Banned from Politics!

Villain

Right first off anyone who is going to post cat pictures please keep them to pictures of Bertie's cats only.

Some time ago in Politics there was a thread on the Mahon Tribunal http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055100299&page=4 I provided a link to the transcripts of the opening statement by the Tribunal and I concluded from the evidence that was reported by the tribunal that in my opinion Bertie Ahern lied before the election when he said he never dealt in Dollars.

Another thread was http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055121766

It seems for reasons unknown to me and most here Bertie is getting special treatment for some reason, first of all discussing the Mahon Tribunal was banned from June until the Mods clarified the legal position, I sent a mod a PM last month asking if the ban was going to be lifted and I got a reply saying that if I pm again I will be banned, then Tristrame started a thread at the weekend which will open tomorrow for the topic http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055147722

However in the rules discussion thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=97080&page=9 I asked could he explain why the thread had different rules than other threads and he said no so hence that is why I started this thread.

I'm sure anyone who has read the Politics forum over the years will remember all sorts of accusations been made against Politicians especially Sinn Fein members and anytime I brought this up the poster was simply asked to clarify it as their opinion once they did that it was fine.

However for some reason this is not the same for Bertie can anyone explain why?

Edit I have changed the title as Rock Climber has now banned me from Politics

You know it's funny,theres already an appropriate thread open discussing this in politics.
It's called the discussion on the rules thread.

Page 8 down near the bottom is where we started to discuss our position on how these threads are being moderated.
Then on into page 9 it's made perfectly clear why.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I sent a mod a PM last month asking if the ban was going to be lifted and I got a reply saying that if I pm again I will be banned

Why not add why that was the reply you got...
You were banned for a year from the politics forum because you literally sent dozens of annoying pm's to the mods of that forum questioning every single modding decision you didn't like.

You were left back in on the strict instruction that you do not do that ever again.

The Hill Billy

Tristrame wrote:

You know it's funny,theres already an appropriate thread open discussing this in politics.
It's called the discussion on the rules thread.

Page 8 down near the bottom is where we started to discuss our position on how these threads are being moderated.
Then on into page 9 it's made perfectly clear why.

That's quite funny when you put this exchange into context:

irish1 wrote:

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

Tristrame wrote:

no.

Not what I'd call a "discussion".

Hill Billy

Hill Billy wrote:

Not what I'd call a "discussion".

Well context is everything and in the context of the thread that question was answered several times.
I'm not Rhianna you know,I don't do too many repeats in my lyrics...

togster

ella ella eh eh under my umbrella ella ella eh eh eh oh under my umbrella ella ella

Villain

Tristrame if you were willing to Discuss the issue on the rules thread in Politics I wouldn't have started this thread, the fact is you have failed to explain why the rules are different for that one thread you simply replied "no".

As for me getting banned for sending PM's in the past I think you'll quite rightly remember that an Admin agreed with the me in relation to the content of those PM's he just didn't want to upset you and Gandalf but thats old news.

Just explain now why this thread has different rules and why people could accuse Politician's of all sorts of things including being a leading member of a terrorist group yet saying anything about your dear old Bertie is not allowed.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Tristrame if you were willing to Discuss the issue on the rules thread in Politics I wouldn't have started this thread, the fact is you have failed to explain why the rules are different for that one thread you simply replied "no".

Ok I give in.
I'll sing a bit of Rhianna...

ella ella ella ella

But only because It sounds more musical than repeating over and over again whats in the guidelines thread.

As for me getting banned for sending PM's in the past I think you'll quite rightly remember that an Admin agreed with the me in relation to the content of those PM's he just didn't want to upset you and Gandalf but thats old news.

I still have copies of all that crap.I never delete pm's.
Therefore your revisionism of what was actually the case there regarding what amounted at the time to harassment on an almost obsessional scale doesn't wash.
But as you say thats old news because you certainly won't be repeating it.

Just explain now why this thread has different rules and why people could accuse Politician's of all sorts of things including being a leading member of a terrorist group yet saying anything about your dear old Bertie is not allowed.

For a start he's not "my old dear bertie".

As for your question I have a dilemma now , I'm Torn.. [wait thats natalie Embruglia...] between singing my own lyrics from the discussion on the rules thread or just doing Rhianna again...ella ellla ellla...
Oh I'll just reply with the obvious.
Mahon is a legal process.I tend to have a respect for the course of a legal process.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Ok I give in.
I'll sing a bit of Rhianna...

ella ella ella ella

But only because It sounds more musical than repeating over and over again whats in the guidelines thread.

Why are the guidelines for one thread different to the rest?

I still have copies of all that crap.I never delete pm's.
Therefore your revisionism of what was actually the case there regarding what amounted at the time to harassment on an almost obsessional scale doesn't wash.
But as you say thats old news because you certainly won't be repeating it.

I still have them too, you simply banned me because you couldn't win an argument but hey your the mod and this isn't a democracy so thats cool

For a start he's not "my old dear bertie".

As for your question I have a dilemma now , I'm Torn.. [wait thats natalie Embruglia...] between singing my own lyrics from the discussion on the rules thread or just doing Rhianna again...ella ellla ellla...
Oh I'll just reply with the obvious.
Mahon is a legal process.I tend to have a respect for the course of a legal process.

Oh I don't know I think you have a bit of a "thing" for auld Bertie, Mahon is a legal process however that doesn't stop people offering an opinion on what has been heard and discovered at the tribunal, god knows I think the media might even report on it before it finishes, but hey come on we wouldn't want someone saying anything bad about poor old Bertie..... even if you can say all sorts of things about Politicians.

Thats it irish1 resort to make believe and personal abuse.
That will "encourage" me to "discuss" things with you.

Villain

Your not willing to discuss the decision anyway Tristrame, you simply don't want to or can't explain why the rules for this topic are different???

I already explained umpteen times.
You are not willing to listen.

Would you like more repetition of the nutshell in a nutshell?

## Ella ella ella under my umberella eh eh eh eh eh eh ella ella ella under my umberella ella ella eh eh eh... ##

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Why are the guidelines for one thread different to the rest?

As I've explained in the guidelines thread, specifically because of your determination to undermine the forum's guidelines by roundabout means. I don't know why it's so important to you to call Bertie a liar, but I'm not going to give you a platform to do so in contravention of the rules of the forum.

But I'll tell you what: I'm a flexible kind of guy. If it upsets you so much that there's a different rule for one particular thread, I'm open to the possibility of extending the rule to the entire forum so you can't use your sig in any Politics thread. Would you prefer that?

irish1 wrote:

Oh I don't know I think you have a bit of a "thing" for auld Bertie...

Why are you making this personal?

irish1 wrote:

...Mahon is a legal process however that doesn't stop people offering an opinion on what has been heard and discovered at the tribunal, god knows I think the media might even report on it before it finishes, but hey come on we wouldn't want someone saying anything bad about poor old Bertie..... even if you can say all sorts of things about Politicians.

I'm at a total loss as to when this discussion became about saying bad things about politicians, in general or in particular. This discussion has always been about your determination to break the Politics rule that says you can't accuse people of lying.

Villain

Ah its ok Tristrame, OscarBravo has told me why:

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

My Reply:


So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules? I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

As I've explained in the guidelines thread, specifically because of your determination to undermine the forum's guidelines by roundabout means. I don't know why it's so important to you to call Bertie a liar, but I'm not going to give you a platform to do so in contravention of the rules of the forum.

I just think I should be allowed express my opinion on the topic.

But I'll tell you what: I'm a flexible kind of guy. If it upsets you so much that there's a different rule for one particular thread, I'm open to the possibility of extending the rule to the entire forum so you can't use your sig in any Politics thread. Would you prefer that?

Well the Admins have told me my Sig is ok until they say otherwise I will leave it in place if Dev changes his mind and wants me to delete I will.

Why are you making this personal?

I'm not

I'm at a total loss as to when this discussion became about saying bad things about politicians, in general or in particular. This discussion has always been about your determination to break the Politics rule that says you can't accuse people of lying.

Oh really so all those times people said Gerry Adams lied and he was a member of the IRA Army council and the mods said it was ok to say that as long as they said it was their opinion was ok but I can't give my opinon on Bertie??

oscarBravo

I don't know what you hope to achieve by cross-posting here. If you want to continue the discussion, do so over there, but if you do, please discuss what I've actually told you rather than what you'd like to think I meant by it.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

I just think I should be allowed express my opinion on the topic.

You will be, as long as you do so within the guidelines as set out.

irish1 wrote:

Well the Admins have told me my Sig is ok until they say otherwise I will leave it in place if Dev changes his mind and wants me to delete I will.

Similarly, if an admin tells me to allow your sig in the thread in question, I will. Until then, as moderator of the forum, it's not allowed.

irish1 wrote:

I'm not

Oh, please. You accused a moderator of not allowing you to break a rule because of a political bias.

irish1 wrote:

Oh really so all those times people said Gerry Adams lied and he was a member of the IRA Army council and the mods said it was ok to say that as long as they said it was their opinion was ok...

Tell you what: next time someone calls Gerry Adams a liar, report the post and I'll take the appropriate action.

irish1 wrote:

...but I can't give my opinon on Bertie??

Who said you can't give your opinion on Bertie?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Ah its ok Tristrame, OscarBravo has told me why:

My Reply:

He's not said anything different to what I said.
I've said also of course that I am respecting a legal process.

Maybe OscarBravo has a better singing voice in your imagination as you read Oscars posts?
That happens.

Anyhow lets continue the discussion (as if there hasnt been enough repetition) back where it started over on the politics forum and where it hadn't ended.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

You will be, as long as you do so within the guidelines as set out.

You mean as long as my opinion doesn't say Bertie Lied or mslead the public before the election.

Similarly, if an admin tells me to allow your sig in the thread in question, I will. Until then, as moderator of the forum, it's not allowed.

Thats not an issue for me I have already said I won't post my sig in that thread.

Oh, please. You accused a moderator of not allowing you to break a rule because of a political bias.

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

Tell you what: next time someone calls Gerry Adams a liar, report the post and I'll take the appropriate action.

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

Who said you can't give your opinion on Bertie?

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

Would you like to tell me the colour of my eyes,my hair and perhaps my shoe size while you are at it.
You haven't a clue as to my politics and it isn't any of your business.
But hey,this wouldnt be the first time that you've resorted to the last resort of bad debate-personal abuse.Thats twice in this thread.

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

LoL is all I can say at this stage to your mantra.

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

Sorry but this thread is not about the mahon tribunal.
I'd humbly suggest you post about that in your blog for now.

Villain

I'll humbly remind you that this is the Feedback forum and you aren't a mod here

Oh and it isn't mantra its the truth but I suppose its easier to lol than accept that Bertie is getting treated differently than others have been on the Politics forum for the past years.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

You mean as long as my opinion doesn't say Bertie Lied or mslead the public before the election.

I mean what I say. It's a useful approach, you should try it sometime. In the meantime, please stop telling me what I mean.

irish1 wrote:

Well I think its quote clear to anyone who has the threads about Bertie that Tristrame supports him

What's clear to you and what is fact are often two very different things. Ironically, that goes to the heart of this whole pointless debate.

irish1 wrote:

Ah so its not ok to say it now but has been ok for the last 3 years???

I'm not aware of a time when it was OK to call him a liar on the Politics forum.

irish1 wrote:

As I said I am only allowed to give my opinion if I don't he say he lied or mislead the public despite evidence showing he may have.

No, what you said was what I quoted.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

I mean what I say. It's a useful approach, you should try it sometime. In the meantime, please stop telling me what I mean.

Well you said I could post my opinion within the guidelines and the guidelines say I can only express my opinion as long as I don't say Bertie lied or mislead the public.

What's clear to you and what is fact are often two very different things. Ironically, that goes to the heart of this whole pointless debate.

Ah its called an opinion!

I'm not aware of a time when it was OK to call him a liar on the Politics forum.

The mods have allowed posters to call many politicans liers in the past as long as they said it was "IMO" if you can't remember do a search of posts about Gerry Adams and you will find many many examples.

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

WAH! I'm not allowed to call Bertie a liar in the middle of a thread discussing the tribunal investigating certain transactions which may have been insufficiently legal!

Everyone else wrote:

Too right. Umbrella ella ella

irish1 wrote:

But I WANNA call Bertie a liar! It turns me on! *throws toys out of pram*

Everyone else wrote:

Well do it on your own blog then! Ella Ella

irish1 wrote:

But I wanna do it HERE! Anyway other people have made statements about whether politicians were liars in the past, why have the rules changed?

Everyone else wrote:

Because you touch yourself at night. Ella ella.

Man, how this thread delivers.

Seriously, irish1, let it go. You've been told the rules by the mods, and you don't like them. That's fine. But they've told you they're not changing, and nobody else seems to see a particular problem here except you. How about this as a reason:

"In the Mahon Tribunal thread, no user shall make statements or express opinions on the broad matter of whether Bertie Ahern did or did not mislead the public, lie, bend the truth, tell a little tiny white lie, let rip with a dirty great fib, or even go number two through his mouth. This rule is in force to avoid causing unnecessary confusion in the discussion, since the purpose of the Tribunal is to ascertain whether Mr Ahern did in fact mislead the public, and those responsible for the Tribunal are, within the structure of the Irish government, those deemed best able to resolve this matter and make an informed decision."

The thing is, look at how long and horribly-worded that is. It's certainly not as simple as "No calling Bertie a liar in this thread, not even if it's your own opinion,", although maybe "No calling Bertie a liar in this thread; that's for the Tribunal to decide so any discussion should stick to the Tribunal itself" would do the trick. It's for the mods to decide, not me - in much the same way as Bertie's official legal status as a liar or otherwise is for the Tribunal, not you or Tristrame or anyone else on boards, to decide.

At the end of the day though, you've gone out of your way to irritate the mods, which makes it hilariously improbable that they'll do anything much other than select your account and let their cursors hover longingly over the "ban" button...

Villain

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Well you said I could post my opinion within the guidelines and the guidelines say I can only express my opinion as long as I don't say Bertie lied or mislead the public.

I'm perfectly aware of what I said. I said it, remember?

irish1 wrote:

Ah its called an opinion!

In this context, it's called a personal attack. You've explicitly accused a moderator of the Politics forum of allowing a presumed political bias to inform his moderation of the forum. That's a pretty serious accusation.

irish1 wrote:

The mods have allowed posters to call many politicans liers in the past as long as they said it was "IMO"

Righto. This is the point where I get into a long-winded discussion, at the end of which you explain that when you said we let people call politicians liars you actually meant that we allowed something different. Right?

Unless of course you're suggesting that we've actually said it was OK to breach the forum charter in the case of specific politicians. This would be another serious accusation, this time levelled at the entire team of Politics moderators. Naturally, you wouldn't make such a serious accusation without evidence, right?

irish1 wrote:

...if you can't remember do a search of posts about Gerry Adams and you will find many many examples.

Ah, I see. You've made the accusation, but it's up to me to find your evidence for you.

Sorry, I don't think so.

Gordon

irish1 wrote:

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

You are lying*.


*IMO

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

I accept what your saying Fysh the thing is this rule is only for Bertie, anyone who has read the Politics forum over the past years will know that posters were allowed say a lot worse things about other people as long as they said it was "IMO".

Oooooooh, nice try but no cigar.

1) As per the thread title and the relevant mods who have posted here, the rule you're arguing about is in force in the Tribunal thread, so it's not a general "No criticism of Bertie, but feel free to rip into anyone else" rule like you're apparently suggesting.

2) In a thread whose purpose is to discuss the Tribunal - a government-sanctioned investigation into the allegations of misconduct on the part of Bertie Ahern - it will undoubtedly make the discussion easier to understand if a blanket ban on "personal opinion" posting is in force. At the end of the day, the Tribunal's conclusion on whether Bertie is guilty of misconduct is the only one that matters so if, when discussing the tribunal, the mods enforce a rule that trims out opinions that don't matter (because they are, as per the laws and government of this country, not considered fit to pass a legally binding and valid judgement on the whole situation), where's the problem? Oh, wait, it means you don't get to Bertie-bash in the thread, which means that in some part of the world there's a place where you aren't able to ensure that everyone knows that BERTIE'S A LIAR (or at least that you think so, and also that you're so full of yourself that you consider both of those to be the same thing despite not having had full access to all the evidence relating to the investigation).

Here's the deal : there are plenty of places where you don't have some inalienable right to make claims about people, be they politicians or otherwise. My front room would be one of them. The tribunal thread is another. You can suck it up and get on with it, or you can continue to try and get around the issue by generalising your statement and misrepresenting what people have said.

3) Has it occurred to you that perhaps the more cautious approach to letting people post potentially libelous statements in the midst of a Tribunal may have been inspired by, say, boards.ie having legal action taken against them? Because for all your bitching and moaning, you don't seem to appreciate that the rules may have changed because people in the past were given a freedom that boards.ie wasn't actually in a legally tenable position to offer. But no, it's more important that you be allowed to complain about Bertie in every single thread there is. Who cares if it's relevant?! I can't wait for you to join us in the Comic Forum : "What about that Superman, eh? What a dick! You know who else is a dick? Bertie Ahern! And by 'dick', I mean 'lying liar who tells big dirty fibs all the time and certainly hasn't ever told the truth, nuh uh, never ever, liar liar pants on fire!' Anyone agree?"

Jesus. Every once in a while I forget why I don't like getting into political discussions. Threads like this are a good reminder...

Villain

I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

But hey this is boards and the mods will do what they like, I'm just surprised we have got to post 29 without someone finding a picture of Bertie's cat.

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

Dude. "Bertie is a liar" is not an opinion about the Tribunal, it's an opinion about the subject of the Tribunal. Which is exactly why you aren't being allowed to post it on-thread, any more than, I imagine, "Bertie is not a liar" would be allowed on-thread. It's only going to cause confusion between the current status of the Tribunal's investigation, and what you or anyone else think the Tribunal should conclude from the investigation.

Incidentally, I only thought of point 3 in my previous post after you'd replied - it may also offer a different perspective on the issue for you.

oscarBravo

Just to be clear, Fysh: there's a rule in Politics that means you're basically not allowed to call someone a liar unless you can prove it. irish1 has some sort of pathological need to call Bertie a liar, I'm not sure why.

Fysh

oscarBravo wrote:

Just to be clear, Fysh: there's a rule in Politics that means you're basically not allowed to call someone a liar unless you can prove it. irish1 has some sort of pathological need to call Bertie a liar, I'm not sure why.

Wow. Well, that simplifies everything neatly then.

Back to singing the umbrella song so, I guess...

nesf

irish1 wrote:

I think you'll find plenty was said about Charlie Haughey before the Trubunal made its findings Fysh. Just becasue a legal process is underway doesn't mean you can't have an opinon on it.

Does that actually matter? Rules can change or the setting in which discussion takes place on boards can change etc.

You can have an opinion on it but calling Bertie a liar isn't having an opinion, it's a claim that the testimony that he gave was untrue and that he knew this at the time. That isn't simply an opinion, it's a very serious claim and unless you can provide evidence backing it up I cannot see why you should be allowed to make that claim here where you are not the one who will be held legally responsible for it.

Rock Climber

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm perfectly aware of what I said. I said it, remember? In this context, it's called a personal attack. You've explicitly accused a moderator of the Politics forum of allowing a presumed political bias to inform his moderation of the forum. That's a pretty serious accusation. Righto. This is the point where I get into a long-winded discussion, at the end of which you explain that when you said we let people call politicians liars you actually meant that we allowed something different. Right?

Unless of course you're suggesting that we've actually said it was OK to breach the forum charter in the case of specific politicians. This would be another serious accusation, this time levelled at the entire team of Politics moderators. Naturally, you wouldn't make such a serious accusation without evidence, right? Ah, I see. You've made the accusation, but it's up to me to find your evidence for you.

Sorry, I don't think so.

I don't know how ye put up with all this nonsense all day.
Not to mention the fact that now we've all been accused of lying.

Irish1 I am banning you from the politics forum for a minimum of a month and subject to a discussion amongst the mods of the forum,it could be longer or permanent.
We've loads of things to be doing aswell as modding the forum besides putting up with the kind of crapola you've been perpetuating all day.

Villain

Emm what am I been banned for, what rule have I broken??? Seriously I don't see what I have done that merits a ban??

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

Emm what am I been banned for, what rule have I broken??? Seriously I don't see what I have done that merits a ban??

Being an enormous pain in the hole, and refusing point blank to accept the rules as stated in this post, I would guess.

You got told the rules, repeatedly, and whinged, argued, misrepresented what others had said and generally tried to kick up a stink in feedback to get your own way. You've failed miserably, and ended up getting banned for it. Enjoy!

Edited to add:

Huzzah for sneaky subject changes as well - nicely done, that! It lets on that the the two pages of discussion here concern your ban, rather than constituting exactly the argument that led to your ban.

A Dub in Glasgo

In the politics forum, you can accuse politicians of being involved in murder & criminality without any evidence other than it is your opinion. Try calling someone a liar though and your history!

Time Magazine

Rock Climber wrote:

Irish1 I am banning you from the politics forum for a minimum of a month and subject to a discussion amongst the mods of the forum,it could be longer or permanent.

Very poor form lads.

Fysh, he wasn't refusing to accept the rules. He was contesting the rules and afaik is seeking a look-in from higher than the forum mods. If he doesn't accept an admin's view on this, well then ban away.

I've made my argument that regardless of his previous behaviour, I think he should be allowed do whatever the hell he likes with his sig as long as it doesn't hurt Boards. He's arguing a separate point.

This ban smells of a personal vendetta lads.

BuffyBot

Somewhere in the distance, I can hear lambs bleating to the tune of the Umbrella..ella..ella..ella..

Fysh

Ibid, I can see your point, but for the love of random fluctuations in the spacetime continuum, if I had to put up with the kind of rubbish irish1 has been coming out with in the pursuit of something so petty he'd have been banned long ago.

I mean, let's face it. We're talking, essentially, about whether or not he's allowed to make libelous comments and in what manner. His defence is that it's been allowed previously and so should be allowed now. The mods are saying it's not. I don't think he's looking for an admin decision on the matter, nor do I think it really needs one - what possible advantage is there to the forum if posters are specifically allowed to state "I reckon yer man X is a lying gobsheen" without having to back it up with proof? Who benefits? All it would do is encourage more of the kind of rubbish this thread is already full to bursting of.

For the record, I too agree that he can do what the hell he likes with his sig. I just don't understand why irish1 seems to think he's got a right to libel politicians everywhere on boards, nor why the notion should even be entertained by anyone else...

Dirk Gently

I made a contribution on the rules thread over in politics, my position basically being the same as ibid there. I wasn't going to add anything more as although I felt the decision about his sig was OTT I didn't care enough to push it but after the 1 month ban (possibly perm ban) I feel I have to re-register my concern about the whole silly affair.

I like the politics forum and the mods do a great job considering how difficult it is to mod that particular forum but in the interest of fairness I think maybe they should take a step back and maybe re-examine the decision. Maybe even nominate a neutral mod from another forum, not familiar with Irish1 to help making a judgment. I genuinely feel this one was personal lads, perhaps not intentionally but personal nonetheless.

nesf

Ibid wrote:

Very poor form lads.

Fysh, he wasn't refusing to accept the rules. He was contesting the rules and afaik is seeking a look-in from higher than the forum mods. If he doesn't accept an admin's view on this, well then ban away.

I've made my argument that regardless of his previous behaviour, I think he should be allowed do whatever the hell he likes with his sig as long as it doesn't hurt Boards. He's arguing a separate point.

This ban smells of a personal vendetta lads.

At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?


I genuinely don't get the sig thing. If he had "Bertie is a liar" as a sig, yeah sure but linking to a blog? That's a very grey area.

Dirk Gently

nesf wrote:

At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?

In fairness he was advised by an admin to link to a blog instead of comment in thread. He did so and was asked to remove it by a forum mod. He then took it to feedback. His grevience is not completly without substance. I still don't really understand the problem with his blog as long as he doesn''t direct people to it in thread tbh.

I think the best solution would be for Irish1 to STFU and for his blog link to be left in the sig. If he breaks the forum rule then by all means ban him to oblivion given how much he now knows calling someone a liar is a no no.

Time Magazine

Fysh wrote:

I mean, let's face it. We're talking, essentially, about whether or not he's allowed to make libelous comments and in what manner.

To be fair, that's not true at all. I entirely agree with the mods that accusing Bertie of being a liar just isn't on. But irish1's point is pretty reasonable. I've probably referred to Gerry Adams as a murderer/head of the IRA etc in my time and never faced a slap on the wrist. I'd do a search but I'm not that arsed. He's asking why we can make such statements about gob****es from the North but not from North Dublin. That's a fair question, though I think there is a distinction. (I can't quite put my finger on it. It might have something to do with it being an on-going trial.) Regardless, he's discussed this with the mods over there so now he is here. It doesn't matter that the Politics mods have replied 400 times on this thread, he's looking to go higher. Until the point is reached where e.g. DeV says feck off, I don't think he can be banned for pestering. He might be a pain in the ass (I don't know him), but he's not breaking any rules. He's doing this reasonably.

nesf wrote:

At what point do we draw the line between reasonable contesting of forum rules and when someone just has to accept them or take their business elsewhere?

To me, Feedback is where the line is drawn. No mods had to reply to this thread, whereas they sort of had to in the rules thread on Politics. He was encouraged to make a Feedback thread by one mod and that very night banned by another for moaning. That's not on. They, like you or me, have no say in Feedback. They run the Politics. That's why I shut up in the rules thread there and politely agreed to disagree and let the forces that be decide. I don't really give a sh*te about his rules for Bertie vs rules for Gerry argument, although he has a reasonable point, which he has made politely, and imho it's up to DeV or whoever to intervene. It's then irish1's option to accept the rules or shut up/piss off.

I genuinely don't get the sig thing. If he had "Bertie is a liar" as a sig, yeah sure but linking to a blog? That's a very grey area.

He's even had admin approval for this, as far as I can see.

Oh and for the record, I've never met irish1 or had any dealings with him. I am only passingly familiar with him via the Soccer board.

</rant>

nesf

I'm quoting oscarBravo from the politics thread here, I'd just prefer to have this discussion in Feedback rather than Politics if that's ok?

oscarBravo wrote:

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with it. He can't state it in this forum for libel reasons, presumably. If he wants to state it off-site in a blog and link to it in his sig then there isn't really a cause to get uppity about it. The rules against it are not to shush people who think Bertie lied but to prevent libellous statements on this forum because Boards.ie takes (at least presumably) responsibility for them.

The issue here should be him stating it on here word for word, not him stating it somewhere else and linking to it. If he stated it in his sig it's a problem. Otherwise I don't get the issue here.

nesf

Ibid wrote:

To me, Feedback is where the line is drawn.

I agree pretty much. If people want to complain about me or a forum I mod in Feedback they can complain as much as they want as far as I am concerned.

cast_iron

Ibid wrote:

Until the point is reached where e.g. DeV says feck off, I don't think he can be banned for pestering. He might be a pain in the ass (I don't know him), but he's not breaking any rules. He's doing this reasonably.

Yes, but are you not assuming the ban was purely for the Feedback thread? I don't think it is. It's for the constant harassment the Mods have gotten from irish1 (accentuated from today's contribution in the Rules discussion thread in Politics).

They've had enough, can foresee even more problems with irish1 giving that Bertie's appearance in the Tribunal this week. Seems fair to me, giving his history (which IS relevant in this case as his constant harassment is the reason for the ban). Give these Mods a break. As we've seen from recent threads here in FB, they shouldn't have to deal with this sort of crap and all that goes with it.

Is a rule really needed to explicitly say you cannot pester Mods? Dev's sentiments in the recent discussion (on Sig Rules) was not to introduce more rules - just don't be "a dick" and you'll be fine, he said. A fair rule site wide, I'd have thought. irish1 is doing just that - acting the dick, and feigning "what rule did I break" as a true, but irrelevant excuse.

Time Magazine

You make a good point cast_iron. I've said earlier that I acknowledge irish1 may be a dick, but I don't know him. I'm assuming, fairly reasonably, that the Feedback thread at least contributed to his banning.

There was a precedent set on Politics a long time ago where a thread that was sent from AH earned Politics bans for the AH-posted comments. Obviously that was contentious, but fair enough, the posts made their way to Politics. On the other hand this thread required no further attention from the Politics mods as irish1 was going above their heads, as he is entitled and was encouraged to do.

I feel the banning is out of line. I think the signature issue is out of line. And I think his argument about implications that Gerry Adams is a liar being allowed deserves a response from an admin. None of these things have happened.

But hey it's not my battle. I'm sticking in my two cents because I agree with him. I think this conflict could be sorted rather quickly by an admin coming in and Judge Judy'ing on the above three. Then irish1, those who feel sympathy for him, and the mods have the choice of accepting it or going elsewhere.

Boston

Irish1; DeVores number one rule, don't be a dick.

Ibid wrote:

Very poor form lads.

you don't know the background nor what assurances where given. You're sticking your ore in.

DeepBlue

Ibid wrote:

You make a good point cast_iron. I've said earlier that I acknowledge irish1 may be a dick, but I don't know him. I'm assuming, fairly reasonably, that the Feedback thread at least contributed to his banning.

From what I can see on this thread he wasn't banned from Politics at the start of the thread but got banned during the course of the thread. It would thus seem logical that he was banned because of something that happened in this thread.

If that's the case (and that's an "if" i.e. I'm not saying that he's definitely been banned because of this thread but the circumstances certainly suggest that's the case) then it sets a poor precedent.

Fysh

DeepBlue wrote:

From what I can see on this thread he wasn't banned from Politics at the start of the thread but got banned during the course of the thread. It would thus seem logical that he was banned because of something that happened in this thread.

If that's the case (and that's an "if" i.e. I'm not saying that he's definitely been banned because of this thread but the circumstances certainly suggest that's the case) then it sets a poor precedent.

Bear in mind that at the same time as this thread was ongoing, irish1 was still contributing to the "discussion about the rules" thread in the Politics forum (see here for example), and to all intents and purposes appears to have been hell-bent on acting the dick in that thread as much as he has been here. Hence the ban may not have been due to something done in this thread, but posted here as it's directly relevant to the subject of this thread.

The more you look through that thread, the more it looks like irish1 deliberating acting the nonce because he wants to do something that's not allowed. Why is he being defended so much when he's asking to break the rules, and his fundamental claim of precedent is something he won't even back up? (He's yet to link to a concrete case of someone else being allowed to make the kind of comments he seems compelled to make about Bertie Ahern, and yet we're supposed to take it on faith that the evidence is there...)