thread. It has implications far greater than the simple acknowledgment of the possibility of a political motive. (My God, these modalities are crippling...!) I was making a far stronger claim than "there might be politics at work here". I was saying there ARE politics at work here!

What I wasn't saying was that the nature of that politics was party-political, or even issue-based. My feeling is that the nature of that kind of politics is what Jacques Derrida somewhat unhappily termed "techno-mediatic" (- grim term, I know). That is to say, it's bound up with needs imposed by formal aspects of the medium in question i.e. the Internet bulletin board. One of those is the need to keep certain subjects in certain places and certain other subjects in certain other places - the organisation of information, if you will.

This is absolutely and definitively a political question, even if the politics in question have little to do even with individual points of view! It may in fact be the key political question of our time, an era that is dominated by media in ways nobody in any previous era even dreamed of. Moderators, who are effectively the custodians of one of the most interesting new media, should be more aware than anyone of the politics of categorising subjects under discussion. It is, I would have thought, one of the most problematic aspects of moderating.

Even though I don't even believe that 911 was an inside job, I can still see, as plainly as the nose on my cyber face, that the categorisation of the very question as conspiratorial is, quite simply, prejudicial to the answering of that question. That and that alone is what makes it political - not anyone's individual belief or ideology. What I'm talking about is, if you like, a politics imposed by technology.

The question of the discourtesy of the moderators is quite separate and I'm big enough not to make a meal out of that. My real worry is: can a serious debate be had about the subject of 911 if the subject is categorised as a "conspiracy" and, frankly, lumped together with a whole shed-load of fanciful garbage about Zionist-occupied governments, the New World Order, The Bilderberg Group or whatever other whacky notion is flavour of the day on the numerous websites that entertain that sort of thing? I really don't think so.

You asked me to accept the decision to move the thread without explanation and I refused - simple as that. It was an act of protest and I made no more of a meal of it than stating my objection and listing my reasons. The moderators, by contrast, have offered no reasons for any of their actions. I'm sure they're too busy to explain everything they do but they may have to accept that that fact will limit the usefulness of a forum such as this to ask some really important questions.

Others will say that you can't expect an Internet forum to address "really important questions". Maybe they're right - I'm not sure yet...

bonkey wrote:

My apologies. You are perfectly correct. I mixed my posters up while replying to both. Or rather...I meant to reply to both, and lost the run of myself. As I said...apologies.


No, its not. I never referred to you. I made a general comment about what could be the motives for posting a thread, just as you made a general comment about what could be the motives for moving a thread.

The point I was trying - and obviously failing - to make is that supplying a possible reason does not in any way suggest that this is what happened. It simply suggests that it is not impossible that this is what happened.

I don't believe for a second that your reasons were underhanded, nor did I suggest it. I simply pointed out that its not impossible. This is all you have done regarding the moderation of your thread - you've successfully argued that its not impossible that it could be politically motivated, and offered this as the sole reason to back up your belief that it was politically motivated.

As you no doubt feel my "personal remark" about you is completely unfounded and unreasonable, I ask you why your reasoning regarding the mods is any different considering it uses the exact same methodology.


You'll notice that I never made a comment about you. I made a comment about what could be said to be true if we used generalities about posters motives to the same extent that you were doing about moderators motives. I clarified that I did so to highlight that it gets us nowhere and doesn't answer any of the important questions.

If you chose to interpret what I said as a personal remark, I'm afraid thats between you and the moderators to discuss. But as a general rule, I'm quite careful to walk that particular line very carefully.

If I have stepped over it, then so be it. I will most certainly enjoy the irony.



Heh. Maybe that was my motive all along

Indeed, its not impossible that I'm in collusion with the mods and agreed to try and do exactly this to the thread to protect their political motives.

That, of course, is no more an accusation or suggestion of truth than my previous comments regarding poster motives was....but it might illustrate the point I was making.


Its a discussion forum, for discussing.

Despite my belief that this thread doesn't belong in this particular forum, it - like yours - is a thread I believe has merit. So, I discuss. If the mods want to move it, they'll move it. If the lock it, they lock it. I can live with these things.

I guess that unlike you I don't see zero-sum, locked or moved threads and all the rest of it as a big problem, because I prefer the journey to the destination anyway.

jc

Semper Fi

Who could be arsed reading that, above....

Not me. Actually. Sorry!

Boardsie is a left wing PC love in that uses right wing tactics to keep the left wing love in all happy and super happy. it's like Bush going on about democracy (a good thing) while bombing it into other countries.

Thats how it is. Deal with it.

CuLT

Semper Fi wrote:

Who could be arsed reading that, above....

Not me. Actually. Sorry!

Boardsie is a left wing PC love in that uses right wing tactics to keep the left wing love in all happy and super happy. it's like Bush going on about democracy (a good thing) while bombing it into other countries.

Thats how it is. Deal with it.

Another long time reader, first time poster, eh :v:

Semper Fi

CuLT wrote:

Another long time reader, first time poster, eh :v:

Long time reader/poster.

I got a new shirt today. thought a new internet nick would go well with the colour.

CuLT

Semper Fi wrote:

Long time reader/poster.

I got a new shirt today. thought a new internet nick would go well with the colour.

How's it working out so far?

Semper Fi

it means Always Faithful by the way

Semper Fidelis

Semper Fi

CuLT wrote:

How's it working out so far?

Ok so far. No issues. I think I should have got a 32/32 rather than a 30/32.

I am not as slim as I used to be

seamus

Semper Fi wrote:

Who could be arsed reading that, above....

Not me. Actually. Sorry!

Boardsie is a left wing PC love in that uses right wing tactics to keep the left wing love in all happy and super happy. it's like Bush going on about democracy (a good thing) while bombing it into other countries.

Thats how it is. Deal with it.

Hiya Merc.

Semper Fi

seamus wrote:

Hiya Merc.

Hello Seamus!

How was kenmare ?

Semper Fi

http://pie.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50353712#post50353712

smart people... Interesting ...

DVD time..

BuffyBot

Another long time reader, first time poster, eh

Must be the season

Gone West

Hi kev!
You coming to the beers?

rsynnott

Has anyone done a "Help, I'm being oppressed" Gathering card yet?

billy the squid

Ghost Rider wrote:

Well I'm just wondering why a thread I started about 911 earlier today was moved to the Conspiracy Theory board without anyone even PM-ing me.

I took considerable efforts to delimit my usage of the term "conspiracy theory" because I think it restricts the debate unnecessarily. Yet a moderator or moderators saw fit to re-classify the thread without discussion. Is that not a political gesture?

And by the way, I hope the moderators will recognise this discussion to be a properly political one too, and thus to fall under the stated remit of this board.

theres bog all wrong with the CT board i'll have you know.

In fact I would go so far as to say you would probably have more freedom on the CT board than politics.

Nukem

Read the first post and was bored already - you dont like the way its run -> leave.
We do our best,we dont get paid we do it off our own back,have to take everyone into consideration and do our best to treat everyone equal.Now if you feel harshly done by, report the mod. if you think an Admin is harsh tough they own the site and if a few thousand people like it and you dont.............well il let you ponder that one.

*Rant Over*

CuLT

Nukem wrote:

Read the first post and was bored already - you dont like the way its run -> leave.
We do our best,we dont get paid we do it off our own back,have to take everyone into consideration and do our best to treat everyone equal.Now if you feel harshly done by, report the mod. if you think an Admin is harsh tough they own the site and if a few thousand people like it and you dont.............well il let you ponder that one.

*Rant Over*

Oh Nukem, I think we try too hard, in fairness.

Though *gets all soppy*, whenever I manage to resolve a problem for someone, or help someone out who's a bit befuddled by the rules, it makes my day.

I don't *like* banning people, no moderator does (well, mostly :v: ). There's a feckload of effort involved in the banning process that makes my eyes water when I realize I have to do it for the umpteenth time.

Choose to ban, select forum to ban from, decide how long to ban them, PM them about it, almost always get argued with, often get abusive messages, when the ban time is up check to make sure it's the proper length, unban...

This is a frequent occurrence on the For Sales forums in particular.

Then there's reported posts. I get an average of ten reported posts a day. Sometimes it's twenty in one day, sometimes it's five, but they're always there. Each of these needs to be investigated to see whether it's just some sod unhappy that he didn't get what he wanted, or whether there are some rules broken. Often it's fairly ambiguous and the thread needs to be read in detail.

I also personally get five or six enquiry PMs a week, (I have no problem with any of this btw, I signed up for it) to do with For Sales queries, sometimes questions, sometimes bigger problems.

Despite all this workload, I love it. I love knowing that I'm contributing in some way towards keeping the gears oiled and helping people with problems.
I also have absolutely no doubt that every single moderator will be able to relate to this too because we all do it for the same reason; I don't even have to ask that of them

In conclusion, you, the user, are spoiled on boards.ie. You have a huge, clean, intelligent, and tightly knit core community around which to form and integrate with.
You can discuss serious issues, crack a joke, and express yourself in a civilised manner without being drowned in muppetry, trolling and other destructive (or just annoying) forces online.

Most people have to pay for something even close to this.

GoneShootin

rsynnott wrote:

Has anyone done a "Help, I'm being oppressed" Gathering card yet?

Take your pick.

bonkey

Ghost Rider wrote:

I stand by my comments regarding the moving of the thread. It has implications far greater than the simple acknowledgment of the possibility of a political motive. (My God, these modalities are crippling...!) I was making a far stronger claim than "there might be politics at work here". I was saying there ARE politics at work here!

There still seems to be misunderstanding here.

I know you're saying there are politics at work here, however the only argument you've presented to back up this assertion - other than your insistence that it is so - is that it is not impossible for there to be politics involved.

What I'm pointing out is that this is unlikely to be seen by anyone as a solid argument. Why should anyone believe you, if the only reason you're offering is "because I say so, and look...its clearly not impossible".

Make a case.

That is to say, it's bound up with needs imposed by formal aspects of the medium in question

So you're arguing that the moderators are at fault for doing what they are supposed to do???

This is absolutely and definitively a political question,

No, its not. The political question which arises is "how should a board be best run", and as I've already pointed out, there is a dedicated thread for that in the politics forum. The discussion of "this forum isn't being run correctly" is for Feedback no matter what way you argue it.

You're not discussing policy, you're discussing the execution of it, and alleging that the execution of policy was flawed in some way, and that it was a politically-motivated decision (although you now seem to suggest that the politics in question was the need to moderate).

It may in fact be the key political question of our time,

What might me? That your thread got moved? Whether or not the mods of boards.ie are on a political (or other form of) power trip? Or the more general question which deals with discussing how this medium - in the general case - should best be run?

See, I'd agree that the third one could arguably be billed as a key political question of our time, but this thread has never yet been about that. Its been about specific actions of specific mods on a single specific board, on a single specific bbs.

Lets not get carried away here. Discussing whether or not gandalf et al are power tripping is categorically not the key political question of our time.

Even though I don't even believe that 911 was an inside, I can still see, as plainly as the nose on my cyber face, that the categorisation of the very question as conspiratorial is, quite simply, prejudicial to the answering of that question.

Speculating on whether or not some ill-defined or unknown group of power-mongers operating in secret to attack key installations within their own country is not a political question, and rewording it doesn't change that.

Just as ID is not and will never be science, theories about conspiracies are not and will never be politics. Theories about conspiracies are conspiracy theories. You can use window-dressing to try and induce someone other than conspiracy theorists to offer input but all you're doing is trying to get other people to partake in a discussion of a conspiracy theory.

A rose by any other name....

That and that alone is what makes it political

No, its not. That and that alone is what makes it not entirely apolitical.

My real worry is: can a serious debate be had about the subject of 911 if the subject is categorised as a "conspiracy" and, frankly, lumped together with a whole shed-load of fanciful garbage about ... I really don't think so.

Ahh. I see the problem. You see your conspiracy theory as being less crackpot than other peoples' conspiracy theories, so you want to seperate it from those in order to discuss it seriously. I'm sure all of the other conspiracy theorists say the same about their theories too though, so why is your case different? More importantly...given that you claim not to believe this theory anyway, why is your case different?

I mean...seriously...listen to what you're saying. (Correct me if none of these points have emerged along the way, or I've misinterpreted them.)

There's this theory that it was an inside job. Actually, there's a lot of similar theories, but lets not specify one in particular, just deal with a general class of them, but call it a theory to make it more respectable. I don't believe its true, and there is a lack of any quantities of evidence other than the "I think they should have done something else, so therefore...." type thats typical of conspiracy theories.

So anyway, we don't know of much solid evidence, I don't believe its true, but I do believe its more credible than those other crackpot conspiracy theories. I won't explain why its more credible, just insist that it is so.

I think therefore, this conspiracy theory that I don't even believe in should be considered a really important political topic rather than a conspiracy theory. Because I say so.

Oh, and the mods are on some political agenda by undermining me.
.

I mean...honestly...mix in a bit of international intrigue and this becomes a conspiracy theory. Its got the baseless allegations. Its got the "it must be true" reasoning. Its got no evidence.

The moderators, by contrast, have offered no reasons for any of their actions.

The overwhelming majority of people who get moderated insist the mods were wrong to mod them. Many admit the mods generally get it right, but in this particular instance the mods are wrong. They don't have time to placate every poster and get into a long to-and-fro of justification.

Thus, the thing in the rules about taking it to Feedback (it says Admin in the rules thread...bit out of date there guys). If you want to discuss the issue, take it here. To Feedback. Mods will not discuss moderation in Politics threads.

You ignored this, and looked for answers in a politics thread....but now suggest the mods were somehow wrong for ignoring your complaint?

but they may have to accept that that fact will limit the usefulness of a forum such as this to ask some really important questions.

Establish that your question is really important, and not a discussion on something you haven't clearly defined, admit there is a lack of solid evidence to support, and don't believe is true yourself anyway.

Then you have a case to ask for it to be moved back.

But so far - and please don't take offence at this - pretty much every one of your arguments has boiled down to "because I say so" being the underlying logic. The mods are acting politically because you claim they are. You can't say what their motives are, nor show that this is a pattern...you just insist it is so. Your question is important....because you say it is so. Its not a conspiracy theory but rather a theory about a conspiracy that should be dealt with as an important political question.....because you say so.

As you'll have noticed, now that the thread is moved to Feedback, there's an awful lot of people basically deriding it as "here we go again". The reason? Beceause here we are, going again. You don't like how you were moderated, and are declaring this act of moderation to be some act of oppression/political censorship/abuse of power for no other presented reason than because it was done to you and your thread.

jc

WizZard

CuLT, your post made me feel all warm and cuddly inside :v:

bonkey for God!

/me heads on over to the politics board to see if other posts are of the same quality

Ghost Rider

There are lots of little misunderstandings but there's one big one: yesterday you talked about agreeing to differ, and I concurred, but today you've gone back on that, having re-asserted your positions.

Now I admit my arguments may be unusual around here, but I've made them in a way I'm satisfied was clear and logical, and I simply don't have the time to re-word them. There may well be fundamental philosophical differences which are at the root of this disagreement, and there are also some less interesting semantic differences, but I just don't have the time to go into the details right now.

As for the state of the forum itself, I have my feelings about the mods and you have yours. We will have to agree to differ on this, if only because I won't be posting to the politics board again.

In marked contrast to so many other bulletin board exchanges, I suggest we end this one cordially with the Internet equivalent of a handshake. Capiche?

bonkey wrote:

There still seems to be misunderstanding here.


jc

bonkey

Ghost Rider wrote:

There are lots of little misunderstandings but there's one big one: yesterday you talked about agreeing to differ, and I concurred, but today you've gone back on that, having re-asserted your positions.

In response to you insisting that yours was still correct after I suggested we agree to differ. I took your response as a rejection of my offer.

Now I admit my arguments may be unusual around here, but I've made them in a way I'm satisfied was clear and logical, and I simply don't have the time to re-word them.

They are clear and logical. They're just not very strong arguments because at the end of the day they all assert that you are correct because you say you are, and for no other offered reason.

We will have to agree to differ on this, if only because I won't be posting to the politics board again.

Unfortunate but unsurprising.

I should point out that this is both the typical and encouraged reaction to threads like this:

You air your grievance, you discover boards isn't going to remould itself to how you think it should be, you walk away. So after all the to-ing and fro-ing, the one-liner responses of "if you don't like it, leave" turn out to be the most succinct advice and accurate commentaries on the entire issue.

In marked contrast to so many other bulletin board exchanges, I suggest we end this one cordially with the Internet equivalent of a handshake. Capiche?

/me shakes hands and walks away with a quiet, unexplained smile.

jc

bonkey

WizZard wrote:

bonkey for God!

Its the initials, isn't it.



jc

Gordon

thegent wrote:

I like to read through the posts on this site and would like to know what you all think of the politics of this site.
The Moderators/Administrators seem to be on some sort of power trip cutting in on interesting debates like fascists treating those involved like children telling them that if they 'ever see them doing this again' they will be blacklisted, banned even.
It reminds me of the Christian Brothers in school.
Any thoughts or does anyone care.
I wonder if my post will get through the censors

I have no problem with it. Do you have any specific examples or are you just annoyed about being banned?

Ghost Rider

bonkey wrote:

They are clear and logical. They're just not very strong arguments because at the end of the day they all assert that you are correct because you say you are, and for no other offered reason.

As I said, I'm not getting into this. I'd like to, but I won't. If that, to you, is me tipping over my king/throwing in the towel/ handing in my cards, then so be it. Having conversations about the nature of politics (rather than about specific political issues) is difficult at the best of times. Over the Internet, it may not be possible at all - I'm not sure yet. If I was going to invest time in such a discussion, I'd need to have more confidence in the discussion forum. That is not necessarily a personal criticism of anyone - more a criticism of the system. Which brings me to your point i.e. that the system won't change on my behalf...

bonkey wrote:

You air your grievance, you discover boards isn't going to remould itself to how you think it should be, you walk away. So after all the to-ing and fro-ing, the one-liner responses of "if you don't like it, leave" turn out to be the most succinct advice and accurate commentaries on the entire issue.

jc

In fairness, I never had any problem with the philosophy of "if you don't like it, leave" (although I admit I don't always like the tone in which it is re-stated). In fact, I assumed that philosophy from the beginning. Who wouldn't? I'm not paying for this service. And, despite the implication of at least one poster to this thread, I'm not childish enough to expect the decisions of the moderators to go my way just because I take the time to state my disagreement.

Look: from the outset I was trying to ascertain whether or not a certain discussion was possible on the politics board, not on the conspiracy theories board (I have reasons for this but re-stating them would be going back into the original discussion, so I won't do it). It emerged quite quickly - after a couple hours, in fact - that such a discussion could not take place on the politics board. So now I'm moving on. What's the problem?

You and I may differ as to the reasons why such a discussion was not possible, and probably as to the value of what I was trying to do in the first place, but to get stuck discussing that seems to me now to be a waste of time. We could work at that, but it could take days or even weeks and I'm not at all convinced anything good would come of it. So far, we seem to have understood less about each other's positions, not more. Moving on, by contrast, is so easy.

WhiteWashMan

Ghost Rider wrote:

Having conversations about the nature of politics (rather than about specific political issues) is ....

...from the outset I was trying to ascertain whether or not a certain discussion was possible on the politics board, .

the answer is no for a simple reason.

discussions of this sort are purely theoretical and generalist at best.

people like to prove points, and pick specific incidents and examples for this.
moving from a generalisation to specifics will always turn any theoretical discussion into a fruitless point scoring debate.

as happened on this thread.
although, i would ask the OP to come back and give us some examples of some of the things he wants us to discuss. id much rather the OP discuss these things.