Guidelines on Tibet/China

SkepticOne

A while back a number of threads about Tibet/China were closed and further discussions about the Tibet/China issue were prohibited pending a drawing up of guidelines.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55676634&postcount=263

The link in that post (April 2008) is to an announcement which is now unavailable but explained that guidelines for discussing these issues were to be drawn up by the moderators over the coming days and that discussions were suspended until then.

Have these rules been drawn up? If so, where? If not when will they created?

Thanks.

6th

Would a PM to oscarBravo not have been your best bet?

Beruthiel

6th wrote: »

Would a PM to oscarBravo not have been your best bet?

Considering he is the only one who can answer the question, yup, a PM to oscarBravo.

SkepticOne

I don't consider it a personal or private issue between me or any particular mod. It was announced to everyone that guidelines would be drawn up. It is to the benefit of not just me that these guidelines be published. Therefore this thread.

SkepticOne

Beruthiel wrote: »

Considering he is the only one who can answer the question, yup, a PM to oscarBravo.

According to the public announcent it was a collective decision among the mods of the politics forum. The guidelines were to be made public.

Beruthiel

SkepticOne wrote: »

I don't consider it a personal or private issue between me or any particular mod. It was announced to everyone that guidelines would be drawn up. It is to the benefit of not just me that these guidelines be published. Therefore this thread.

Yes.
But none of us know or have the answer for you here, hence it makes perfect sense to ask oscarBravo if you are actually looking for said info.

SkepticOne

Beruthiel wrote: »

Yes.
But none of us know or have the answer for you here, hence it makes perfect sense to ask oscarBravo if you are actually looking for said info.

OK, point taken. My frustration is that I have refrained from discussing the politics of that country due to this ban. But since then I notice these discussions creeping back in with warnings from the mods but without guidelines that they promised (though perhaps I am mistaken).

I will PM the mods and ask them to respond on this thread. Please keep it open for them to respond.

6th

I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.

Beruthiel

6th wrote: »

I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.

Then that makes two of us who could be wrong because that's exactly what I'm getting from this too.

_blank_

6th wrote: »

I cant help but think that answers isnt what you are after, more like you want to highlight what you see as a failing on the side of the politics mods. Of course this is just my opinion and I may very well be wrong.

Beruthiel wrote: »

Then that makes two of us who could be wrong because that's exactly what I'm getting from this too.

How can that be inferred from the plain-text typed here?

Seriously, he is asking a question as to where the guidelines which were promised by the moderators in April are. Three, possibly four, months is not an unreasonable length of time for the user to question the taboo nature of a topic, on which guidelines for the facilitation of it's discussion were promised by the moderators.

Fair enough, he may have went about it the incorrect way, and he was told that, and he has rectified the situation by now going to PM the moderators in question.

It does look like the moderators are taking an inordinate amount of time in coming up with said guidelines, no?

Marcus.Aurelius

Perhaps oB just forgot it after the announcement expired. I would agree with Des and reserve any judgements on either the OP or oB until oB has had a chance to reply.

Ponster

Yea Des, I think you're right and the mods may have put this on the back-burner but I inferred the same hidden meaning as the other mods. A PM to Oscar and if there was no reply then a feedback thread would have been the path I would have taken. In skipping the first step it does look more 'personal'.

That's besides that point though. It's a valid point by SkepticOne and we'll point Oscar in this direction to get an answer.

6th

Des wrote: »

How can that be inferred from the plain-text typed here?

I dont know about Beru but I've got mind powahs!

gandalf

A pm to the politics mods and then a thread here if the guidelines didn't appear would have been the better approach.

5starpool

Why isn't discussion of that allowed? We are not in China.

_blank_

5starpool wrote: »

Why isn't discussion of that allowed? We are not in China.

PM the Politics mods tbh.

Beruthiel

6th wrote: »

I dont know about Beru but I've got mind powahs!

Female intuition beats that hands down every time.


Has this been sorted now Gandalf?

6th

Beruthiel wrote: »

Female intuition beats that hands down every time.

Cool, I have that too.

SkepticOne

Thanks for the suggestions, Beruthial and others. I have PM'd a couple of the moderators of the politics forum pointing them to this thread.

gandalf

Beruthiel wrote: »

Has this been sorted now Gandalf?

LOL don't ask me I have nothing to do with the Politics forum anymore. I mod the "Politics Mods" forum

Beruthiel

gandalf wrote: »

LOL don't ask me I have nothing to do with the Politics forum anymore. I mod the "Politics Mods" forum

lol
Sorry, forgot you have retired

gandalf

NP I have repeated the request in the Politics Mods forum incase they are ignoring their PM's (the facists that they are )

GuanYin

This issue got lost in the storm that was the Lisbon treaty and the genesis of the EU forum.


We are finalizing some guidelines now.

Overheal

Freeeeee Tibet! /obligatory

Jack Sheehan

Overheal wrote: »

Freeeeee Tibet! /obligatory

I'll take it!

5starpool

Des wrote: »

PM the Politics mods tbh.

Very helpful, thanks. I'll rent the explanation dvd instead or download it perhaps.

SkepticOne

GuanYin wrote: »

We are finalizing some guidelines now.

Well done and thank you for your swift response. I am willing to assist in drawing up guidelines if it will speed things along. My opinion is that there is probably no need for special rules regarding China/Tibet issues any more than there are, say, for Israel/Palestine or other similar areas of conflict/human rights abuse.

leninbenjamin

something i take umbrage with: why do specific topics merit a different rule set on the same forum? it seems ridiculous to me that one topic (or rather subset of topics) in particular should merit special treatment.

addendum: PSI i see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda. what about the pro-China propaganda? or the anti Fianna Fail propaganda... or the pro Fianna Fail propaganda? or the pro-anti unionisation discussions... do they qualify as propaganda?

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

something i take umbrage with: why do specific topics merit a different rule set on the same forum? it seems ridiculous to me that one topic (or rather subset of topics) in particular should merit special treatment.

Because the subject generated alot of trolling and if I remember correctly near 100 offended Chinese accounts (usually multiple) to spam the forum.

addendum: PSI i see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda. what about the pro-China propaganda? or the anti Fianna Fail propaganda... or the pro Fianna Fail propaganda? or the pro-anti unionisation discussions... do they qualify as propaganda?

Who have I banned?

I told a poster who insinuated I was a racist and sexist and claimed these insinuations "expained my posts" to back up his accusation (which was basic trolling) or I'd "moderate" - I then deferred the issue to my co-mods (and any mod can check this) stating I would not be banning the user myself.

To date, I've neither banned nor offically sanctioned anyone.

Ironically, this type of mis-representation of the facts is exactly the problem in the first place. It might have taken you 1 minute of careful reading to figure out your entire addendum was based on a fictional event construed by you.

leninbenjamin

GuanYin wrote: »

Because the subject generated alot of trolling and if I remember correctly near 100 offended Chinese accounts (usually multiple) to spam the forum.

so do other topics. perhaps a solution should be sought in the form of an access request system a la soccer? I still think it's unfair and dangerous territory to clamp down on individual topics based on their 'sensitivity'. either ban discussion outright, or tighten rules across the board but selective moderation imo goes against the grain of the impartiality needed in the current board. sh*te talkers are a fact of life.

GuanYin wrote: »

Who have I banned?

I said banning, verb. not banned past tense. and i wasn't necessarily referring to you individually either, i meant you and you're moderating brethren.

GuanYin wrote: »

To date, I've neither banned nor offically sanctioned anyone.

you issued a warning in a currently active thread did you not?

GuanYin wrote: »

Incidently, we've banned this topic in the past. I'll ban any person who uses this thread for anti-chinese propaganda. Stick to the facts, not conjecture.

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

so do other topics. perhaps a solution should be sought in the form of an access request system a la soccer? I still think it's unfair and dangerous territory to clamp down on individual topics based on their 'sensitivity'. either ban discussion outright, or tighten rules across the board but selective moderation imo goes against the grain of the impartiality needed in the current board. sh*te talkers are a fact of life.

It is nothing to do with sensitivity, it is to do with the broader forum rules.

Taboo offences according to the politics forum rules:
Trolling
Opinion as facts
propaganda/soapboxing

I said banning, verb. not banned past tense. and i wasn't necessarily referring to you individually either, i meant you and you're moderating brethren.

You should be clearer, but OK, my apologies for assuming.

you issued a warning in a currently active thread did you not?

The warning is a contextual statement of the Politics forum rules (see above).

It isn't "special" for the topic per se. We don't allow propaganda on the forum in any way.

leninbenjamin

so wait... why are specific guidelines needed if it's already covered by the rules of the forum? once again you have me conflustricated PSI...

GuanYin

leninbenjamin wrote: »

so wait... why are specific guidelines needed if it's already covered by the rules of the forum? once again you have me conflustricated PSI...

Because the current charter rules don't cover tens of accounts set up by an influx of chinese posters starting 25 different threads on the same topic in outrage because alot of Irish people, who probably couldn't pick out Tibet on a map (and in some cases China), nevermind name the leader of the PRC or give any knowledge of how it works, have started soapboxing about stuff they don't know in a manner more suited to AH.

Actually that is the crux of it, the last time we had this issue Politics looked like AH. As much fun as it is infracting a few hundred posts a day, I do like to do other things on boards

So to summarize, I'm opressing our Chinese posters. Yes I'm on the PRC payroll.

The Sweeper

GuanYin wrote: »

Because the current charter rules don't cover tens of accounts set up by an influx of [posters of various nationalies] starting 25 different threads on the same topic in outrage because a lot of Irish people, who probably couldn't pick out [anything] on a map (and in some cases [anything at all]), nevermind name the leader of [any political party in any given country], or give any knowledge of how it works, have started soapboxing about stuff they don't know in a manner more suited to AH.

Actually that is the crux of it.

I just wanted to misquote you, because to me you've just summed up almost every single political argument I've ever listened to, had to listen to, been involved in, had to be involved in, heard of, heard alluded to, seen, read, absorbed or watched.

GuanYin

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

I just wanted to misquote you, because to me you've just summed up almost every single political argument I've ever listened to, had to listen to, been involved in, had to be involved in, heard of, heard alluded to, seen, read, absorbed or watched.

Welcome to my world

Hobbes

What gets me on the subject is the whole one sided part of the argument. For example you point out that the Dali Lama was paid by the CIA to help fund what we would call "terrorists" and people go into denial.

Asiaprod

For the record,had a couple of anti Dali Lama/China posts in Buddhism. I just canned them all. Out of curiosity, can one expect more of this type of post in the athletic-oriented forums with the upcoming Olympics?

bonkey

leninbenjamin wrote: »

I said banning, verb. not banned past tense. and i wasn't necessarily referring to you individually either, i meant you and you're moderating brethren.

With respect, your full statement was : "PSI, I see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda.". (emphasis mine)

The use of a moniker and the word "you" suggests that the word you is directed personally and not to the moderators as a group.

The use of the term "once again" requires that a previous event of this nature took place.

The specification of "anti-China propaganda" makes it clear what specific events the previous alleged bannings were for.

You may well have meant something different, but between GuanYin's interpretation of what you said, and your "clarification" above, his is far more accurate to what was written.

You suggested that he banned someone for posting anti-China propaganda and is at it again.

To anyone who thinks this pedantry on my part, I would point out that I wasn't the one to introduce grammatical analysis of the post in question. I'm merely pointing out that if we go down that road, we'll see that leninbenjamin's grammatical analysis would appear to be as factually flawed as the original claim itself.

SkepticOne

Glad all that's sorted. Obviously given the nature of the subject there's going to be heated discussions. While I would question the need for additional rules for a particular topic I think the important thing is that arbitrary judgements should be avoided simply because an issue is sensitive or causes reactions from other countries. Either a) have discussions on the China/Tibet question under the same basis as other topics (this would be my preference) or b) draw up clear rules governing the discussions.

leninbenjamin

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, your full statement was : "PSI, I see you are banning once again for the anti-China propaganda.". (emphasis mine)

The use of a moniker and the word "you" suggests that the word you is directed personally and not to the moderators as a group.

The use of the term "once again" requires that a previous event of this nature took place.

The specification of "anti-China propaganda" makes it clear what specific events the previous alleged bannings were for.

You may well have meant something different, but between GuanYin's interpretation of what you said, and your "clarification" above, his is far more accurate to what was written.

You suggested that he banned someone for posting anti-China propaganda and is at it again.

To anyone who thinks this pedantry on my part, I would point out that I wasn't the one to introduce grammatical analysis of the post in question. I'm merely pointing out that if we go down that road, we'll see that leninbenjamin's grammatical analysis would appear to be as factually flawed as the original claim itself.

i expressed my self poorly last night. bog whoop. happens all the time. we were able to continue the conversation yet you felt the need to bring it back and point how much i fail at the English language?

faceman

I was never fond of Tibet. But T'Pau, she was hot! I think. All Girl Bands are great though.

DeVore

Well, you were the one who got all hyper-grammatical in the first place.


As for China, its a sensitive issue with the olympics coming up. I'm not concerned about China being criticised, we don't live in China after all as pointed out above. However I do think we should be careful about generalising about one sixth of the earths population.

We'll need guidelines (probably more like re-iterations of the rules with specific emphasis) before the Olympics but apparently the Pol Mods are working on them so everthing should be hunky dory shortly.


DeV.

pickarooney

bonkey wrote: »

You may well have meant something different, but between GuanYin's interpretation of what you said, and your "clarification" above, his is far more accurate to what was written.

Ah, you didn't...

oscarBravo

We've had a wee chat about this. It's probably fair to say that (insofar as practicable) there shouldn't be a specific set of rules for a specific issue, not least because tough cases make bad laws.

The background to this is that a while ago there was a lot of press coverage about the whole Tibet/China issue. It's a topic that, for various reasons, people get emotive about and express strongly-held (and not always strongly-informed) opinions. So far, so usual day at the office for Politics.

What's different is that some of the opinions expressed were (intentionally or otherwise) downright insulting, offensive and patronising to not merely China as a country, but all Chinese people. Unsurprisingly, several Chinese members took umbrage at this, and vented their spleen on the forum. They also seem to have spread the word and encouraged others to join them in doing so. The result was a mess of repetitive threads with lots of new members posting in anger without bothering to understand the rules. Throw in something of a language barrier, and some unwillingness on both sides to accept the other's viewpoint as having any validity, and the result is a forum that's swamped with pointless arguments.

This drags me ever closer to the central point: we, the Politics moderators, see our role as being facilitators of rational, intelligent, informative and interesting discussion of political topics. We take a fair bit of flak for being stricter than most other forums in our application of the rules, but I think most regulars would agree that, by and large, the signal-to-noise ratio is pretty good as a result. Others seem to feel that the forum would be better off unmoderated, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Long story short: we feel that the existing rules give us quite a bit of latitude in keeping discussions on the rails, through selective application of firmness. We have a rule on expressing opinion as if it were fact - this is one that can be used to crack down on uninformed ranting, if such ranting is likely to raise the noise level as it did in the past.

Short story even shorter: discussion of China and Tibet is allowed in Politics, subject to firm moderation. Duplicate threads on similar topics will be closed. Ill-informed generalisations will be challenged, and if necessary clamped down upon.

GuanYin and the others may have something to add to this, and I'll clarify if necessary, but if someone's going to ask me precisely where the line is drawn so that they can spend all their time carefully staying just inside it, I'm sorry to have to disappoint.