Guy banned for thinking Bertie lacks credibility..WTF?

tech77

Just reading this thread in Politics http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54556132#post54556132 and a guy gets banned for expressing the opinion that Bertie has no credibility.

I don't think he even actually called Bertie a liar but even if he did it's still not exactly an outrageous opinion.

Does this mean no more (justifiable IMHO) Bertie/FF bashing on Boards?

Karl Hungus

Feedback tbh.

Mossy Monk

tech77 wrote: »

Just reading this thread in Politics http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54556132#post54556132 and a guy gets banned for expressing the opinion that Bertie has no credibility.

I don't think he even actually called Bertie a liar but even if he did it's still not exactly an outrageous opinion.

Does this mean no more (justifiable IMHO) Bertie/FF bashing on Boards?

Um. Is this some attempt at heroism?

Wertz

Politics mods in FF bias shocker. No surprise there then. Probably a whole team of civil servants charged with managing PR on Irish forums and blogs.
A few weeks back I called our glorious leader som choice expletives and questioned his , er, integrity on AH and all I got was an edit and a warning (in fairness the comment was possibly slanderous and I had no problem with it being deleted)...I didnt get a ban though.
Moral of the story; politics forum is for gimps and crusties.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Around here your nobody until your banned from at least one forum, welcome to the BBC (Banned Brothers Club).

Terry

Moved from AH.

Tha Gopher

I got banned once for disagreeing with the personal view of one of the mods. PM`d him pointing out this fact, ban lifted within an hour.

WhiteWashMan

Tha Gopher wrote: »

I got banned once for disagreeing with the personal view of one of the mods. PM`d him pointing out this fact, ban lifted within an hour.

arent you a little shinning diamond of wonder.

Wertz

Much like your shining command of the english language...

DonalN

Wertz wrote: »

Much like your shining command of the english language...

ha ha!:D

leninbenjamin

Mr.Micro wrote:

The country needs a strong leader and not someone who many people perceive as a liar and shady ,more interested in money ,yachts and the like

Rock Climber wrote:

I'm not convinced that you are unaware of this forum's policy on liar accusations.
I'm giving you a 1 week ban to familiarise yourself with it.

Mr.Micro himself did not actually call Bertie a liar himself.

Secondly there is a difference between actually calling someone a liar and stating i perceive him to be a liar. one is an apparent statement of fact, the other is opinion.

I understand all too fully the need for heavy moderation in the politics forum, but i don't think a ban was fully deserved in this instance.

gandalf

LOL pro FF read some of my posts I am so far from that position its frightening.

If a newspaper or other media outlet come out and call him a liar then there is no problem it being said here, until that happens we do not want to be put in a position where we are being quoted as the source and worst case scenario another feckin court case.

Terry

I wouldn't even allow it then.
Newspapers have been successfully sued in the past.

Wertz

gandalf wrote: »

LOL pro FF read some of my posts I am so far from that position its frightening.

Fair enough but the tone from the mods that stays with me from politics is very FF biased.
I mean you wouldn't see anyone getting warned or banned for saying whatever the hell they liked about SF for instance, unfounded or otherwise....hell they're usually applauded for it...

Karoma

Terry wrote: »

I wouldn't even allow it then.
Newspapers have been successfully sued in the past.

If the user cites the newspaper as the source - we can claim fair comment and lock the thread with a retraction of sorts if it goes dodgy.

InFront

If the comments are so dodgy, why wasn't the thread locked or deleted?

They don't seem to be anything bad relative to what usually gets written on the politics forum about FF. I'm sure one wouldn't have any problem digging up a heck of a lot of posts which were as opinionated - you'd struggle to call them outright accusational - as those of Mr Micro.

DublinWriter

leninbenjamin wrote: »

Mr.Micro himself did not actually call Bertie a liar himself.

Secondly there is a difference between actually calling someone a liar and stating i perceive him to be a liar. one is an apparent statement of fact, the other is opinion.

I understand all too fully the need for heavy moderation in the politics forum, but i don't think a ban was fully deserved in this instance.

I totally agree.

Mr.Micro's argument IMHO was cogent and reasoned, in contrast to a lot of other threads I see in other fora that leave Boards Ltd's collective arse hanging out the window in terms of legal exposure.

Stark

tech77 wrote: »

Just reading this thread in Politics http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=54556132#post54556132 and a guy gets banned for expressing the opinion that Bertie has no credibility.

Hmm, the link points to a post by some 12 year old talking about Boyzone.

daiixi

that's because politics is so damn boring.. and those boyzone boyz are so hawt!

David Michael

How times have changed.

Sheep follow.

using the "legal" thing is cool though. I can't be arsed going back in time pointing out the irony.


FTP!

Time Magazine

David Michael wrote: »

How times have changed.

using the "legal" thing is cool though.

Yeah, I guess you can say things change when you've had your existence threatened by "legal" "things".

I can't be arsed going back in time pointing out the irony.

Of course you can't, merc.

David Michael

Ibid wrote: »

Yeah, I guess you can say things change when you've had your existence threatened by "legal" "things".



Of course you can't, merc.

Sure when you have ad revenue coming in.. it helps not to piss them off.

Think about it.

were once a young fella full of heart went forward... Being CNN.... well...

David Michael

Ibid wrote: »

Yeah, I guess you can say things change when you've had your existence threatened by "legal" "things".



Of course you can't, merc.

Your comments welcome. I am not owned

Dirk Gently

Wertz wrote: »

Politics mods in FF bias shocker. No surprise there then. Probably a whole team of civil servants charged with managing PR on Irish forums and blogs.

PROOF :eek:

Seriously though, the mods have made their position clear, I don't much agree with some of their decisions over the months regarding the issue but we all know at this stage they will ban people who they view as a liability to the site.

The knock on effect from that is that Bertie / FF topics are policed to the hilt, creating a straight jacket like situation.

unfortunately this results in a gap between Bertie topics and other topics in so far as a lot more mud can be thrown at other figures, both domestic and foreign which wont be tolerated in Bertie threads.

Lots of opinion has been posted and spun about a lot of political figures, Bertie, Adams, Bush, Blair, Chavez but Bertie does enjoy special protection, perhaps as a result of local liable, perhaps as a knee jerk to a mountain made out of a certain SF supporters mole hill going way back.

Bottom line, if you want to discuss Bertie uncensored go to another political forum and post there. If you like reading amusing wild accusations thrown about by opposing left and right wing posters on non bertie topics get your self a cupa tea and a ciggy and sit back and read the boards.ie politics forum.

padser

gandalf wrote: »

If a newspaper or other media outlet come out and call him a liar then there is no problem it being said here, until that happens we do not want to be put in a position where we are being quoted as the source and worst case scenario another feckin court case.

If you are worried about a court case then why has the comment been left there? Banning the author wouldn't have any effect - but removing the comment actually would.

It doesn't matter whether you are repeating a defamatory comment, or are the first to publish it - you are still equally liable for publishing it. It's not a defence to say Joe said it first. Thus allowing comments after a newspaper has made them first makes pretty much no sense.

meglome

I was banned myself from Politics for a month and I've no intention of posting again or getting the ban lifted. Maybe I'll change my mind but for now its politics.ie instead. There's something seriously wrong with moderation on the politics forum. So why would I want to get banned again for little or nothing. There also seems to be no real escalation process, you post in HelpDesk and hope for the best.

David Michael

meglome wrote: »

I was banned myself from Politics for a month and I've no intention of posting again or getting the ban lifted. Maybe I'll change my mind but for now its politics.ie instead. There's something seriously wrong with moderation on the politics forum. So why would I want to get banned again for little or nothing. There also seems to be no real escalation process, you post in HelpDesk and hope for the best.

Agreed.

padser

padser wrote: »

If you are worried about a court case then why has the comment been left there? Banning the author wouldn't have any effect - but removing the comment actually would.

Most comments are removed.
The one Mr micro made wasn't because it doesn't seem to be a direct accusation.It could be read as an effort to flout the spirit of the instruction given though which for a regular poster who should have been aware of the policy on the board did require some action.
A weeks ban was a measured response,I think,given that it's policy to give a 1 month ban for taking the michael altogether with our instructions by using the "liar" word.

David Michael wrote:

Agreed

Actually Merc, very, very few people are banned on politics on a day to day basis.
I can get the actual stats for you if you like but suffice to say that of the hundreds of posters,probably 99% adhere to mod instructions and post within the rules.

gandalf

padser wrote: »

If you are worried about a court case then why has the comment been left there? Banning the author wouldn't have any effect - but removing the comment actually would.

It doesn't matter whether you are repeating a defamatory comment, or are the first to publish it - you are still equally liable for publishing it. It's not a defence to say Joe said it first. Thus allowing comments after a newspaper has made them first makes pretty much no sense.

Firstly I didn't ban the user, Tristrame did. He has stated his reasons behind the ban, seems harse but then again where do we draw the line. You're not going to get After Hours type moderation in the Politics board it is a lot stricter to try and foster debate not "x is a lying tosser".

I see alot of whinges from users here who have fallen foul because we took the position not to have Politics become a cheerleader for certain parties that have a certain affiliation with illegal organisations. So what, if you don't want to post good riddance. One user (who has replied here) in particular seems to post "controversially" to massage their own ego imho and has had several usernames sitebanned. I really don't know why the admins let them come back under new guises but hey thats their prerogative as they put the real effort and cash into the site.

Maybe if you stopped whinging and suggested proper alternatives to the areas of moderation that they are not happy with then things could improve. Far from the mods all being from one political ilk they are varied from the point of view of politics and their real life activities. Personally and putting my cards on the table I am an ex member of the Labour party and work in the private sector and personally cannot stand Fianna Fail and all they stand for. The only area I see an imbalance in is we don't have a woman mod on Politics.

Terry

gandalf wrote:

Firstly I didn't ban the user, Tristrame did. He has stated his reasons behind the ban, seems harse but then again where do we draw the line. You're not going to get After Hours type moderation in the Politics board it is a lot stricter to try and foster debate not "x is a lying tosser".

Just to set things straight; we do get a few "Berite is a tosser" type threads on AH. However, we do not allow unfounded allegations about anyone. Postsof that type are deleted.

gandalf

LOL I can't win

Tha Gopher

WhiteWashMan wrote: »

arent you a little shinning diamond of wonder.

And doesnt your post remind me of Alan Partridge if he had a boards account.

Minus the comedy of course.

transylman

Yeah, the moderation of any issues relating to Bertie Ahern is suspicious to say the least. Then yesterday when I posted saying that if people wanted to go to a more open discussion they should go to politics.ie it was deleted. There is a definite FF bias from two of the mods.

gandalf

How is deleting a comment instructing people to go to a rival discussion board FF bias. Christ have you watched too many episodes of the X-Files or something.

transylman

gandalf wrote: »

How is deleting a comment instructing people to go to a rival discussion board FF bias. Christ have you watched too many episodes of the X-Files or something.

Chill out man. First of all, I didn't cite the removal of that post as the reason for my belief that the mods are biased. Second, why was a post suggesting another discussion board deleted from the politics board when one on this thread seems to be okay. Thirdly, if you compare the debate here with the one on politics.ie the difference is night and day. Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.

nesf

transylman wrote: »

Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.

It's not just on the Bertie issue that they are strict though. If this was the case you'd have a point but it's not like I could go in there are start making accusations about members of the Opposition parties.

People are blowing this completely out of proportion. That and politics.ie and boards.ie are like chalk and cheese across the board really. They are two different approaches to the same thing, a bit like football365.com versus the soccer forum.

Procasinator

I don't see why he was banned, to be honest. If it is from his first post where he said:

Mr.Micro wrote:

The country needs a strong leader and not someone who many people perceive as a liar and shady

Then I don't see how he has accused Bertie of being a liar. He has stated that many people see him as a liar -a fair and accurate statement.

He never made any direct accusations of Bertie Ahern, and references some of his more damning points to newspapers and such.

Am I missing something? Has some of his posts been deleted?

As it stands, I personally think it was heavy handed to ban him.

I wouldn't be a conspiracist and say that this was done by a mod who has bias towards FF, but rather just executed the ban because they believe the posts were borderline.

gandalf

transylman wrote: »

Chill out man. First of all, I didn't cite the removal of that post as the reason for my belief that the mods are biased. Second, why was a post suggesting another discussion board deleted from the politics board when one on this thread seems to be okay. Thirdly, if you compare the debate here with the one on politics.ie the difference is night and day. Mods seem a bit heavy handed here and there may be a conflict of interest, thats all I'm saying.

One there is no bias at all so how you can come to this conclusion is beyond me.

Secondally Politics.ie run their forums in their way, its successful but it is different from here, we're successful as well.

Thirdly maybe you are not used to the way things work on the politics forum here but we do have a very tight reign on things to ensure discussions stay on topic. Again there is no conflict of interest and this is no indication of a conflict in interest. If you are sensing this I think you need to relax a bit.

DublinWriter

Now waiting with bated breath for the ensuing and ironic Guy almost banned for thinking 3 lacks credibility..WTF? thread

Cat pictures to follow.

meglome

gandalf wrote: »

One there is no bias at all so how you can come to this conclusion is beyond me.

Secondally Politics.ie run their forums in their way, its successful but it is different from here, we're successful as well.

Thirdly maybe you are not used to the way things work on the politics forum here but we do have a very tight reign on things to ensure discussions stay on topic. Again there is no conflict of interest and this is no indication of a conflict in interest. If you are sensing this I think you need to relax a bit.

I'm no supporter of SF but it's seems to be okay to say quite a bit in relation to them but not a fraction of that when to comes to FF. I was banned in the thread discussing Berties tribunal dealings. I saw several posts deleted and edited for reasons that I didn't understand even after rereading the charter and the thread charter. Interestingly mostly by the same mod, not you Gandalf. My own ban was for implying there was a FF bias, at least in that thread there appeared to be (Wasn’t posting in there for that long so…). I can honestly say I'm not party political and have voted FF in the past so I don't see why I'd just imagine things were not even-handed. I dunno it was like you had to follow the rules and some of the whims of certain mods as well. It might be an interesting exercise for regular posters and mods to have to fully reveal who they voted for in the last election. Obviously we've no way to know if they told the truth but still.

At the end of the day I’ve been posting on boards for over 7 years and it's the only ban I've received.

gandalf

Well if you have been posting on boards for so long then you should have realised that firing accusations like that in thread was probably not a good idea. A thread in feedback referencing the original thread or even a PM to the mod in question would have cleared that up.

I understand everyones frustration regarding Bertiegate (or is it loangate?) and I would love to write exactly what I think of our "great leaders" protestations of innocence. The problem is until the tribunial or the papers come up with something that allows us to let loose then we have to be careful. Now if one of the admins turn around and say "free for all" is allowed then we can also open the flood gates so to speak (see what I did there the "Justice Flood Gates" well well!!).

oh and to kick things off I voted Labour, The Greens (will never make that mistake again) and FG (to get that other crowd out).

faceman

seemed a bit harsh but then again i dont frequent the politics forum that much. As the saying goes, If you wanna discuss politics, then dont do it in the polictics forum!

gbh

Definite Pro-FF bias from one of the mods on the politics forum...I was banned for making a statement of fact....

The Mahon Tribunal is central to the politics of this country in that it investigates alledged corruption in the planning process....By the way I said alledged...

These are political issues...and no allegations were made by me, only statements of fact...

So if you are going to ban and delete people for expressing the truth, then free speech is being censored in certain parts of this site...if that is the case then its no longer a place of responsible free speech but a censors paradise.

Time Magazine

gbh wrote: »

Definite Pro-FF bias from one of the mods on the politics forum

Heh, this the one is/was in a different political party?

I was banned for making a statement of fact....

By the way I said alledged...

Alleged facts, eh?

"Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.

So if you are going to ban and delete people for expressing the truth, then free speech is being censored in certain parts of this site...if that is the case then its no longer a place of responsible free speech but a censors paradise.

It's never been a place for free speech. Link to the post you were banned for stating only facts?

gbh

Ibid wrote: »

Heh, this the one is/was in a different political party?


Alleged facts, eh?

"Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.


It's never been a place for free speech. Link to the post you were banned for stating only facts?

Can't beat the bit of selective editing to misrepresent what someone else says...

I was discussing a difference of accounts at the Tribunal...and i am presuming both were telling the truth and they want us the public who pays for the Tribunal to accept what they say as fact...

I would link to it but it has been deleted...

But look it's no problem...i can take a month's ban...

Procasinator

Ibid wrote: »

"Allegedly", your mother sleeps with children.

How is that comparable? That is your allegation, which you plucked from thin air.

What he describes is a allegation - hell it is a tribunal!

As an example, you could say "2 plus 2 equals 5".
Which is not a true proposition.

I, however, can say "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5", and I would not be lying.

Time Magazine

gbh wrote: »

Can't beat the bit of selective editing to misrepresent what someone else says...

I was discussing a difference of accounts at the Tribunal...and i am presuming both were telling the truth and they want us the public who pays for the Tribunal to accept what they say as fact...

I would link to it but it has been deleted...

But look it's no problem...i can take a month's ban...

Well I can't really comment as I have not read your post. I've disagreed with the Politics mods a few times in the past (been banned more than once, too) but suffice to say I would be surprised if you were banned for simply stating facts.

Procasinator wrote: »

How is that comparable? That is your allegation, which you plucked from thin air.

I'm pointing out that simply prefixing statements with "allegedly" makes no difference. It was in response to "By the way I said alledged...".

What he describes is a allegation - hell it is a tribunal!

As an example, you could say "2 plus 2 equals 5".
Which is not a true proposition.

I, however, can say "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5", and I would not be lying.

If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence. But, I haven't seen his post. The primary purpose of my post was to rebut the "allegedly" defence, if such a case was being made.

norrie rugger

Tristrame wrote: »

Most comments are removed.
The one Mr micro made wasn't because it doesn't seem to be a direct accusation.

Because it was his perception of the man and events surrounding him maybe??

Procasinator

Ibid wrote: »

If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence. But, I haven't seen his post. The primary purpose of my post was to rebut the "allegedly" defence, if such a case was being made.

Well, okay, that just nitpicking. Let's look at the sentence again from the quoted post:

gbh wrote:

The Mahon Tribunal is central to the politics of this country in that it investigates alledged corruption in the planning process....By the way I said alledged...

So he said that the Mahon Tribunal looks into alledged (sp) corruption, and further added on the "By the way I said alledged(sp)".

The last fragment, while not necessary, makes sense in the context of this thread. He wants to clarify that he was talking about alleged corruption, currently under investigation, and so was not defaming anyone.

The tribunal does look into alleged corruption.

Ibis wrote:

If he said "Ibid said 2 plus 2 equals 5" there's no need to add "allegedly" to the sentence.

No, but he is one more layer out - in both the tribunal allegations and my hypothetical situation. If I say to gbh "Ibis said 2 plus 2 equals 5", then he could say "Procasinator the sexy says that Ibis allegedly said 2 plus 2 equals 5" to whoever he wants, and the proposition would hold true whether or not you did ever say it.

Edit: Also, I am not saying gbh has nothing wrong. He very well could have.

Time Magazine

Procasinator wrote: »

Well, okay, that just nitpicking.

The last fragment, while not necessary, makes sense in the context of this thread.

You're right. I read the two as unrelated entities (that said, it wasn't articulated all that well) but I imagine that's what he meant.

However I disagree with you that it's nitpicking. You'd be surprised how many people try to get away with "In my opinion, you're an idiot" or "Allegedly, your mother is sleeping with gandalf" though, admittedly, nobody would sleep with gandalf .

meglome

gandalf wrote: »

Well if you have been posting on boards for so long then you should have realised that firing accusations like that in thread was probably not a good idea. A thread in feedback referencing the original thread or even a PM to the mod in question would have cleared that up.

I understand everyones frustration regarding Bertiegate (or is it loangate?) and I would love to write exactly what I think of our "great leaders" protestations of innocence. The problem is until the tribunial or the papers come up with something that allows us to let loose then we have to be careful. Now if one of the admins turn around and say "free for all" is allowed then we can also open the flood gates so to speak (see what I did there the "Justice Flood Gates" well well!!).

oh and to kick things off I voted Labour, The Greens (will never make that mistake again) and FG (to get that other crowd out).

I didn't just throw an accusation in, there was a buildup...posts being deleted and edited which as far as I could tell were within the rules as set out by the charters and usually by the same person. A person who's attitude stank and who only inflamed the situation. I sent a PM to the Mod and I posted in Helpdesk, you agreed with me in there that my ban seemed harsh. At the end of that the ban was left in place. Now if I can get banned for next to nothing, have agreement with me it was harsh but cannot get it lifted, what's the point in going back just to potentially go through that same process again. It was frustrating enough the first time.

I voted FG(even with plank Kenny), Labour and the Greens(not next time). I didn't vote FF this time as they badly needed to be put out on their arses.