Biased mods?

RandomName2

Within the Politics board every mod seems to hold the same viepoint on a number of areas. Moreover, people who make posts which are anti-Lisbon seem to be more likely to earn infractions. Maybe coincidental, but I have seen posters who have called for eugenics when criticising the Irish 'no' vote, have on occasion called the 'no' posters halfwitted, or indeed, accused them of being paid secret members of shady organisations. None of which has generated even the raise of an eyebrow.

sceptre

I could do with a few links as I don't recall you reporting any posts related to what you've mentioned. Links help me know what you're referring to, though reported posts tend to be more helpful as they raise the problem as it occurs rather than later as part of a list. At this point, links would be better than nothing as those Lisbon threads tend to attract a high number of posts.

Having said that, I posted a long entry yesterday evening on one of those Lisbon threads. Is that relevant in any way? If parts of it are, it'd save me time repeating them.

I've said quite a number of times that as a mod I'm anti nothing except anti-idiocy. I am very anti-idiocy though. I'm extremely biased against idiocy, I'll definitely say that much.

Toss us a few links, they could help.

RandomName2

sceptre wrote: »

I could do with a few links as I don't recall you reporting any posts related to what you've mentioned. Links help me know what you're referring to, though reported posts tend to be more helpful as they raise the problem as it occurs rather than later as part of a list. At this point, links would be better than nothing as those Lisbon threads tend to attract a high number of posts.

Having said that, I posted a long entry yesterday evening on one of those Lisbon threads. Is that relevant in any way? If parts of it are, it'd save me time repeating them.

Oh yes, I saw your post, and understood what you were getting at. I didn't bother reporting any of the above posts at the time as I don't inherently object to them saying what they were saying (Voltaire quote in superfluous). Having said that, I object to one side being 'singled out' as it were. The warning which I personally received I believe is a case in point, but then again, maybe that is just because it happened to be me;

Dear RandomName2,

You have received a warning at boards.ie.

Reason:

---

Being Naughty

Tsk. Clever, but not clever enough.

---

Original Post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61106680

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by turgon
So in the case of any international Treaty, such as ones prohibiting certain types of armaments (example: cluster bombs), in the case that one state that promised to ratify it fails, all other states should stop????

Tbh all you seem to be exhibiting is that you dont really understand the complexity of the EU.

"To be honest, you do not seem to understand the actual rules of the EU - the rules that we all signed up to concerning unaminous decisions. It doesn't matter whether a treaty is rejected by a piss-pot eastern bloc member, or by Germany or France, or all 27.

There is a reason for that unanimity is because each member is supposed to be an independent soverign state, protected from being bulldozed by any individual member, or even by every other member combined.

You might not like that. Indeed, Lisbon seeks to overturn some of the original composition of the EU concerning unaminous decisions, at least in terms of the Commission.

You obviously hope that state borders and individual EU state governments will be removed in time, which there is some justification for (although, annoyingly it can't be compared to Charlamagne's conglomeration due to Nazi connoctations ... or Roman Empire due to Italian fascist connoctations )"

The warning was obviously given due to the mention of fascism in my opinionated post. The fact that a political movement was mentioned in a politics thread, in relation to historical analogies, although a tangent to the discussion at hand was, I believe, a bizarre reason to give a warning.

sceptre

Cool, well that's one.

It'd be a lot easier for me to consider the "people who make posts which are anti-Lisbon seem to be more likely to earn infractions" and "posters who have called for eugenics when criticising the Irish 'no' vote, have on occasion called the 'no' posters halfwitted, or indeed, accused them of being paid secret members of shady organisations" complaints if I get more than one. And more than two, for example, help me (and your complaint) out by giving me a selection to make a case with.

I'm not dismissing your complaint but (actually I'm giving it the gravity you think it deserves) you've got to give me something to work with if you want me to work on it. And given that you're clearly saying there's a big problem that you can see, it helps me consider the complaint about an inherent bias a lot easier if you give me more than a single warning you picked up. Throw me a few bones. I can consider the single warning too in isolation but give me something on the complaint.

Scofflaw

Actually, that particular warning may indeed have been undeserved. It followed on from a post about two above that where I'd warned posters about making throwaway Mugabe and Nazi comparisons, so, given the immediate juxtaposition, I'm afraid I assumed RandomName2 was 'cleverly' making Nazi references without making them, or ridiculing the warning.

If that wasn't the intent, I obviously owe an apology.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RandomName2

Thanked accordingly (as there seems to be no button in this thread beside the particular post to do so)

Never heard of Mugabe as a loose perjorative term - but the 'nazi' hysteria, unfortunately, does prevail - both is terms of the use of the term and the reaction to such usage .

Edit: oh I see what you were refering to with Mugabe. Nevertheless, no need to embue the Zimbabwe dictatorship with an importance it does not merit; make it an 'unmentionable' and hence promote its use as merely an offensive term...

Scofflaw

RandomName2 wrote: »

Thanked accordingly (as there seems to be no button in this thread beside the particular post to do so)

Never heard of Mugabe as a loose perjorative term - but the 'nazi' hysteria, unfortunately, does prevail - both is terms of the use of the term and the reaction to such usage .

Edit: oh I see what you were refering to with Mugabe. Nevertheless, no need to embue the Zimbabwe dictatorship with an importance it does not merit; make it an 'unmentionable' and hence promote its use as merely an offensive term...

Ah, neither of them are 'unmentionable'. I wouldn't have the slightest objection to someone putting forward a proper comparison - after all, fascism is a corporatist system, we live in a corporatist state ourselves....

All I object to, really, is the laziness involved. There's no difference between the Nazi or Zimbabwe stuff and people writing 'cnuts'.

cordially,
Scofflaw