Location based arguments

MadsL

I'm sick of having to deal with the lazy argument "But you don't even live in Ireland" as a counter for an opinion I have expressed.

Is there merit in preventing this type of behaviour - a significant proportion of boards users are outside of Ireland now...

I know publishing your location is optional, but drawing attention to it is irritating as hell.

Anyone else getting a pain in the hole explaining their location isn't a hole in their argument?

OldGoat

If the strength of someone argument is "You don't live here" then I'd feel safe in ignoring any other point they had to make in the future. Treat a riposte like that as an idiot filter and move on. Trying to fight an argument at that level only drags you down.

MadsL

Oh, I get that it is an idiot marker, but it only attracts further idiocy.

Idiot 1 - hey you don't even live here.
Idiot 2 - that's right, what about the thing in the country you live in.
Idiot 3 - Hey, you don't even pay tax here
Idiot 4 - Why don't you sod off and leave us Irish alone...

etc etc.

OldGoat

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, I get that it is an idiot marker, but it only attacks further idiocy.

Idiot 1 - hey you don't even live here.
Idiot 2 - that's right, what about the thing in the country you live in.
Idiot 3 - Hey, you don't even pay tax here
Idiot 4 - Why don't you sod off and leave us Irish alone...

etc etc.

That would be my idiot list increased by 4 names. It's amazing how easy life becomes when you don't bother with a large number of posters.

MadsL

OldGoat wrote: »

That would be my idiot list increased by 4 names. It's amazing how easy life becomes when you don't bother with a large number of posters.

However, my point is that the more someone's location is used against them in forums, the more legitimate calling them on their location becomes. With the increasing geographical spread of boards users I think that is a Bad Thing.

"Is there an argument for buds being nipped by the mods?" is my question to the community.

5starpool

You can't have a rule for everything, and I personally have no wish for things to move towards large lists of "you can't".

MadsL

5starpool wrote: »

You can't have a rule for everything, and I personally have no wish for things to move towards large lists of "you can't".

I believe it falls under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. I'm really asking for it to be enforced more often when spotted or reported.

Artful_Badger

MadsL wrote: »

I believe it falls under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. I'm really asking for it to be enforced more often when spotted or reported.

As said above you cant stamp out every little thing and if you're going to enforce "attack the post...." to a degree to stop everyone being personal or dismissive you're gonna need bigger mods. Particularly in the likes of AH where there is tonnes of stuff that's dismissive and personal. Mentioning geographical location would be at the lower end of it imo as I don't see it very much at all.

5starpool

MadsL wrote: »

I believe it falls under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. I'm really asking for it to be enforced more often when spotted or reported.

I'm sure in some of those instances it may well be something actionable, but I'd imagine in most cases it is not worthy of any sort of punishment.

I have obviously not seen all of them, but I can't imagine it going down well if it is punished in most cases. You make it well known that you are not living in Ireland, and hold a lot of opinions contrary to AH norms from what I can see, so I'd say it affects you personally more than more other posters from outside Ireland.

MadsL

Artful_Badger wrote: »

As said above you cant stamp out every little thing and if you're going to enforce "attack the post...." to a degree to stop everyone being personal or dismissive you're gonna need bigger mods. Particularly in the likes of AH where there is tonnes of stuff that's dismissive and personal. Mentioning geographical location would be at the lower end of it imo as I don't see it very much at all.

This made me chuckle.

Delirium

MadsL wrote: »

I believe it falls under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. I'm really asking for it to be enforced more often when spotted or reported.

How is it attacking a poster to say "you don't live in (X)"?

It's either a good or bad counterpoint to a post. It's not abusive, and it may only potentially be stupid depending on the context.

I can appreciate it could be frustrating if you (or any other poster) get a large number of "but you don't live here" responses in threads, but I don't see anything in it that specifically warrants infractions/bans.

MadsL

koth wrote: »

How is it attacking a poster to say "you don't live in (X)"?

It's either a good or bad counterpoint to a post. It's not abusive, and it may only potentially be stupid depending on the context.

I can appreciate it could be frustrating if you (or any other poster) get a large number of "but you don't live here" responses in threads, but I don't see anything in it that specifically warrants infractions/bans.

Ah koth, you don't live in Dublin, why would we listen to what a culchie has to say on the matter?

Delirium

MadsL wrote: »

Ah koth, you don't live in Dublin, why would we listen to what a culchie has to say on the matter?

*puts MadsL on ignore*

:P

MadsL

koth wrote: »

*puts MadsL on ignore*

:P

*Continues to quote Koth in a disparaging manner.*

fecking culchies.

Insect Overlord

MadsL wrote: »

*Continues to quote Koth in a disparaging manner.*

fecking culchies.

You would say that, Yank. :P

MadsL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You would say that, Yank. :P

And hence the ironing, as I am not, yet.

Ken.

Are people outside Ireland allowed start feedback threads?.

MugMugs

You must have soft skin if me saying "you don't live here" is to be considered an attack on you.

Just appeal for everybody who makes a typo or uses rolleyes or doesn't use commas to be site banned too while you're at it.

MadsL

MugMugs wrote: »

You must have soft skin if me saying "you don't live here" is to be considered an attack on you.

Just appeal for everybody who makes a typo or uses rolleyes or doesn't use commas to be site banned too while you're at it.

It's not the question of soft skin, it just gets boring to see it at every turn. "Ah, you don't live here so you can't have an opinion" is attacking the poster, and against the boards charter.

Let's say I reported Insect's comment above. Is it actionable would you say?

MugMugs

MadsL wrote: »

It's not the question of soft skin, it just gets boring to see it at every turn. "Ah, you don't live here so you can't have an opinion" is attacking the poster, and against the boards charter.

Let's say I reported Insect's comment above. Is it actionable would you say?

No its tongue in cheek.

If boards begin prohibiting this then where does it end? It's a terrible retort to any argument and should be treated as such. I can't see why it would need anything more than that and especially not a site wide rule.

MadsL

MugMugs wrote: »

No its tongue in cheek.

If boards begin prohibiting this then where does it end? It's a terrible retort to any argument and should be treated as such. I can't see why it would need anything more than that and especially not a site wide rule.

Is it as terrible as "Yore MA" as a retort?

nesf

Context is crucial. In some arguments it's "Your Ma!" In others it's extremely relevant. Making points about what Galway nightlife is like most of the time recently if you don't live in or haven't been staying in Galway is fairly pointless. Someone not having a point about how we elect our politicians or whatever because they live in the US or Germany or whereever is equally nonsensical.

Dades

MadsL wrote: »

I believe it falls under the "attack the post not the poster" rule. I'm really asking for it to be enforced more often when spotted or reported.

Unless it is preceded or followed by something else, such a remark on it's own is not actionable.

It's merely an opinion, and occasionally one shared by others. Only if it becomes repetitive and therefore disruptive to a thread should it merit intervention (along the lines of "move on, please.")

crockholm

I'm ambivalent about it,if I were to suggest how tax monies should be spent even though I don't pay tax to the Irish exchequer(even though I do inderectly,ye broke-ass bums) perhaps my opinion doesn't carry as much weight.The Bono effect.

Let them say it surely,but that only opens them up to the charge that their participation in a democracy then depends on a sliding scale of how much tax they pay,does someone who pays 30k have the right to silence a person who pays 3k per annum?

MadsL

crockholm wrote: »

I'm ambivalent about it,if I were to suggest how tax monies should be spent even though I don't pay tax to the Irish exchequer(even though I do inderectly,ye broke-ass bums) perhaps my opinion doesn't carry as much weight.The Bono effect.

Let them say it surely,but that only opens them up to the charge that their participation in a democracy then depends on a sliding scale of how much tax they pay,does someone who pays 30k have the right to silence a person who pays 3k per annum?

It also begs the question of why Ireland does not allow expats to vote (or pay tax as the US asks of its expats)

However from a boards point of view if each poster is to be treated equally under the charter, their physical location should not be something used against them to gain leverage in a debate. I think it falls under "attack the post not the poster" and should be infracted.

5starpool

Just as well you are not in charge then!

MadsL

5starpool wrote: »

Just as well you are not in charge then!

You would say that, Mr Elsewhere! Your head must be Elsewhere! :pac:

On a serious note, do you think it not an attack on the poster to bring up, with the intention of undermining their argument, where they live if it is irrelevant to the debates. Is that not 'attacking the poster' as I have done above?

Insect Overlord

MadsL wrote: »

On a serious note, do you think it not an attack on the poster to bring up, with the intention of undermining their argument, where they live if it is irrelevant to the debates. Is that not 'attacking the poster' as I have done above?

It's a cheap move and an intellectually underwhelming tactic in a debate, but I don't think you can punish it in the same way you would a personal insult.

Penn

MadsL wrote: »

You would say that, Mr Elsewhere! Your head must be Elsewhere! :pac:

On a serious note, do you think it not an attack on the poster to bring up, with the intention of undermining their argument, where they live if it is irrelevant to the debates. Is that not 'attacking the poster' as I have done above?

"You would say that, Mr Elsewhere!" - Not a personal attack
"Your head must be Elsewhere!" - Personal attack (though extremely tame)

Referencing that a poster lives elsewhere is not, and hopefully never will be personal abuse.

If they're saying it to undermine your argument, point out how they're undermining their own argument, or quite simply ignore them. Besides which, sometimes pointing out the location of a poster can actually be a valid argument. For example, if Irish posters here were talking about reports of mass rioting in Utah, and another poster from Utah said there wasn't, pointing out that they're in Ireland and therefore would not know what's happening in Utah as well as he would, that's a valid point. I'm not saying it's a valid argument whenever it's used, but it can be a valid argument.

Why it would ever be considered a serious enough offence to add to the charter is beyond me.

5starpool

MadsL wrote: »

You would say that, Mr Elsewhere! Your head must be Elsewhere! :pac:

On a serious note, do you think it not an attack on the poster to bring up, with the intention of undermining their argument, where they live if it is irrelevant to the debates. Is that not 'attacking the poster' as I have done above?

So you want to be the first to be infracted under this new order?

As I said above it may well be annoying, but I don't think someone saying "you don't even live in Ireland, how would you know" should be a blanket against the rules offence. If it is the same person who does it to you a number of times then I'm sure it would be due to harassment, or if they said it an abusive way "wtf would you know, you don't even live here you twat", then obviously that is a different matter.

I am only a fairly casual reader of AH, so by no means an expert, but I haven't noticed it being a general problem worthy of stamping out. If it is happening to you on a large number of threads, then I would bring it to the attention of mods of that particular forum, but as there are a large number of non Irish posters, if it were a larger problem I would imagine it would have come up before.

I would advise to essentially ignore anyone who makes the point on an irrelevant thread, but in some cases it is probably somewhat relevant at least, for example on the recent thread about beer where you said Ireland had nowhere you could really get craft beers, you living outside of here for the last number of years really was a relevant point as things have changed somewhat, both in a growing number of bars, and most off licences.

MadsL

Penn wrote: »

"You would say that, Mr Elsewhere!" - Not a personal attack
"Your head must be Elsewhere!" - Personal attack (though extremely tame)

Referencing that a poster lives elsewhere is not, and hopefully never will be personal abuse.

If they're saying it to undermine your argument, point out how they're undermining their own argument, or quite simply ignore them. Besides which, sometimes pointing out the location of a poster can actually be a valid argument. For example, if Irish posters here were talking about reports of mass rioting in Utah, and another poster from Utah said there wasn't, pointing out that they're in Ireland and therefore would not know what's happening in Utah as well as he would, that's a valid point. I'm not saying it's a valid argument whenever it's used, but it can be a valid argument.

Why it would ever be considered a serious enough offence to add to the charter is beyond me.

The drip drip effect. Happens with baiting all the time, innocuous not to get infracted, but end up forming a pattern.

I also saw a post today (not aimed at me), that referenced nationality as a means to open an attack on the poster's political views, and how those views would lose the poster friends in Ireland. Complete nonsense, but offensively framed, but within the rules. Consider the cumulative effect on a poster subjected to attacks on nationality/location repeatedly whilst posting on boards.

We have nine grounds of discrimination protected in Irish law, could I suggest that they might be considered as a prohibited basis for attacking a poster. I'm not sure why race is afforded protection against attack on boards, but not nationality?

MadsL

5starpool wrote: »

So you want to be the first to be infracted under this new order?

If the mods want target practice I'll take one for the team.

As I said above it may well be annoying, but I don't think someone saying "you don't even live in Ireland, how would you know" should be a blanket against the rules offence. If it is the same person who does it to you a number of times then I'm sure it would be due to harassment, or if they said it an abusive way "wtf would you know, you don't even live here you twat", then obviously that is a different matter.

How about "Typical American response!"

I am only a fairly casual reader of AH, so by no means an expert, but I haven't noticed it being a general problem worthy of stamping out. If it is happening to you on a large number of threads, then I would bring it to the attention of mods of that particular forum, but as there are a large number of non Irish posters, if it were a larger problem I would imagine it would have come up before.

I PM'd you a nasty response I saw today on boards.

I would advise to essentially ignore anyone who makes the point on an irrelevant thread, but in some cases it is probably somewhat relevant at least, for example on the recent thread about beer where you said Ireland had nowhere you could really get craft beers, you living outside of here for the last number of years really was a relevant point as things have changed somewhat, both in a growing number of bars, and most off licences.

On thread, yes I ignore such nonsense. And your point above it is valid to say that if things have changed it is fine to point them out. Compare however the following responses.

"Things have changed since you were last here, has it been a while?" with
"What the f*ck would you know about it, yank!"

I'm sure you see the difference.

Insect Overlord

MadsL wrote: »

We have nine grounds of discrimination protected in Irish law, could I suggest that they might be considered as a prohibited basis for attacking a poster. I'm not sure why race is afforded protection against attack on boards, but not nationality?

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

MadsL

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

Well true. I admit that location isn't the same.

However, xenophobic statements. "Typical Yank" "Typical Aussie" "A Brit would say that" are permitted on boards, so there isn't even protection of nationality under the charter.

Penn

MadsL wrote: »

The drip drip effect. Happens with baiting all the time, innocuous not to get infracted, but end up forming a pattern.

I also saw a post today (not aimed at me), that referenced nationality as a means to open an attack on the poster's political views, and how those views would lose the poster friends in Ireland. Complete nonsense, but offensively framed, but within the rules. Consider the cumulative effect on a poster subjected to attacks on nationality/location repeatedly whilst posting on boards.

We have nine grounds of discrimination protected in Irish law, could I suggest that they might be considered as a prohibited basis for attacking a poster. I'm not sure why race is afforded protection against attack on boards, but not nationality?

Because discrimination against someone because of their nationality is not the same as pointing out that a point someone is making may be flawed due to their location. Again, wild example, but if a German poster said he's never been to Ireland but knows there are no good restaurants, are you implying that it's discrimination to point out that them having never been in Ireland weakens the point they're making?

Again, even closer to home, someone from Kerry saying there's no good restaurants in Dundalk. It would be completely valid for someone to point out they live in Kerry and therefore wouldn't know as well as those who live in Dundalk. Likewise, it'd then be valid for the Kerry person to say they went to college and lived in Dundalk for 5 years up until a few months ago, thereby providing a basis for their point.

If it's being done repeatedly by the same posters and directed at the same posters, then that's being a dick and already covered by the charter. If you can show the mods that's the case, it'd be dealt with if they see fit. But adding it to the charter is the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. It's an OTT solution to a problem that barely exists.

Delirium

MadsL wrote: »

Well true. I admit that location isn't the same.

However, xenophobic statements. "Typical Yank" "Typical Aussie" "A Brit would say that" are permitted on boards, so there isn't even protection of nationality under the charter.

Of which forum(s)?

AH, for example, has it in the charter prohibiting racism/xenophobia

MadsL

Penn wrote: »

Because discrimination against someone because of their nationality is not the same as pointing out that a point someone is making may be flawed due to their location. Again, wild example, but if a German poster said he's never been to Ireland but knows there are no good restaurants, are you implying that it's discrimination to point out that them having never been in Ireland weakens the point they're making?

Again, even closer to home, someone from Kerry saying there's no good restaurants in Dundalk. It would be completely valid for someone to point out they live in Kerry and therefore wouldn't know as well as those who live in Dundalk. Likewise, it'd then be valid for the Kerry person to say they went to college and lived in Dundalk for 5 years up until a few months ago, thereby providing a basis for their point.

If it's being done repeatedly by the same posters and directed at the same posters, then that's being a dick and already covered by the charter. If you can show the mods that's the case, it'd be dealt with if they see fit. But adding it to the charter is the equivalent of trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. It's an OTT solution to a problem that barely exists.

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

MadsL

koth wrote: »

Of which forum(s)?

AH, for example, has it in the charter prohibiting racism/xenophobia

xenophobia is specifically NOT included in the AH charter.

clairefontaine

Yes it does fall under ad hominem.

Given the amount of threads on AH obsessing over American, UK, and foreign events, of the "you don't even live here" argument stood any ground they'd be locked immediately.

It really depends on how strict you want to get about it. It is a continuum.

MadsL

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes it does fall under ad hominem.

Given the amount of threads on AH obsessing over American, UK, and foreign events, of the "you don't even live here" argument stood any ground they'd be locked immediately.

It really depends on how strict you want to get about it. It is a continuum.

I imagine you have suffered such disparaging comments however Claire, living as an American in Ireland then moving from Ireland to the US.

I'm frankly getting sick of it and thinking about updating my location tag. I don't see why I should though...

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

Damn...that was fast.
*slaps Penn on back*

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

I imagine you have suffered such disparaging comments however Claire, living as an American in Ireland then moving from Ireland to the US.

I'm frankly getting sick of it and thinking about updating my location tag. I don't see why I should though...

How is updating your location tag going to stop it?

The way I deal with it, is if I get any sniff of an ad hominem, they go on ignore. I know the mods will let this stuff slide, so I can only do my own form of moderation and ignore it.

As you know because I've disagreed with you many many times, I am we'll able to disagree with people and still respect them. I expect the same for others,and if someone has to resort to the "well you've been out of the country for three days, what the hell do you know ya dumb yank?" They are not worth your attention. Immediate ignore list.

Penn

MadsL wrote: »

Let me PM a couple of posts as an example, they fall under your CMod anyway, and exhibit perfectly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about: Bashing the validity of someone's views/opinions on the basis that they live in a particular location.

PM in 3...2...

Those posts you linked to went way above the "pointing out someone's location as part of a discussion" problem you're implying, and were actionable on their own merits as they breached more than one section of the existing forum charter. Just because the mods hadn't had a chance to deal with them yet (I have now), doesn't mean they were okay.

clairefontaine

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nationality isn't the issue. Location is.

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

MadsL

Penn wrote: »

Those posts you linked to went way above the "pointing out someone's location as part of a discussion" problem you're implying, and were actionable on their own merits as they breached more than one section of the existing forum charter. Just because the mods hadn't had a chance to deal with them yet (I have now), doesn't mean they were okay.

Oh, not a bother. I wasn't implying those particular posts had been let slide. I knew you (the mods) hadn't seen them yet. Cheers for the action.

Insect Overlord

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

Penn summed it up nicely in post #35.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86939555&postcount=35

Dades

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why is location a basis on which to invalidate an opinion? Why not clarify without then personal insult?

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

clairefontaine

Dades wrote: »

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

Ok I know madsl is well able to speak for himself, but I've seen on a number of occasions where people have tried to invalidate his opinion with the fact he's no longer in the country.

It's personalising the argument.

And I'm not trying to convert the mods here on this, it's just how I see it so when it happens to me, I put the user on ignore. Whomever comes up with the rules here, can keep the rules as they like obviously, but I see it as disrespectful so I won't engage.

MadsL

Dades wrote: »

Again, on a basic level, there is no personal insult involved. Only yourself and MadsL seem to think there is.

If there is a personal insult - it'll be in something else tacked on - not simply in suggesting someone's location invalidates their argument.

Is "Typical Yank" or "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" an insult and actionable?


Look - I think what I am arguing for in a nutshell is inclusion of xenophobia in the charter. Where it is clear that the poster is attacking the poster, rather than probing his knowledge of Polish cuisine.

[Insert Warrior Princess joke]

clairefontaine

MadsL wrote: »

Is "Typical Yank" or "Yanks, a bunch of f*cking weirdos" an insult and actionable?


Look - I think what I am arguing for in a nutshell is inclusion of xenophobia in the charter. Where it is clear that the poster is attacking the poster, rather than probing his knowledge of Polish cuisine.

[Insert Warrior Princess joke]

Selective bigotry. Yanks are not on the protected species list.

But seriously, madsl, let them spout it. At least it's visible and you know where you stand.

Insect Overlord

clairefontaine wrote: »

Selective bigotry. Yanks are not on the protected species list.

But seriously, madsl, let them spout it. At least it's visible and you know where you stand.

Or you could, you know, report it...