Why is atheist Ireland/Michael Nugent given free advertising space on boards.ie?

Brown Bomber

I'm not aware of anyone else that is afforded such a luxury. Atheist Ireland is a fee-paying lobby group headed by Michael Nugent.

He has opened 33 threads press releases all publicising atheist Ireland's campaigns, the organisation itself or issuing directives:

Teach Don't Preach: new secular education website launched
Atheist Ireland has launched a new website...

Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census - New campaign launched
Atheist Ireland has launched our campaign...

Be Honest about Religion in the Irish Census - Campaign Updated
This campaign is now updated on the Atheist Ireland website

Atheist Ireland submission to UN CERD on Irish schools

Six Questions for Secular Voters
Atheist Ireland is writing to all election candidates

Canvass for Ivana Bacik and Ruairi Quinn, Saturday 19 Feb
On Saturday week, 19 February, Atheist Ireland members will be spending two hours in the morning canvassing and dropping leaflets

Party and candidate replies to secular policy questions
Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland are asking voters to vote for candidates who support secular policies in the General Election on Friday

Attend the World Atheist Convention in Dublin, June 3-5 2011
You can now buy discounted early-bird tickets for the World Atheist Convention in the O’Callaghan Alexander Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, from 3-5 June 2011. The Convention, co-hosted by Atheist Ireland

Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life – opinions welcome
This weekend, June 3-5, the World Atheist Convention will take place in Dublin.

Atheist Ireland meets Forum on Primary Education
Yesterday, Tuesday September 6, Jane Donnelly and I attended the Department of Education’s Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.

Atheist Ireland attends OSCE human rights conference in Warsaw
Jane Donnelly and I are in Poland today for the OSCE Human Rights Conference on Human Rights.

Five questions on secular issues for the Irish Presidential candidates
Atheist Ireland has written to the seven Presidential candidates

Atheist Ireland submission to Dept of Education on school enrolment
This is Atheist Ireland's submission to the Department of Education's discussion paper

Atheist Ireland response to interim report of Forum on Patronage and Pluralism
Ensuring Effective Remedies for an Objective, Critical and Pluralistic Secular Education Atheist Ireland has responded to the interim report of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism.

Secular Sunday: new weekly newsletter from Atheist Ireland
Atheist ireland is starting a new weekly email newsletter called Secular Sunday. It will include details of events, activities, news items and other relevant topics. The first issue, which you can read here,

Five Steps to Civil Rights in a Secular Ireland
These are five steps to civil rights in a secular Ireland. Atheist Ireland is lobbying to promote these proposals on an ongoing basis.

Is Anything Sacred? A public discussion of blasphemy laws
Atheist Ireland is hosting a public discussion

Well I am sure that you get the point. The rest of the threads are here. http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=303480&threads=1&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=*%3A*&page=1

Brown Bomber

forgot to add this, which is taken from the humanities charter which is the best definition I could find of what I perceive taking place.

Spamming or shilling: You may not use the forum to propagate your message, promote your business/website/product/service, or engage in any form of advertising. This behaviour is prohibited generally on Boards.ie, and will probably earn you a site-ban as well as a forum ban.

Have I understood this correctly?

[-0-]

What part of this has he broken?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

What part of this has he broken?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

I'm not in a position to answer that, other than site rules obviously supersede forum charters.

Esel

[-0-] wrote: »

What part of this has he broken?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not in a position to answer that, other than site rules obviously supersede forum charters.

Interesting bit from the charter linked above:

Unlike other forums where proselytizing is banned, I suggest we don't need to do that here. As long as the basic rules are followed I can't see this being an issue - and it does spark debate.

Brown Bomber

Esel wrote: »

Interesting bit from the charter linked above:

Right, but this is something else. Advertising his website, selling tickets and general and almost exclusive promotion.

The more I think of it it is not proselytizing at all as he is preaching to the choir or in this case tapping into a target-market.

Cookie_Monster

it's advertising and spam and he should be banned

jd007

Did you report any of the threads? Post a link to his profile in the spammer thread?

Penn

"Discretion of the moderator"

Basically, the site rules are a "catch-all", but forum moderators are allowed to use their own judgement in allowing some advertisements. Michael Nugent's threads are absolutely relevant to the forum. While I'm sure profit is made from them, they are still of interest to the forum users. And he doesn't solely use the forum for advertising, he also engages in many discussions and is well respected by forum users.

This is not a unique occurance on this forum. Hell, I mod Podcasts and we allow people to advertise their own Podcasts under certain rules and conditions. And I have seen (and can provide links etc via PM to back up my claims) in many other forums on Boards where people pimp their own blog/website/events, but they are allowed to do so because they're not just here to advertise, but have become part of that community and their blog/website/event is of benefit to the posters of that community.

This is a non-issue.

Fr_Dougal

Penn wrote: »

"Discretion of the moderator"

Basically, the site rules are a "catch-all", but forum moderators are allowed to use their own judgement in allowing some advertisements. Michael Nugent's threads are absolutely relevant to the forum. While I'm sure profit is made from them, they are still of interest to the forum users.

One could argue that all spam is of interest to forum users. 'tis many a time I have been looking for a "sexy dress".

Regarding spam and advertising, I don't think the lines should be blurred; at all.

Penn

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

One could argue that all spam is of interest to forum users. 'tis many a time I have been looking for a "sexy dress".

Regarding spam and advertising, I don't think the lines should be blurred; at all.

Again, it's only one factor in what might make a mod allow it on the forum. Mods don't want people using their forums for blatant advertising any more than the admin want it on the site in general, but there are some occasions where the mods can use their judgement to say "This can greatly benefit the forum, the poster isn't purely using the forum as an advertising tool and instead engages in other discussions, and if the poster stepped beyond the boundaries of acceptability in what they're posting, action can be taken against them then.

It's not a completely black and white issue. On Cool Vids & Pics & Links, we close and delete threads people start where they're trying to get people to watch their own Youtube video. It's a form of advertising. Those people are using Boards and the CVPL forum to increase the viewcount on their Youtube videos, they don't engage in discussion or post in other threads apart from their own video, and they'd keep bumping their own threads.

Try applying that rule to the Fighting Games forum (for example). People are posting their own videos there too, linking to their own Youtube channels. Bumping threads with their own videos.

However, they are part of the community. They engage with other users. They're not doing it to increase their Youtube viewcount, they're doing it because it's something other posters are interested in, and it forms part of the discussion which is the basis of the forum.

And what about the entire Band Promotion forum? Where people can advertise their own music.

Discretion of the Moderator is an important rule because it allows mods to use their own judgement and say "Technically, this may be outside of the rules. However, the benefits far outweigh the negatives and it's reasonable to allow it under certain conditions"

Lelantos

Penn wrote: »

"Discretion of the moderator"



This is a non-issue.

Unless the OP is a bible thumper & is appalled that boards supports the dark lord

Ken.

The easiest way to sort it out is to report his posts in the Spammer Notification Thread.

If the admins have no problem with it then he's okay to continue.

Penn

ken wrote: »

The easiest way to sort it out is to report his posts in the Spammer Notification Thread.

If the admins have no problem with it then he's okay to continue.

There's a difference between advertising and spam.

Best course of action would have been to report the posts. If no action was taken, PM the mods. If they still allowed it, PM the CMods or post on HelpDesk and mark it for Admin Attention. Though the Admin will probably see it here too soon enough anyway.

Gordon

As Penn is saying, if it benefits the forum, if the community want it, then it's a positive addition to the forum and it's allowed. It's clear that the posts provoke discussion and interest, for example, the first 10 links that you posted that were originally posted back in 2011 have garnered lots of thanks or lots of discussion, the vast majority of threads see both.

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

"Discretion of the moderator"

Basically, the site rules are a "catch-all", but forum moderators are allowed to use their own judgement in allowing some advertisements. Michael Nugent's threads are absolutely relevant to the forum. While I'm sure profit is made from them, they are still of interest to the forum users. And he doesn't solely use the forum for advertising, he also engages in many discussions and is well respected by forum users.

This is not a unique occurance on this forum. Hell, I mod Podcasts and we allow people to advertise their own Podcasts under certain rules and conditions. And I have seen (and can provide links etc via PM to back up my claims) in many other forums on Boards where people pimp their own blog/website/events, but they are allowed to do so because they're not just here to advertise, but have become part of that community and their blog/website/event is of benefit to the posters of that community.

+1 P there's is always leeway in this kinda thing for valued members of a forum and like you can think of quite the number of examples. Dead right too.

However I can also see BB's point in this case. Actually forget the individual case, take any forum on Boards and imagine if all of threads started by a user, including their first were promotion/advertising of their hobby/biz/campaign/religion and most of their posts were within those threads I could see questions being raised alright. Put it another way and narrow it down further, imagine if this was happening in one of the other Spirituality forums. How long would a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist user last in similar circumstances? How long would the head of Catholicireland.net last? Does similar happen there? Genuine questions.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

Put it another way and narrow it down further, imagine if this was happening in one of the other Spirituality forums. How long would a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist user last in similar circumstances? How long would the head of Catholicireland.net last? Does similar happen there? Genuine questions.

Well, I can't think of anything comparable, but that's not to say that the mods of those forums shouldn't or wouldn't allow similar. Hell, if the Pope started posting on Christianity, I wouldn't be reporting him for Advertising

Again, I think a lot of it has to do with the posters interactions with the forum. If (for example) the head of Catholicireland.net posted in Christianity that they were having a meeting people could pay to come to, and a discussion formed out of that on the thread, if the poster didn't respond and engage, then it's just blatant advertising. Or if they responded in another discussion with "I've given my own opinion on this matter here Catholicireland.net/blog-entry-16", that's advertising too as they're not engaging in discussion. Michael Nugent does post threads about whats going on with Atheist Ireland and posts a lot in those threads, but he also posts in other threads and joins in discussions, and his discussions are usually well-received.

Benny_Cake

I've found Michael to be a very good contributor and I'd also give him credit for bringing cases where Christians are being persecuted for their faith around the world to the attention of posters in the Christianity forum.If someone joined the Christianity forum purely to shill their website or events I wouldn't allow them to do that,but if they are a regular contributor who engages in discussion then it's a different matter, and I think Michael Nugent falls into that category.

Brown Bomber

Wibbs wrote: »

Put it another way and narrow it down further, imagine if this was happening in one of the other Spirituality forums. How long would a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist user last in similar circumstances? How long would the head of Catholicireland.net last? Does similar happen there? Genuine questions.

No need to imagine.

Here is a recent example from Buddhism:

THE OP

talk by Samdhong Rinpoche, Thur 30th Aug, ~18:15pm
Samdhong Rinpoche will teach on "What Buddhism has to offer the Modern World" via live streaming at videostreaming.rigpa.org

MOD/ADMIN ASIAPROD'S RESPONSE(s)

A great idea. But. No advertising in any shape or format.

No. There is a blanket Boards rule about advertising please use your common sense.
Draw peoples attention to the event but let them go and find the information for themselves. Point them to a link on the event. Talk about your experience if you have been. Stay away from the like of pricing and testimonials.

And Asiaprod is also mod/admin of the forum that Atheist Ireland exclusively lobbies in if I am not mistaken.

This is the position of the Spirituality forum:
No Advertising
This is a community forum and is not for advertising. Advertising of commercial services is strictly forbidden. Anyone found to be advertising will be banned and blacklisted from being mentioned on the forum.

Brown Bomber

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've found Michael to be a very good contributor and I'd also give him credit for bringing cases where Christians are being persecuted for their faith around the world to the attention of posters in the Christianity forum.If someone joined the Christianity forum purely to shill their website or events I wouldn't allow them to do that,but if they are a regular contributor who engages in discussion then it's a different matter, and I think Michael Nugent falls into that category.

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

RE the Christianity forum he more or less is using to promote his events/campaigns. The difference being he is pandering to a more suitable demographic for these particular campaigns. Three OP's, all concernced with lobbying campaigns and only one follow up post in total in any of the three thread.

Sacksian

I think the answer in this case, and other similar feedback threads, is that the judgement of the moderators and the context/nature of specific forums can prevail above hard and fast rules or black/white distinctions.

Personally, I think moderators' freedom to make such judgements should be protected (and this is where the skill in modding comes from), rather than tying them to some impossibly literal interpretation of the charters.

If they're making bad judgements, that's another matter.

looksee

OK, that is all interesting. I thought there was a general over-arching rule against advertising and that as mods we were supporting that with the occasional lee-way for a relevant charity event by long term posters.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber, this is looking awfully like you're trying to silence someone whos opinion you don't like.

There's been an admin on this thread. Other examples have been given (would you like me banned from boards? My youtube channel is discussed above, and on top of that I have to allow some tournament organisers to advertise too, as they're literally the lifesblood of the forum).

You can rulesmonger all you like: The reality is the decision relies with the mods, and I seriously doubt the admins are going to over ride them.

Fr_Dougal

Penn wrote: »

Again, I think a lot of it has to do with the posters interactions with the forum. If (for example) the head of Catholicireland.net posted in Christianity that they were having a meeting people could pay to come to, and a discussion formed out of that on the thread, if the poster didn't respond and engage, then it's just blatant advertising. Or if they responded in another discussion with "I've given my own opinion on this matter here Catholicireland.net/blog-entry-16", that's advertising too as they're not engaging in discussion. Michael Nugent does post threads about whats going on with Atheist Ireland and posts a lot in those threads, but he also posts in other threads and joins in discussions, and his discussions are usually well-received.

That's fair enough.

However with such an onus being placed on the importance of social media, perhaps the mods should be mindful that it would be well worth a PR/Shill/Spammers while to play the 'long game' and interact with the forum and it's members enough to reap a business/personal financial reward through their own posts etc. Perhaps in these cases boards should be more proactive in offering Official Rep accounts so that regular boards members know that these posters have their own agenda/interest.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Brown Bomber, this is looking awfully like you're trying to silence someone whos opinion you don't like.

It should be clear that I am not trying to silence anyone. I haven't questioned his right to post whatever he desires the same as anyone other user. However, his behaviour is not that of a regular user it is that of an interest group. The issue is not his "opinions" but his advertisement of websites, ticket sales, campaigns and events and so on.

Whatever issues or "opinions" he wants to raise and discuss he can freely do so without resorting to lobbying and linking to his fee-paying organisation.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

There's been an admin on this thread. Other examples have been given (would you like me banned from boards? My youtube channel is discussed above, and on top of that I have to allow some tournament organisers to advertise too, as they're literally the lifesblood of the forum).

You can rulesmonger all you like: The reality is the decision relies with the mods, and I seriously doubt the admins are going to over ride them.

What you call "rule-mongering" I describe as a wish to see rules applied consistently and without prejudice. If Nugent is free to launch every Atheist Ireland campaign through boards then there is absolutely no reason why bou can't promote a weblink to a talk on "what Hinduism has to offer the modern world".

By the same token the head of Scientology in Ireland and should be free to advertise their cult on boards issuing press releases and other assorted propaganda.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you call "rule-mongering" I describe as a wish to see rules applied consistently and without prejudice.

Boards doesn't work like that.

Do you think the same rules should be applied in After Hours as in Personal Issues as in Atheism?

Moderators need to be able to pilot their own ships.

Wibbs

looksee wrote: »

OK, that is all interesting. I thought there was a general over-arching rule against advertising and that as mods we were supporting that with the occasional lee-way for a relevant charity event by long term posters.

That was my take too TBH. If someone came into say the watches forum representing a brand and the majority of their posts and all the threads they started were about that brand, they'd be hopped on PDQ and referred to hello@boards.ie. In fact they have been. OK that's a brand, but take tLL if the same situation arose about a I dunno a female only event/club/action group and was promoted by one user with a direct interest in same and all the threads they started were about same again they'd be modded when spotted. I'd be surprised if it got past the first such thread TBH. When it comes from a valued member of the community who has other strings to their bow it'll get much more leeway, but even there such threads generally get closed after a while if it's all about the promotion. I can recall a thread like that not so long ago.

I'd generally follow Sacksian's take "I think the answer in this case, and other similar feedback threads, is that the judgement of the moderators and the context/nature of specific forums can prevail above hard and fast rules or black/white distinctions.Its a hard one to navigate though and will vary across forums. Doctor DooM's forum examples for instance. Still the Buddhist example above looks pretty out of step with the A&A example. He/she was modded for that one thread and it doesn't look like he/she started others. 30 odd threads does start to look like straight out promotion(though as usual it's easy to cherrypick so...).

Possible solution? Maybe in cases like this have just one thread about and for the group/promotion/event/person. That way the community have the access to the info, but without the scent of outright promotion? That would cover Doctor DooM's event organisers etc too and another thread for youtube channels etc. Just thinking out loud but that might go some way to making for consistency regardless of forums?

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Brown Bomber, this is looking awfully like you're trying to silence someone whos opinion you don't like.

Defo not in my case(being of the agnostic/atheistic bent myself), well unless Penn's notion of the pope posting on Christianity happened, then I'd wear out the report post button

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Possible solution? Maybe in cases like this have just one thread about and for the group/promotion/event/person. That way the community have the access to the info, but without the scent of outright promotion? That would cover Doctor DooM's event organisers etc too and another thread for youtube channels etc. Just thinking out loud but that might go some way to making for consistency regardless of forums?


Defo not in my case(being of the agnostic/atheistic bent myself), well unless Penn's notion of the pope posting on Christianity happened, then I'd wear out the report post button

IMO Wibbs, the solution is to allow the local mods to do their jobs and make the decision, as they are the experts on the situation. Forcing anything on them without understanding the intricacies involved in each individual forums is not a good idea.

For example: I don't think one thread would do for tournaments: There'll be 3 or 4 on the go at the same time and people will be trying to make travel arrangements and the like, so I'd rather have them seperate. Otherwise it'd get messy quick.

looksee

Maybe if this is the case posters should as a general rule be given a 'one chance' warning before banning newcomers for posting about an event/their business etc. It would be very easy for a new poster to see the rules on one forum and assume that the same applies everywhere.

Yes I know they should read the charter, but a newcomer might not realise that the charters are different. It is not really intuitive to a newcomer to appreciate that this person is posting about an event and is allowed to do so because they are established posters, but the newcomer could be straight out banned.

I have no problem with people posting about their events/websites etc, it can be advantageous, but there needs to be a bit of clarity about it.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

No offence Wibbs, but the solution is to allow the local mods to do their jobs and make the decision, as they are the experts on the situation.

Dont get me wrong DD, I'm well down with the local mods are at the sharp end take on things, but what happens if local decisions appear to break the terms of use for all of us on the site?

4.3 Representing a company or other entity

If you are using boards.ie as a representative of a company or other entity (including, but not limited to Charity or Volunteer organisations, Student’s Unions, Trade Unions, Academic Institutions, Chambers of Commerce, Departments of Government) you represent that you have the authority to enter into these Terms of Use on behalf of that company or entity, and agree that the terms “you” and “your” in this agreement refers to your company or other entity. You may not post on boards.ie other than in your individual capacity unless you have permission from Boards.ie Limited. Contact reps@boards.ie for more details.

As looksee says

Maybe if this is the case posters should as a general rule be given a 'one chance' warning before banning newcomers for posting about an event/their business etc.

People get sitebanned for breaking it. I've personally permabanned people for similar. In this highlighted case the users posts very rarely stray beyond the organisation he represents and none of 30 odd threads he starts do. As I've noted Gordon saying before(or was it Zaph?) "Boards is a discussion site, not a noticeboard" which in this example he seems to be using it as the latter. If he contacted the office about it then cool beans, but if not it does look odd. That's why I suggested the one thread for promotion etc.

Gumbi

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I've found Michael to be a very good contributor and I'd also give him credit for bringing cases where Christians are being persecuted for their faith around the world to the attention of posters in the Christianity forum.If someone joined the Christianity forum purely to shill their website or events I wouldn't allow them to do that,but if they are a regular contributor who engages in discussion then it's a different matter, and I think Michael Nugent falls into that category.

Always the voice of reason.

Morag

Brown Bomber did you PM the mods of the A&A forum about this?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

Working backwards from oldest to newest there begins with 14 (14)posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”

A single comment unrelated to Atheist Ireland and would be classified as regular user comment (1) is followed by 7 (21)posts on ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus”.

Next comes a single ”regular user” comment (2). Followed by 12 (33) more posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”, another 4 (37) posts on ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” then a single post promoting AI in a thread called ”what makes a cult different from a religion?” (38), 4 (42) more in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”, another (43) in ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” and then 7 (49) more in ” you join Atheist Ireland” and then another 4 (53) in ”Atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus”

A new thread (54) is started by Nugent - ”Teach don't Preach: New Secular Education Website Launched”. This is an Atheist Ireland project. Then 2 more posts on ”would you join Atheist Ireland” (56), Next comes an Atheist Ireland campaign launched through boards entitled ”Be Honest to Godless in the Irish Census - New campaign launched” with Nugent as the OP (57).

2 (59) posts follow and after that another thread (60) is opened, again with Nugent as the OP on the same campaign. This is called ”Be Honest about Religion in the Irish Census - Campaign Updated” This is followed by another 2 (62) posts in ”would you join Atheist Ireland”

The next thread (63) courtesy of Nugent is ”Six Questions for Secular Voters ” - yet another Atheist Ireland campaign! There are two posts (65) from Michael in this thread when there arrives a third (3) ”regular user” comment, another post in (66) ”Six Questions for Secular Voters” and another (67) in ”Athiest Ireland out to remove the Angelus”.

Michael then makes five (8) posts as a ”regular user” and the proceeds to issue an Atheist Ireland press release (68) requesting volunteers to lobby for Atheist Ireland members involved in elections in a thread opened by Nugent called ”Canvass for Ivana Bacik and Ruairi Quinn, Saturday 19 Feb”. There are then 5 (73) posts made by Nugent in this thread followed by another post (74) in ”would you join Atheist Ireland” and then two (10) ”regular user” comments.

Then comes another post (75) in ”Canvass for Ivana Bacik and Ruairi Quinn, Saturday 19 Feb” After this comes 2 (77) posts about an debate between atheist Ireland and a Muslim, then a post each in ”atheist Ireland out to remove the Angelus” and ”would you consider joining Atheist Ireland”.

Next comes the promotion by Nugent of a conference Atheist Ireland is co-hosting in a thread ” called ”Attend the World Atheist Convention in Dublin, June 3-5 2011 ” included in the OP is a link to buy tickets (78). This is followed by 3 (81) more posts in the thread ”Be Honest To Godless – New Campaign Launched”.

In this cross-section of 101 posts, which I would be highly confident is representative ,there is as I've predicted a less than 10% non-atheist Ireland promotional posts. Any idea that Nugent is contributing genuinely and positively in other ways is a myth.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Boards doesn't work like that.

Do you think the same rules should be applied in After Hours as in Personal Issues as in Atheism?

Moderators need to be able to pilot their own ships.

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

I can accept a bending of the rules for users on good terms with the site (for their actual contributions to the site; not who they are and what they represent. If they were maybe to advertise for sponsorship in a marathon or a gig or something like that or even to sign a petitition to help save a local hospital or something. This is different though, 90% of his posts are political lobbying and self-promotion. This is his only significant contribution and I am not aware of another poster/interest group that is given such a privelidge. Are you...?

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Dont get me wrong DD, I'm well down with the local mods are at the sharp end take on things, but what happens if local decisions appear to break the terms of use for all of us on the site?

4.3 Representing a company or other entity

If you are using boards.ie as a representative of a company or other entity (including, but not limited to Charity or Volunteer organisations, Student’s Unions, Trade Unions, Academic Institutions, Chambers of Commerce, Departments of Government) you represent that you have the authority to enter into these Terms of Use on behalf of that company or entity, and agree that the terms “you” and “your” in this agreement refers to your company or other entity. You may not post on boards.ie other than in your individual capacity unless you have permission from Boards.ie Limited. Contact reps@boards.ie for more details.

Like the thunderdome does, for example? "Don't be a dick" doesn't apply there, with certain provisios.

Common sense should rule.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

I can accept a bending of the rules for users on good terms with the site (for their actual contributions to the site;

So you want the rules applied without predujice except for when you'd like them applied with predujice?

And no, if the same rules were applied sitewise, to the detriment of the posters- which in this case, I believe it would- I think exceptions should be made.

Brown Bomber

Doctor DooM wrote: »

So you want the rules applied without predujice except for when you'd like them applied with predujice?

I am clearly and specifically talking about the rules regarding promotion/advertising.

Doctor DooM wrote: »

And no, if the same rules were applied sitewise, to the detriment of the posters- which in this case, I believe it would- I think exceptions should be made.

What detriment would that be exactly? I've just demonstrated that less than 10% of his posts are non-promotional efforts.

Do these 10 posts out of a 100 entitle him to 90 posts of shameless self-promotion? If so, why?

And if possible could you answer this please?

I am not aware of another poster/interest group that is given such a privelidge. Are you...?

Penn

Again, BB, discretion of the moderator. The mods of the forum are clearly well aware of Michael Nugent's posts, and allow then because they are more beneficial to the forum than any negative aspects of the posts. Things are not black and white, judgement calls always have to be made as a moderator. I don't mod CVPL the same way I mod Podcasts, because they're not the same. The site wide rules are in effect, but the forum mods have to be able to and should be able to let one or two things by occasionally if the benefits outweigh the negatives. Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

It is not a black and white issue. The advertising rules cover most of the bases, but sometimes, advertisements are beneficial to the forum and its regular posters. That's the mods call to make.

It would be a sad day if mods were so restricted by rules that they had to act against their own judgement and what they felt was beneficial to the forum they were entrusted to help grow. The mods currently have a huge support network of co-mods, other mods, Cmods and Admin who they can get advice from if they felt what they alerts allowing was outside of the rules, but beneficial and worth making an exception for.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe that advertising/promotion rules should be applied without prejudice. Don't you?

That's a loaded question and you know it. Advertising/Promotion rules should be applied without prejudice to those whose sole purpose on the site is advertising or promotion. If the poster is also engaging in other discussions and their presence and the information they are providing are beneficial to the forum, any such advertising is within reason and the vast majority of forum users have no issue with it, then exceptions can be made at the moderators' discretion.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am clearly and specifically talking about the rules regarding promotion/advertising.

As was I.

I'll let the comedy charity lads know that can't promote that anywhere next year so, to make sure your rules are enforced. Bigger picture.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What detriment would that be exactly? I've just demonstrated that less than 10% of his posts are non-promotional efforts.

They provoke discussion from the regular posters. I'm not bothered to go examining all his previous posts, sorry, I'm just an actual regular user of the forum and I enjoy his contribution. Bigger picture than what he gets out of it, do the posters get something out of it?

I note every regular user except for you seems to be saying that.

Do these 10 posts out of a 100 entitle him to 90 posts of shameless self-promotion? If so, why?

And if possible could you answer this please?

It's not for you or me to decide: if the mods decide it enhances the forum- which I believe they do- then IMO he should stay. Bigger picture.

As pointed out to you, yes, in one forum I mod there are people exclusively posting about tournaments they are running, all over Europe.

If they do something I am not comfy with, I stop them (and have done).

It would be the end of a busy forum to stop this from happening.

I don't care if your focus is just political- that's goal shifting. It matters to more things than your own hobby horse. Bigger picture.

Wibbs

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Like the thunderdome does, for example? "Don't be a dick" doesn't apply there, with certain provisios.

Oh certainly, however in this case the rule doesn't apply in A&A but apparently does apply in Buddhism and applies to a member who doesn't seem to be a rep of what he/she was promoting.

I'll let the comedy charity lads know that can't promote that anywhere next year so, to make sure your rules are enforced. Bigger picture.

Ah C'mon DD that's apples and oranges. Atheist Ireland and the like aint charities raising money for sick kids or whatever with the backing of the folks in the office. Bit of a diff.

Penn wrote:

Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

Sure P, but how many of them have signed up as a representative of their respective organisations and that's all they create threads about?

The reason why I'm personally interested in this is because in the Watches & Timepieces forum from time to time(no pun ) we have had a few people representing brands and watchmakers etc and I or my comod warned and sent them to hello&boards.ie to get official accounts(that's another story..) or just banned them outright. Now we would well argue that having these guys and their expertise on board would be advantageous to the forum and the community. Chances are they would have added to the place and we would have left them well alone to see how it went. However we applied the "no advertising/representing" rule which I thought was nearly as set in stone as don't be a dick. Certainly more people are sitebanned on a weekly basis than for dickery

All but one of those guys started off like the example in A&A where they replied to other members asking about their brand, or asking about watchmaking advice and were giving good and free advice. Until we called a halt of course. So then I see this where a representative/spokesperson for an entity of interest to the locals is given completely free reign to promote their organisation, I'm sure you can understand my "eh wut"? If one of those guys I mentioned read this thread or read the A&A forum and spotted this they might have questions. I could understand it too.

I'd love to have various reps of different women's groups in tLL inc various women's political lobby groups which is what AI is, which would also add to the place but as it stands the chances are bloody high that if they signed up the way the chap in A&A did we'd nuke them in a heartbeat for self promotion and soapboxing and I'd put good money down that if they went to DRP about it they'd get short shrift and our ban would be upheld.

Just to make it clear re for the chap/org in question I like em, more power to their elbow, they're doing good work in a few areas. I've certainly ZERO issue with them, just would like some clarity about how the rest of us deal with similar should it arise again. *EDIT* maybe this is more a Dav thing to be fair.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

Again, BB, discretion of the moderator.

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.

Penn wrote: »

The mods of the forum are clearly well aware of Michael Nugent's posts, and allow then because they are more beneficial to the forum than any negative aspects of the posts.

That doesn't qualify as a reason. How on earth is 10 "regular user" posts for every 90 lobbyist posts a net positive???

Penn wrote: »

Things are not black and white, judgement calls always have to be made as a moderator. I don't mod CVPL the same way I mod Podcasts, because they're not the same. The site wide rules are in effect, but the forum mods have to be able to and should be able to let one or two things by occasionally if the benefits outweigh the negatives.

This hasn't been shown to be the case. And besides it's hardly "one or two things". Every single thread started by Nugent is self-promotion along with the vast majority of his posts, as I've demonstrated.

Penn wrote: »

Surveys are occasionally posted on the Games forum even though they're not technically supposed to be. People advertise their own podcasts on forums other than the Podcast forum even though that's advertising. People are constantly notifying others of events they're helping to organise in certain forums.

Are you seriously trying to equate a (with respect) a billy-no-mates, homemade podcast of insignificance with a lobby group, who count amongst their members the deputy leader of the Seanad and count amongst it's employees a former Westminister lobbyist who str aggressively and repeatedly pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be a discussion forum?

Penn wrote: »

It is not a black and white issue. The advertising rules cover most of the bases, but sometimes, advertisements are beneficial to the forum and its regular posters. That's the mods call to make.

Can someone clarify this?

Are mods empowered to ignore the site rules?

Penn wrote: »

It would be a sad day if mods were so restricted by rules that they had to act against their own judgement and what they felt was beneficial to the forum they were entrusted to help grow..

No it wouldn't. That's like saying it'd be sad the day a policeman felt so restricted by that rules he had to arrest the man who raped the girl with the short skirt (even though she was asking for it.)

The rules are there for everyones benefit.

Penn wrote: »

That's a loaded question and you know it. Advertising/Promotion rules should be applied without prejudice to those whose sole purpose on the site is advertising or promotion.

So you are also saying that 90% of contributions that are promotional is acceptable?

(but just for Michael Nugent, because he is special)

Penn wrote: »

If the poster is also engaging in other discussions and their presence and the information they are providing are beneficial to the forum, any such advertising is within reason and the vast majority of forum users have no issue with it, then exceptions can be made at the moderators' discretion.

Can someone clarify this for me?

That advertising is permitted on boards.ie if they also post here and there (less than 10&) on something else? This seems ridiculous to me.

Adyx

Lelantos wrote: »

Unless the OP is a bible thumper & is appalled that boards supports the dark lord

Rubbish, I'm certainly far from being a "bible thumper" and I would take issue with him being allowed post as he as. It's just another reason to avoid the A&A forum though.

Doctor DooM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.

You see this is why you're never going to have many fans on Boards.

It is not a feckless term. It's the very reason any of the forums here work. Forums need to be adaptable and their moderators need to be able to make changes for the better from the norm. Atheism is not Buddhism.

Until you understand that, your reasoning on this topic will remain flawed.

You can rules lawyer as much as you like: at the end of the day, the mods do what they can to make accomodating, useful forums for people who want to use them.

Your demanding change would negatively impact my enjoyment of A and A, and the forum I mod, for no profit other than the continuing of your agenda: Thus, I vehemently oppose it.

Doctor DooM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh certainly, however in this case the rule doesn't apply in A&A but apparently does apply in Buddhism and applies to a member who doesn't seem to be a rep of what he/she was promoting.

Ah C'mon DD that's apples and oranges. Atheist Ireland and the like aint charities raising money for sick kids or whatever with the backing of the folks in the office. Bit of a diff.

Buddhism and Atheism are different forums, you cannot assume the same rules.

As for apples and oranges- yes, that's my point! BB is saying the same rules should be applied across the board, with no predujice (although he immediately contradicted that). So, charity gig would have to go. Fighting games wouldn't be able to have posts from the World Game Cup organisers (who we work with closely). I'm trying to point out how ridiculous this could get, from the view of the whole site.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is a feckless term without supporting justification.


That doesn't qualify as a reason. How on earth is 10 "regular user" posts for every 90 lobbyist posts a net positive???



This hasn't been shown to be the case. And besides it's hardly "one or two things". Every single thread started by Nugent is self-promotion along with the vast majority of his posts, as I've demonstrated.



Are you seriously trying to equate a (with respect) a billy-no-mates, homemade podcast of insignificance with a lobby group, who count amongst their members the deputy leader of the Seanad and count amongst it's employees a former Westminister lobbyist who str aggressively and repeatedly pushing their agenda in what is supposed to be a discussion forum?


Can someone clarify this?

Are mods empowered to ignore the site rules?


No it wouldn't. That's like saying it'd be sad the day a policeman felt so restricted by that rules he had to arrest the man who raped the girl with the short skirt (even though she was asking for it.)

The rules are there for everyones benefit.


So you are also saying that 90% of contributions that are promotional is acceptable?

(but just for Michael Nugent, because he is special)


Can someone clarify this for me?

That advertising is permitted on boards.ie if they also post here and there (less than 10&) on something else? This seems ridiculous to me.

Discretion of the moderator is not a "feckless term", its one of the sitewide guidelines

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_discression

If you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

And I disagree with your claims of 90% of his posts being promotional. Lets say MN starts a thread about a meeting AI is holding to discuss X. The conversation on the thread then turns into a discussion amongst the users about X in general. If MN then continues posting in the thread and also discussing X, his posts are no longer promotional, but instead are about the topic.

Michael Nugent

Just to clear up some facts....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He has opened 33 threads press releases all publicising atheist Ireland's campaigns, the organisation itself or issuing directives:

Issuing directives

I am happy to go along with whatever rules the moderators decide on.

Before I posted any event announcements, I sent a pm to the moderators asking what is the protocol on whether and how they were allowed.

Brown Bomber wrote:

fee-paying lobby group...selling tickets...

Atheist Ireland is a non profit making voluntary body. We have a nominal membership fee of €10 for unwaged people and €25 for waged people. We have no paid staff. On a personal level, our officers typically contribute money as well as time to our involvement in Atheist Ireland.

Almost all of our events, some which have included international speakers, are free to attend. We’ve only sold tickets for one event, the World Atheist Convention, where we kept the price lower than similar events elsewhere and specifically aimed to break even rather than to maximize profit.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Re the Christianity forum he more or less is using to promote his events/campaigns. The difference being he is pandering to a more suitable demographic for these particular campaigns.Three OP's, all concernced with lobbying campaigns

That’s a disgraceful comment. You should really distinguish between legitimate concerns about commercial or other abuse of a discussion forum, and encouraging people to lobby to help to save the lives of people facing execution for their religious beliefs.

As an aside, none of these posts mention Atheist Ireland.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In this cross-section of 101 posts, which I would be highly confident is representative ,there is as I've predicted a less than 10% non-atheist Ireland promotional posts.

I’ve just checked my post history, though not in much detail as you have, and about two thirds of my posts are in threads started by others.

Some of these are in threads that other people (like you here) have started about me and about Atheist Ireland, but obviously I am going to respond to those.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Any idea that Nugent is contributing genuinely and positively in other ways is a myth.

How could you possibly judge that? It’s entirely subjective.

The only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

Benny_Cake

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you prepared to stand by this statement? What ratio of shilling:normal use is acceptable to you personally? I would estimate that Nugent's posts which don't involve promotion/defense of Atheist Ireland and their positions, campaigns, events etc to be less than 10%.

RE the Christianity forum he more or less is using to promote his events/campaigns. The difference being he is pandering to a more suitable demographic for these particular campaigns. Three OP's, all concernced with lobbying campaigns and only one follow up post in total in any of the three thread.

Yes, I am prepared to stand by that statement and if you have an issue with any of his posts in the Christianity forum you could report them.

Wibbs

Of course each situation should be looked at on it's merits DD, but when there's an obvious deviation from the "norm" questions are bound to be asked, if nothing else so the rest of us can get a handle on what's OK or not in our own forums, or what to report in other forums.

Maybe the site needs an "other" type rep account? For people like that Michael/AI, charities, lobby groups, political parties etc. The non profit type of outfits*. The ones that don't fit into the "commercial interest" slot. though folks like event organisers that DD mentions could be added too. That way randomers and other users can see what they're dealing with in a discussion. Plus if there was a route open for such entities it might get more of such people/organisations on Boards.ie to add to the discussion for all of us like the folks in A&A feel Michael/AI have. Like I said I'd personally love to see various reps from different women's interest orgs in tLL and can think of many a forum where this kinda thing would be a great addition. All at local mod discretion and admin/office thumbs up of course.



*less restrictive than other official accounts of course so they wouldn't be restricted to "their" forum. The example where MN posts in Christianity in a helpful fashion a good example.

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Just to clear up some facts....

Issuing directives

Not sure where the laughter comes from. You do issue directives. For example,

Party and candidate replies to secular policy questions
Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland are asking voters to vote for candidates who support secular policies in the General Election on Friday

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Before I posted any event announcements, I sent a pm to the moderators asking what is the protocol on whether and how they were allowed.

Fair play. So what did they? Sure Michael here is a blank cheque to promote your interest group however and how often as you please.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Atheist Ireland is a non profit making voluntary body. We have a nominal membership fee of €10 for unwaged people and €25 for waged people. We have no paid staff. On a personal level, our officers typically contribute money as well as time to our involvement in Atheist Ireland.

Almost all of our events, some which have included international speakers, are free to attend. We’ve only sold tickets for one event, the World Atheist Convention, where we kept the price lower than similar events elsewhere and specifically aimed to break even rather than to maximize profit.

As I've said a fee-paying club who have used the medium of boards, a discussion site to flog tickets to your event. A club with a large donation button on the page that you link to.

• How You Can Help
  
  
  Please join Atheist Ireland
  
  Click here to find out how to become a member of Atheist Ireland, and help us to bring about an ethical, secular State
  
  
• Please help us to fund our work
  
  

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That’s a disgraceful comment. You should really distinguish between legitimate concerns about commercial or other abuse of a discussion forum, and encouraging people to lobby to help to save the lives of people facing execution for their religious beliefs.

And you should really NOT distinguish between people who are the victims of injustice due to religious oppression and people who are victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression. But that's another story.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As an aside, none of these posts mention Atheist Ireland.

This is rather disingenious Michael. They don't mention Atheist Ireland but were the subject of ongoing atheist Ireland campaigns.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’ve just checked my post history, though not in much detail as you have, and about two thirds of my posts are in threads started by others.

Some of these are in threads that other people (like you here) have started about me and about Atheist Ireland, but obviously I am going to respond to those.

Right but the fact remains that the vast majority of your posts are defending/promoting atheist ireland and all of the threads you opened are.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

How could you possibly judge that? It’s entirely subjective.

It's nothing personal. You seem like a nice chap and I have no problem with personally and largely support much of what you do but my judgement is based on the numbers.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

It's not X Factor Michael. In any case we are dealing with a forum where comments like

I f*cking hate religion. I really, really do....

gets you twenty thankers, and also I am not the head of an interest group that counts among it's members other users of boards.ie.

Wibbs

Michael Nugent wrote: »

JThe only approximation I can think of is the thanks ratio from other members, where my mythologically-genuine contributions get five times as many thanks-per-post as do your presumably genuinely-genuine ones.

Dunno about that MN, I got over thirty thousand thanks and I talk an awful lot of shíte.

Michael Nugent

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you should really NOT distinguish between people who are the victims of injustice due to religious oppression and people who are victims of injustice but aren't the victims of religious oppression. But that's another story.

I'll come back to the other points later, but I'm not going to leave a comment like that hanging there.

You can't just make vague unsubstantiated defamatory allegations about someone on a public forum, and then skip on to your next point as if you've said nothing unremarkable.

Can you please either explain what you mean by this, or else withdraw that comment?

Brown Bomber

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'll come back to the other points later, but I'm not going to leave a comment like that hanging there.

You can't just make vague unsubstantiated defamatory allegations about someone on a public forum, and then skip on to your next point as if you've said nothing unremarkable.

Can you please either explain what you mean by this, or else withdraw that comment?

I don't believe you have launched any campaigns to support the victims of injustices where the injustice didn't have any religious aspect. I apologise in advance if you can show me to be wrong.