censorship on the politics forum

jessop1

Hello there

I would like to report that I believe that a moderator of the politics forum, OscarBravo, is abusing his powers of moderation. This abuse of power is in my opinion, driven by his own political views.

I posted this thread, highlighting political corruption that has been in the very recent news, in relation to the irish eu referendum.

OscarBravo has arbitrarily closed this thread, stating his political views and then directing all further conversation on the matter to the very large referendum on lisbon thread.

I am saying that this is highly unfair and inappropriate, seeing as the the eu treaty is something that potentiates vast discussion in a myriad of areas. For a moderator to insist that all discussion on all aspects of the treaty be lumped into one very long mega thread is without doubt NOT CONDUCIVE to open and ongoing discussion. This is even more ridiculous when you see that the US elections, which are far less relevant to Ireland and Europe, has a Forum of its own with as many threads as you like!!

I am asking that my thread be re-opened and that a directive be given that individual threads discussing the many different aspects of the eu treaty be allowed to continue without this restriction, which amounts to a form censorship.

Many Thanks

iamhunted

the politics board seems to be a tad right wing conservative and the main views therein seems to change with the wind, and follow whatever happens to be the current trend of popular thinking. I wouldnt take it too seriously if I were you as its not really that political in content .

CuLT

"Megathreads" are very common on many large forums across the entire Internet.

oscarBravo

What political views did I state?

aidan_walsh

oscarBravo wrote: »

What political views did I state?

"You are wrong", it would seem.

Sherifu

jessop1 wrote: »

For a moderator to insist that all discussion on all aspects of the treaty be lumped into one very long mega thread is without doubt NOT CONDUCIVE to open and ongoing discussion.

Why not?

jessop1 wrote: »

This is even more ridiculous when you see that the US elections, which are far less relevant to Ireland and Europe, has a Forum of its own with as many threads as you like!!

Request a forum then.

Mena

Sherifu wrote: »

Why not?

Request a forum then.

Clicky, just to make it easier :pac::pac::pac:

JOHNSPILLANE

Oscar Bravo is always censoring that forum. Well he is government paid, so what do you expect.

Time Magazine

iamhunted wrote: »

the politics board seems to be a tad right wing conservative

The Politics mods were accused of being anti-government (i.e. pro-FG/Labour aka more leftist than conservative) in the run-up to the current election.

Jessop1, I don't believe you. YOU SHOULD HAVE TYPED IN CAPS IMO.

Time Magazine

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Oscar Bravo is always censoring that forum. Well he is government paid, so what do you expect.

I Feedback.

togster

Yo Spillane, can we try and keep this from turning into a mess again. OP the mod did the right thing imo. Your past experiences with him are clouding your judgement imo.

EDIT: I don't see the problem in the mod posting information regarding the treaty in rebutting your argument.

oscarBravo

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Oscar Bravo is always censoring that forum. Well he is government paid, so what do you expect.

And you're new around here.

Oh yes, in answer to your PM question: I am the bitch that banned you from Politics. Why, was there a danger of you contributing something of value?

Rb

Yeah you're such a bitch Oscar

humanji

oscarBravo wrote: »

And you're new around here.

Oh yes, in answer to your PM question: I am the bitch that banned you from Politics. Why, was there a danger of you contributing something of value?

lol.

I'm with Ibid, I really do Feedback. Best forum on the interweb.

In regards to the op's complaint, in fairness I can only imagine that there's loads of Lisbon Treaty related threads that have been created and covering the exact same things, so keeping them in the one thread. But maybe someone should put in for a subforum to be created? There's a lot of points to be cleared up on the Treaty and having to trawl through a 749 post thread is a little daunting.

oscarBravo

humanji wrote: »

In regards to the op's complaint, in fairness I can only imagine that there's loads of Lisbon Treaty related threads that have been created and covering the exact same things, so keeping them in the one thread. But maybe someone should put in for a subforum to be created? There's a lot of points to be cleared up on the Treaty and having to trawl through a 749 post thread is a little daunting.

If I thought there was any chance of some reasonable discussion, I might consider it. The US Election subforum contains a number of diverse posters with varying opinions on all the assorted candidates.

The Lisbon thread consists mostly of lies and distortions, mostly from the No camp, and rebuttals from one or two posters, notably Scofflaw. If there was a subforum it would consist entirely of threads like the one jessop1 started, where he isn't interested in a discussion on the facts, but simply wants to push an agenda.

iamhunted

Ibid wrote: »

The Politics mods were accused of being anti-government (i.e. pro-FG/Labour aka more leftist than conservative) in the run-up to the current election.

"pro-FG/Labour aka more leftist than conservative" - in your world maybe. In real life those two are still pretty right wing.

iamhunted

oscarBravo wrote: »

The Lisbon thread consists mostly of lies and distortions, mostly from the No camp, and rebuttals from one or two posters, notably Scofflaw. If there was a subforum it would consist entirely of threads like the one jessop1 started, where he isn't interested in a discussion on the facts, but simply wants to push an agenda.

do the old boards politics thing there and provide some backing of your claims of " lies and distortions, mostly from the No camp" - considering most people cant make heads nor tails of that treaty nevermind work out what are lies and distortions.

Good man oscar! You've proved to me with that statement exactly what jessop1 was talking about! nice one.

Lemming

oscarBravo

iamhunted wrote: »

do the old boards politics thing there and provide some backing of your claims of " lies and distortions, mostly from the No camp" - considering most people cant make heads nor tails of that treaty nevermind work out what are lies and distortions.

Why would I bother? Are you interested in a discussion?

Case in point: there was a thread on this topic on Conspiracy Theories, where I pointed out that the "End of Nations" video was packed with lies in the first three minutes alone. Mahatma coat challenged me on this, so I watched the first three minutes again and listed twelve lies and inaccuracies. Strangely enough, Mahatma coat lost all interest in discussing it after that.

Good man oscar! You've proved to me with that statement exactly what jessop1 was talking about! nice one.

It's amazing what constitutes proof, when you set your standards low enough.

watty

you couldn't pay me to mod politics. Tech Fora is bad enough

Overheal

jessop1 wrote: »

This is even more ridiculous when you see that the US elections, which are far less relevant to Ireland and Europe, has a Forum of its own with as many threads as you like!!

Ha, thats not even the half of it

http://www.indecision2008.com

Besides the forum made sense considering the entire election campaign has been going on for over a year already with another year to go. How long is this Lisbon Treaty going to be on the table? hmm?

constitutionus

i fully agree with jessop and in fact myself and ALOT of others have fecked off to politics.ie because of the facist tactics of oscar bravO and his mate tristrame.

if ANYONE is in doubt just take a cursory glance of how often he jumps in to threads for no reason whatsover just to lord it over people . indeed he's closed threads , such as the tribunal one, on spurious grounds THREE TIMES !

the persons a clear example of "god complex" and the quicker this is addressed the faster genuine debate can resume on the politics board. as it stands its way, WAY behind on P.ie.

oscarBravo

I feel a tagline change coming on.

constitutionus, not being allowed to get your own way all the time isn't fascism.

iamhunted

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why would I bother? Are you interested in a discussion?

Case in point: there was a thread on this topic on Conspiracy Theories, where I pointed out that the "End of Nations" video was packed with lies in the first three minutes alone. Mahatma coat challenged me on this, so I watched the first three minutes again and listed twelve lies and inaccuracies. Strangely enough, Mahatma coat lost all interest in discussing it after that. It's amazing what constitutes proof, when you set your standards low enough.

hang on - are you telling me you CAN prove these spurious lies people are apparently coming out with? Good man yerself there! A lesser God couldnt! (BTW - you cant though. Im sorry to have to break it to you)

And yes, its true about proof - but really a point was brought up about the way you can, should we say, be flippant about things? - and then on que ...there you were being flippant about the No camp ... perfect timing oscar, perfect timing. I applaud your impecible timing in this regard. well done.

constitutionus

abusing your power is. many many people have been banned from politics under dubvious circumstances and no ones ever been called on it.

how come its always YOU doing the banning? theres other mods on politics and TBH i cant actually recall the last time any of them did the deed.

your a little hitler, youve been caught by the bollock, and here you are crying foul.

i wont come back to your disgusting little realm its so offensively biased, but i'll happily back up the claims of the OP. because theyre the truth.

your pushing your political agenda and for a mod to abuse their powers to remove dissenting voices thats unacceptable.

Rb

constitutionus wrote: »

your pushing your political agenda and for a mod to abuse their powers to remove dissenting voices thats unacceptable.

If there's proof of this (though I certainly don't doubt constitutionus) then the admins should really look into it as it's something that shouldn't be tolerated in a forum such as politics.

I'm sitting on the fence though because I don't use the forum often, and when I do it's mere lurking.

oscarBravo

iamhunted wrote: »

hang on - are you telling me you CAN prove these spurious lies people are apparently coming out with? Good man yerself there! A lesser God couldnt! (BTW - you cant though. Im sorry to have to break it to you)

Go read the Lisbon thread and come back to me if you have something interesting to say.

And yes, its true about proof - but really a point was brought up about the way you can, should we say, be flippant about things? - and then on que ...there you were being flippant about the No camp ... perfect timing oscar, perfect timing. I applaud your impecible timing in this regard. well done.

Did I say something that's untrue? If so, please point it out.

constitutionus wrote: »

abusing your power is. many many people have been banned from politics under dubvious circumstances and no ones ever been called on it.

And yet, shockingly, you haven't cited any examples.

how come its always YOU doing the banning? theres other mods on politics and TBH i cant actually recall the last time any of them did the deed.

What's your point?

your a little hitler, youve been caught by the bollock, and here you are crying foul.

I'm not the one crying here. I'm actually laughing out loud.

If you really feel I've done something wrong, go find some examples, bring them to the admins and ask them to de-mod me. Go on, I dare you.

In the immortal words of Mr Blond: are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?

i wont come back to your disgusting little realm its so offensively biased, but i'll happily back up the claims of the OP. because theyre the truth.

Oh please come back to us, please! I'm on my knees here!!

Not.

your pushing your political agenda and for a mod to abuse their powers to remove dissenting voices thats unacceptable.

What political agenda?

Moriarty

There's a pretty wide spread of political opinion between the politics mods in as much as I know my co-mods political beliefs. We're certainly not a FF, FG, Labour, PD, EU or Chinese cabal as we are often collectively accused of.

If people are too idiotic to realise the difference between debate and pontification that's not our problem.

constitutionus

rb_ie wrote: »

If there's proof of this (though I certainly don't doubt constitutionus) then the admins should really look into it as it's something that shouldn't be tolerated in a forum such as politics.

I'm sitting on the fence though because I don't use the forum often, and when I do it's mere lurking.

thats all ive been doing for the last couple of months to keep abreast of things. in a strange way comparing P.ie and our politics forum is like an online version of the mail vs the sindo. im only here to support the OP who had a valid complaint in his treatment.

by the way oscar bravo. done. i made the complaint like you asked. i presume an administator will be in contact in time.

Hitchhiker's Guide to...

constitutionus wrote: »

your a little hitler, youve been caught by the bollock, and here you are crying foul.

a) Nice Godwin

b) to be a little hitler, you'd have to be very small indeed. Wasn't he a bit of a dwarf himself


also constitutionus - politics.ie?! that is the most-biased discussion forum i think i've ever had the misfortune to read. at least debate on our politics forum is kind of non-biased. although nearly all political discussion makes me a little bit sick.

javaboy

Roundtower2 wrote: »

a) Nice Godwin

b) to be a little hitler, you'd have to be very small indeed. Wasn't he a bit of a dwarf himself

I think he was saying "a little hitler" as in "you're a little bit Hitlerish". You know, like an adjective. It's still a case of Godwin's law but it means your point b) above isn't really relevant. :pac:

jessop1

thanks for the support from various posters, its obvious others have noticed the problem too.

Can I get a definative answer from a senior boards mod as to whether
a) my thread can be re-opened and
b) can a directive be given that dedicated threads started to discuss specific aspects or items in relation to the treaty will not be closed.

As I've said and others have also pointed out, restricting discussion to the mega thread only is not conducive to open and ongoing discussion.

Noone wants to have to trawl through scores of pages (many of which be covering aspects not relative or relevant to the specific issue at hand) in order to catch up with the debate and then guide it to the specific issue they want to raise. It just doesnt make sense. Fine if people want to post on the mega thread but stiffling all other threads on the matter...:eek::mad:....... senior mods, please tell me you can see the problem here.

And btw, thats a great idea about having a dedicated sub forum for the treaty. how do I go about requesting it? A PM to the mods of politics? a thread in feedback?

thanks

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

thanks for the support from various posters, its obvious others have noticed the problem too.

Can I get a definative answer from a senior boards mod as to whether
a) my thread can be re-opened and
b) can a directive be given that dedicated threads started to discuss specific aspects or items in relation to the treaty will not be closed.

Just to be clear (and in case it wasn't obvious), I'll be opposing any such moves.

As I've said and others have also pointed out, restricting discussion to the mega thread only is not conducive to open and ongoing discussion.

You're not interested in discussion. You want a platform to soapbox. The moderation of Politics is specifically geared towards the former and away from the latter, which is why you have such a problem with it.

This thread is a case in point. You've refused to even acknowledge anything I've said so far. You also ignored my request in Politics to read the existing thread before posting in it.

Noone wants to have to trawl through scores of pages (many of which be covering aspects not relative or relevant to the specific issue at hand) in order to catch up with the debate and then guide it to the specific issue they want to raise.

The point you're missing is that it's entirely possible that the specific issue you want to raise may well already have been raised, debunked and put to bed in that very thread.

And btw, thats a great idea about having a dedicated sub forum for the treaty. how do I go about requesting it? A PM to the mods of politics? a thread in feedback?

I'll be strongly opposing this idea also, for reasons I've made clear in this very thread, and which you've chosen to ignore.

Moriarty

I was going to reply, but I'll just say "what he said ^" instead, along with the following..

There have been a number of cases specific to debate around the treaty with posters creating multiple accounts to make it appear that their "main" account has popular support (whatever the hell that's worth on an internet forum.. I've yet to figure out) on specific anti-treaty positions. Further, when they're challenged to prove their vague doomsday assertions they either (1) ignore the challenges and continue as before or (2) attempt to redirect debate.

You (plural) can't expect to act like children and then protest when you're treated like children in return.

jessop1

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're not interested in discussion. You want a platform to soapbox.

coming from someone who let out a rant at me and then closed the thread before I could respond, I find your hypocrisy breathtaking.

oscarBravo wrote: »

This thread is a case in point. You've refused to even acknowledge anything I've said so far. You also ignored my request in Politics to read the existing thread before posting in it.
The point you're missing is that it's entirely possible that
the specific issue you want to raise may well already have been raised, debunked and put to bed in that very thread.

I wont play your silly games oscar. I wanted to discuss the leaked memo specifically, which was in todays news, so a bit unlikely to have been already covered in the mega thread. New developments like this are a perfect reason to have new threads. Also, it should be entirely appropriate to start a new thread to discuss specific aspects of the treaty, even if that aspect has already been mentioned in some form and "debunked" (you wish) in some obscure page, mid mega thread.

jessop1

Hmm, I can see that the politics mods are sticking together on this one.

Can I ask a senior mod, perhaps someone more neutral and objective to take a look at this issue? Doesnt it seem a tad inappropriate that they stiffle all discussion on the treaty bar on that unwieldy mega thread, while at the same time there is an entire forum dedicated to the (much less relevant to us) US elections? Its obvious that the 2 politics mods above dont want to go for this but there is undoubtedly a strong case for it.

And I ask, please take a look at the mod decisions of oscarbravo, it is obvious that some of his decisions are driven by his own vehemently held political views. On a politics forum, that just aint right. Objectivity should be the order of the day for moderators, no?

thanks
Jessop

jessop1

Moriarty wrote: »

I was going to reply, but I'll just say "what he said ^" instead, along with the following..

There have been a number of cases specific to debate around the treaty with posters creating multiple accounts to make it appear that their "main" account has popular support (whatever the hell that's worth on an internet forum.. I've yet to figure out) on specific anti-treaty positions. Further, when they're challenged to prove their vague doomsday assertions they either (1) ignore the challenges and continue as before or (2) attempt to redirect debate.

You (plural) can't expect to act like children and then protest when you're treated like children in return.

Not sure what you mean? is this an accusation? perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. Certainly I have never posted on boards.ie using anything other than my own (ie this) user account. And how is your point re: duplicitous posters in any way relevant to the common sense request that more than one thread of discussion be allowed on the lisbon treaty?

You know, the more you guys post on this thread, the clearer it becomes that there is a serious bias problem with the politics forum moderation.

The_Minister

I vote Progressive Democrat, and I am not ashamed of it.

I feel that OscarBravo is biased towards Labour.

I feel that this is because OB has political beliefs of his own, because he doesn't just mod politics, he also partakes in discussion.

As a member of the most disliked political minority in Ireland, I would just like to say that I do not feel that OB has ever acted on his political beliefs while moderating, and I do not recall him ever banning someone who was not a tard.
In short OP, go jump in the Liffey, and take that link to the pile of crap in your sig with you.
It is people like you that mean I don't read the Treaty thread, because every time I do I want to write till my fingers bleed, as I decimate, point by point, the obnoxious lies that groups calling themselves the People's whatever, post up. And such anger isn't healthy;)


That said, the OP has a point.
No seriously.
It must be the 1000 monkeys, 1000 typewriters phenomenon.

We could benefit from a forum on the Lisbon Treaty.
The Treaty is a multifaceted and complex document, and can't be discussed in one thread. If we want to actually discuss it, several threads are needed.
The moderation would be murder though, and we would probably need a subforum of feedback for it.

gandalf

I would like a senior admin to close this thread because quite frankly it is a waste of electrons.

jessop1

The_Minister, its not about party political affiliation, its about his vehement political views on the treaty (he's a yes man, in case you havent guessed). Thats whats influencing his moderation.

But, insults, nonsensical rants, sweeping dismissals and instructions to commit suicide aside, you have crystallised the main point I was making, ie:

The_Minister wrote: »

The Treaty is a multifaceted and complex document, and can't be discussed in one thread. If we want to actually discuss it, several threads are needed.

Esel

The_Minister wrote: »

I vote Progressive Democrat, and I am not ashamed of it....As a member of the most disliked political minority in Ireland,......

You're confusing me here. You vote PD, but are a member of SF?

The_Minister

esel wrote: »

You're confusing me here. You vote PD, but are a member of SF?

I've been spat at for voting PD, and someone from SF threatened "to roll me down the street" once.

The Progressive Democrats are far and away the most disliked party in Ireland. You would not believe the **** I've heard people say about the PDs, most people don't seem to have a firm grasp of what they are even about.



EDIT: And, just to clarify, I am still on the fence regarding the Treaty. I just hate being lied to by the No side, and patronised by the Yes side.

javaboy

The_Minister wrote: »

I just hate being lied to by the No side, and patronised by the Yes side.

That sums up my feelings on the treaty so far. +1 for the idea of a sub forum for the Treaty.

Overheal

As this thread shows i know sweet **** all about your irish politicals. Nor do I especially care.

Ironically I think this would make me an ideal politics mod candidate impartiality or ignorance ill let you decide.

Nerin

Overheal wrote: »

As this thread shows i know sweet **** all about your irish politicals. Nor do I especially care.

Ironically I think this would make me an ideal politics mod candidate impartiality or ignorance ill let you decide.

amp test this mo fo

you are always sneaking around trying to get in the door

LostinBlanch

I'm with the minister on this one.

A bit worried though, if I keep agreeing with him does it mean I'll vote PD? Eeeek!

Overheal

Nerin wrote: »

amp test this mo fo

you are always sneaking around trying to get in the door

Shhhh....

GuanYin

jessop1 wrote: »

Can I ask a senior mod, perhaps someone more neutral and objective to take a look at this issue? Doesnt it seem a tad inappropriate that they stiffle all discussion on the treaty bar on that unwieldy mega thread, while at the same time there is an entire forum dedicated to the (much less relevant to us) US elections? Its obvious that the 2 politics mods above dont want to go for this but there is undoubtedly a strong case for it.

Do I count? Here is my take. You didn't read the rules, ergo you didn't folow the rules. You got moderated, didn't like it and you're here complaining about the mods behavior.

May I ask, why you didn't read the rules first, voice your opinions to the mods, or indeed the forum (via the thread in politics specifically designated "a discussion of the rules") and let natural debate take its course.

It seems to me that its a bit rich of you to come here and make accusations against a very senior and very well respected moderator when you yourself have not acted in an appropriate manner at any stage of procedings.

Or perhaps you feel that you should just be allowed do as you please and ignore the rules.

And I ask, please take a look at the mod decisions of oscarbravo, it is obvious that some of his decisions are driven by his own vehemently held political views. On a politics forum, that just aint right. Objectivity should be the order of the day for moderators, no?

I don't know OB, we communicate on a purely policy based level. He strikes me as a person of great balance and integrity and I'm the last person on boards.ie to give false platitudes to a mod (indeed, I'm usually the first vulture to start circling).

The issue with politics moderation is that because so many posters arrive with a certain level of righteous belief, anyone who disagrees is seen as the enemy. As Moriarty rightly points out, we get accused of every bias possible.

Personally I've been accused of being both a brainwashed communist chinese ex-pat AND an anti-chinese pro-tibet westerner by two separate people within maybe 4-5 hours of each other (I have the PMs if anyone doesn't believe this). The truth is I'm neither of these things, but because I must moderate and retain the right to express my opinions, it is an accusation that I and all the other politics mods must constantly endure.

OB merely acted according to the rules outlined. Rules you ignored.

In future if you wish to challenge a policy, why not do it the correct way? As it stands, as far as I'm concerned OB is the highest authority on this matter, barring the intervention of the site owners.

Overheal

The Islamofascist has a point you know.

humanji

Just to guage interest, I created a topic in the forums forum. So vote yay or nay for a sub-forum for the Lisbon Treaty.

Ron DMC

humanji wrote: »

Just to guage interest, I created a topic in the forums forum. So vote yay or nay for a sub-forum for the Lisbon Treaty.

I voted nay, but made a better suggestion.