Prejudical Moderation

makeorbrake

I'd like to bring to your attention prejudicial moderation as per this post here.

By way of that post, your moderator is being far from impartial by the de facto suggestion that Integrity Ireland are 'cranks' or 'crazy'.

Spear

Are you or are you not disputing a ban or infraction you have received?

makeorbrake

I'm disputing the nature of the moderation applied. If the suggestion is that I can't have that looked at here, then kindly direct me to the appropriate section or person.

Spear

Moved to Helpdesk since this isn't DRP related.

makeorbrake

Spear wrote: »

Moved to Helpdesk since this isn't DRP related.

Thanks.

makeorbrake

Any word on this?

Spear

Do the mods or cmods in question even know there's a thread here to respond to?

makeorbrake

Spear wrote: »

Do the mods or cmods in question even know there's a thread here to respond to?

Is that being asked of me? I'm putting this to boards.ie to look at. I've provided a link to the offending post.

My point is that this is not impartial moderation by the de facto suggestion that Integrity Ireland are 'cranks' or 'crazy'.

hullaballoo

The position of the Legal Discussion moderators is that discussion of Integrity Ireland should be contained in the same thread as the other pseudo-legal nonsense.

However, we intend to update the name of the thread to take account of other pseudo-legal groups, in addition to Freemen.

We have contacted the CMods and one of them should be along in due course.

makeorbrake

hullaballoo wrote: »

The position of the Legal Discussion moderators is that discussion of Integrity Ireland should be contained in the same thread as the other pseudo-legal nonsense.

There's NOTHING impartial about that statement or point of view. Of course, the fact that one of the aims of I.I. is to have the legal 'profession' cleaned up may be colouring your views in that regard.

hullaballoo wrote: »

We have contacted the CMods and one of them should be along in due course.

Are boards.ie standing behind this inequitable position?

Shield

makeorbrake wrote: »

Are boards.ie standing behind this inequitable position?

Hello.

In case you mean the actual Boards.ie Limited company itself: Nobody here speaks for Boards.ie Limited as a company, except the people who are hired and paid to do so.

However, if you just mean the boards.ie family of discussion forums: The site Administrators are usually the people who have the final say on complaints regarding forum moderation. Under them it's the Category Moderators, and under them it's just us forum Moderators.

When you post here, please allow a few days for an answer. We all have regular jobs, and our time here is both unpaid and entirely voluntary.

Your understanding and patience is appreciated.

-Shield.

Taltos

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'd like to bring to your attention prejudicial moderation as per this post here.
By way of that post, your moderator is being far from impartial by the de facto suggestion that Integrity Ireland are 'cranks' or 'crazy'.

Hi there
I am one of the aforementioned cmods. I am going to try to address your concerns but to be blunt you may not like what I have to say.
Looking at the original post you quote I note the mod also called out the key word below in bold.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

No. All of the pseudo-legal, crank stuff and crazy nonsense is contained in one thread for a good reason.
....

Overnight and this morning I did a search on Integrity Ireland to see how they are affiliated or recognised by the Law Society of Ireland but beyond a private group I can find no such professional recognition.

As to your point about impartiality. Mods are chosen because they care deeply about the forums they post in. They are then asked to help guide the forum using the site rules or the specific forums charter. They are not asked to be impartial but to try to be fair, we strive for impartiality but sometimes it is all but impossible to turn on the robot switch. To be fair what's out there on Integrity Ireland that shows they should be treated more than cranks or fruit and nut cases?

Could it be this article from March of this year – just a few short months ago?
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/protesters-interrupt-repossession-hearings-with-holy-water-1.2150146


The mods have not outlawed or banned all such discussions around Integrity Ireland, but instead have sought to ensure that other threads are not pulled off topic by keeping all such posts in a dedicated thread. This in my view is more than fair and is an approach taken in many forums here to allow discussion of differing viewpoints while ensuring that the general threads can flow and progress normally without disruption.
As above if an official line from boards.ie is being sought an email can be sent to head office, and should official reps from Integrity Ireland wish to post in an approved manner by HQ they can apply for official rep accounts. But beyond that advice in this case I am quite satisfied in the calm approach taken by the moderator in allowing discussion and don't find any evidence of prejudiced moderation.

makeorbrake

Taltos wrote: »

Hi there
I am one of the aforementioned cmods. I am going to try to address your concerns but to be blunt you may not like what I have to say.

On that we can agree.

Taltos wrote: »

Looking at the original post you quote I note the mod also called out the key word below in bold.

pseudo => "sham", "not genuine", "insincere"

Integrity Ireland is none of those things. I.I. is not an illegal organisation.

Taltos wrote:

Overnight and this morning I did a search on Integrity Ireland to see how they are affiliated or recognised by the Law Society of Ireland but beyond a private group I can find no such professional recognition.

I'll have to give you some leeway re. your ignorance of the topic. You are searching for an endorsement from the professions OWN regulator (i.e. we do NOT have a state body regulating the legal profession at present) - when I.I. has been steadfastly critical of the LS and it's ongoing actions and inactions?
Our International peers - the I.M.F. - brought it to our own governments attention that the irish legal 'profession' was in need of major reform. No doubt they would have insisted on same but for the fact that Edna et al got them out before they had the opportunity.
It's a widely held belief at this stage. LINK. As per that account, the Law Society's regulatory department head lied in an Affidavit - the purpose of which was to get a decent honourable member of the profession struck off!

Taltos wrote:

To be fair what's out there on Integrity Ireland that shows they should be treated more than cranks or fruit and nut cases?

So you use one specific item to back up the assertion? The I.T. is to be used as 'proof'? Furthermore, you are aware that there were 2 distinct groups present on that day? Notwithstanding that, what exactly are you asserting by way of that link? Please make it clear.

Taltos wrote:

The mods have not outlawed or banned all such discussions around Integrity Ireland, but instead have sought to ensure that other threads are not pulled off topic by keeping all such posts in a dedicated thread.

Really? So when someone asked the question on that thread as to whether I.I. pursued a freeman ideology - and NOBODY answered in the affirmative, wouldn't it have been equitable practice for the forum mod to either remove subsequent discussion of I.I. on that thread OR split it off into a separate thread? I'm pointing it out to you right now that you still have that recourse available to you.

Taltos wrote:

but instead have sought to ensure that other threads are not pulled off topic by keeping all such posts in a dedicated thread. This in my view is more than fair and is an approach taken in many forums here to allow discussion of differing viewpoints while ensuring that the general threads can flow and progress normally without disruption.

With all due respect, there's no way any neutral could determine the positioning of content about an organisation under the thread title "Freeman Megamerge" - when they do NOT pursue a Freeman Ideology. More importantly, your moderator(s) have participated themselves - with prejudice - on the subject of I.I. More important still, one of them has refused to split the thread off - on the basis that he/she explicitly states that I.I. fall under the category of pseudo-legal/crank/crazy nonsense.

I guess I could take out a full page ad in the national press and declare you to be a crank or crazy? Would that be equitable? How is this any different?

Taltos wrote:

But beyond that advice in this case I am quite satisfied in the calm approach taken by the moderator in allowing discussion and don't find any evidence of prejudiced moderation.

I would respectfully ask you to revisit the subject and review your decision.

FreudianSlippers

makeorbrake wrote: »

pseudo => "sham", "not genuine", "insincere"

Integrity Ireland is none of those things. I.I. is not an illegal organisation.

Not to cut across Taltos here, but perhaps I can short-circuit matters somewhat in relation to the above point.

There is absolutely no claim that I-I is "an illegal organisation" (although I don't believe they are a registered political party as of this post).

"Pseudo-legal" in this context means engaging, believing or based in "pseudo-law". Pseudo-law can be seen in many cases to argue that there are loopholes or certain ways of dealing with matters before the courts (i.e. consenting to legislation, etc.) and when said arguments are rejected by the Courts, those engaging/believing in pseudo-law claim that there is a conspiracy and/or collusion between the legal profession and judiciary.

Taltos

Thanks FreudianSlippers for that clarification. And no worries about cutting across me, I'm not that precious.

Basically makeorbrake I see no reason to overrule the mods in Legal on how they have chosen to group off topic conversation as they are currently doing.
Nothing you have added so far has encouraged me in any way to change that viewpoint, nothing, not even your charming suggestion of publishing a full page ad in a national paper defaming my character, should you wish to do so that is your choice.

It may be more appropriate instead to rename the Freeman megamerge to Off-topic/pseudo megamerge but I'll leave that to the mod team in Legal right now.

As to the link I presented, just do a google search on II, it is one of many not too pleasant links that appear, the content of which helped me come to an agreement in where the posts are being placed. I didn't write those articles, they are easily searchable, but I did come to some conclusions based on the content of that material.

Again though, should an official member of II wish to post on Boards to espouse their views/agenda they are more than welcome to, we have many such talk to forums and reps from a broad range of industries/groups. Such a person only needs to contact HQ to get an official Reps account. For general posters though where that thread is makes sense in the broader terms of Legal.

Pat Mustard

makeorbrake wrote: »

Really? So when someone asked the question on that thread as to whether I.I. pursued a freeman ideology - and NOBODY answered in the affirmative, wouldn't it have been equitable practice for the forum mod to either remove subsequent discussion of I.I. on that thread OR split it off into a separate thread? I'm pointing it out to you right now that you still have that recourse available to you.

This is what happens. Some poster comes along with a flimsy argument phrased as a question. This has already happened previously, with a user who didn't want to pay his water charges. He believed that nobody could disagree with his opinion because he did not overtly express an opinion, only a question. If nobody answered, it because he had to have been right in some way or another. If anybody criticised him, he asserted that he was only asking an opinion. This should sound familiar, because you used the exact same tactic on the Freeman Megamerge thread. However, this was a just a disingenuous tactic on your part.

You were criticised in a different thread in After Hours, especially after you compared yourself to Mahatma Ghandi. Another poster dared you to come on the Freeman Megamerge thread to defend your views on Integrity Ireland. Fair dues to you in one way, you rose to the challenge. But what happened is that you came on to the Freeman Megamerge thread, you tried to flex your muscles and your arguments were comprehensively annihilated by all of the other users.

You didn't like getting beaten, you started using emoticons, you asked for the thread to be split off, your request was declined, you ran off with your tail between your legs, and here you are now, complaining.

makeorbrake

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not to cut across Taltos here, but perhaps I can short-circuit matters somewhat in relation to the above point.

I'll bring to Taltos attention that your last contribution on that 'discussion' was as follows ->

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Take your ball and run along.

I'd have reported it to a moderator - but guess what, you are a mod for that section. It says a lot.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There is absolutely no claim that I-I is "an illegal organisation"

How very gracious of you.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

(although I don't believe they are a registered political party as of this post).

Relevance? I don't remember them ever describing themselves as a political party.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"Pseudo-legal" in this context means engaging, believing or based in "pseudo-law".

Yes, and I would be very surprised if anyone in I.I. agreed that what they were about was 'Pseudo-legal'.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pseudo-law can be seen in many cases to argue that there are loopholes or certain ways of dealing with matters before the courts

Loopholes again? Let's reframe this in the correct light. Have I.I. as an organisation ever purported to work in any other way than within the law?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

When said arguments are rejected by the Courts, those engaging/believing in pseudo-law claim that there is a conspiracy and/or collusion between the legal profession and judiciary.

I've already raised the point in that very thread that self-regulation = NO regulation. Any unbiased commentator can see that. The point was rubbished by one of your fellow moderators and most likely member of the legal profession.
The assertion that nothing can go awry in professions and organs of state where there is NO accountability is completely nonsensical. If you were to be honest even just for one moment about the subject, isn't it a case that you - and others like you - wish to maintain the status quo in your profession? Isn't it the case that I.I. are diametrically opposed to the status quo (by way of issues taken with the complete lack of accountability of your profession, the judiciary and the courts service)?
That's the truth of it. We are seeing self-serving interests doing their best to blacken the name of a lobby group for their own benefit.

I've already provided an example of a member of your professional body's lying in an Affidavit - the purpose of which was to get a decent member of the profession struck off! Do you want more examples?


@Taltos : I'd respectfully ask you to review my pen ultimate post and these last two exchanges and revise your decision.

makeorbrake

Pat Mustard wrote: »

This is what happens. Some poster comes along with a flimsy argument phrased as a question. This has already happened previously, with a user who didn't want to pay his water charges. He believed that nobody could disagree with his opinion because he did not overtly express an opinion, only a question. If nobody answered, it because he had to have been right in some way or another. If anybody criticised him, he asserted that he was only asking an opinion. This should sound familiar, because you used the exact same tactic on the Freeman Megamerge thread. However, this was a just a disingenuous tactic on your part.

There's nothing impartial in the above. Any previous encounter you have had with someone re. water charges has nothing to do with this, with me or with anything I have posted - and well you know it.
With regard to the question I posed, what is wrong with respectfully asking for an answer to the question that I posed? People were doing their best to blacken I.I. by going off with their own independent rant.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You were criticised in a different thread in After Hours

I came up against some with the opposite viewpoint - and as one does on a discussion forum, I responded accordingly.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

especially after you compared yourself to Mahatma Ghandi.

lol I compared myself to Ghandi? You and I both know that to be a fabrication. Utilising a phrase of Ghandi's - as I found appropriate to that thread - and that discussion at that time - was apt - it's a well placed quote that sums up the contribution of the detractors.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Another poster dared you to come on the Freeman Megamerge thread to defend your views on Integrity Ireland.

Let's tell the full truth shall we? A contributor to the freeman thread asked do I.I. have a freeman ideology? Nobody responded in the positive. He then came on board with the after hours thread and declared that they HAD a freeman ideology! Is this what you're defending?

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Fair dues to you in one way, you rose to the challenge.

Yes, and I didn't initially want to get involved in YOUR sub-forum for the exact reason of this thread right here, right now. I.I. stands diametrically opposed to the state of your profession as it stands right now. I know full well that those who moderate are members of said profession. Therefore, I feared that the moderation would be prejudicial - and so it has turned out.

Secondly, I didn't want to contribute to a thread which WRONGLY contained discourse on I.I. and yet was labeled 'Freeman Megamerge'.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Fair dues to you in one way, you rose to the challenge. But what happened is that you came on to the Freeman Megamerge thread, you tried to flex your muscles and your arguments were comprehensively annihilated by all of the other users.

"In YOUR opinion". But again, we are getting to the crux of it. Anyone involved in the legal profession, who supports self-regulation and the corrupt practices that are ongoing in our legal system as a whole clearly has a coloured viewpoint. To any neutral reading this, ask Frank McBrearty.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You didn't like getting beaten, you started using emoticons, you asked for the thread to be split off, your request was declined, you ran off with your tail between your legs, and here you are now, complaining.

I asked for the thread to be split off as it was the right and just thing to do. When you said that you were labelling I.I. as Freeman OR Crazy OR similar, that's an appauling step to take on behalf of boards.ie . Some would go so far as to state that it's defamatory.


If it wasn't for the prejudicial moderation, I would have debated the issue with all of you. Some people don't tend to respond in the expected manner to bullies...

Pat Mustard

makeorbrake wrote: »

With regard to the question I posed, what is wrong with respectfully asking for an answer to the question that I posed?

Round and round in circles with the "questions" so you can pretend that you are not adopting a position or making any point. It's a dishonest way to attempt discussion.

makeorbrake wrote: »

lol I compared myself to Ghandi? You and I both know that to be a fabrication. Utilising a phrase of Ghandi's - as I found appropriate to that thread - and that discussion at that time - was apt - it's a well placed quote that sums up the contribution of the detractors.

Okay, here is the non-comparison where you don't compare yourself to Mahatma Ghandi, at all.

makeorbrake wrote: »

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

makeorbrake wrote: »

If it wasn't for the prejudicial moderation, I would have debated the issue with all of you. Some people don't tend to respond in the expected manner to bullies...

You got hammered on the thread because of your inability to articulate proper reasons why Integrity Ireland should be supported. You complained of prejudicial moderation, subsequently. And now bullying? Seriously?

There is no point in going crying to mammy just because the bigger boys gave you a hard time on the pitch.

Taltos

That's not the first time you've mentioned defamation.
Do you want to clarify what you mean instead of dancing around it?

As it stands we cannot be clearer.
Boards.ie does not run the forum.
The mods guide the forum within the strict guidelines of the site.
The posters shape and determine how each forum grows and progresses, generally positive posters shape the flow and ebb, the negative can result in charter tightening but generally just cards and headaches. That's not to say the office doesn't step in, they do, rarely but they do. Normally when needed either by the mods or posters or the forum one of the Community Managers steps in and clarifies things, they don't like doing this of course as there is rarely any discussion at that point which none of us want. But it is needed sometimes, not least because the mods here are all volunteers and I'm sure many of them have better things to be doing than playing verbal toss the ball on disagreements like this.

Remember, as you called out just above, if you find that a forum is not for you then the simple solution is not to post there, as if you do despite thinking you won't fit in then there's not really all that much we can do is there?...

makeorbrake

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Round and round in circles with the "questions" so you can pretend that you are not adopting a position or making any point. It's a dishonest way to attempt discussion.

Nonsense. I challenged a point that someone made. That individual never came back to back up his assertion and respond to the question I put to him in that regard. All I got was an anti-I.I. tirade from 'legal discussion' contributors - many of whom it would be safe to say have an involvement in the established and current legal profession (or ancillary professions).
You speak of 'dishonest' - what's dishonest is to implement the prejudicial moderation that occurred.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Okay, here is the non-comparison where you don't compare yourself to Mahatma Ghandi, at all.

Sure - and that proves the point for me - thank you. What I did was borrow a Ghandi quotation which was very much fitting to the circumstances - and the unwavering attempts by others to portray I.I. as 'loons'.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You got hammered on the thread because of your inability to articulate proper reasons why Integrity Ireland should be supported.

What's your definition of 'getting hammered'? You mean that there was a difference of opinion - and due to the nature of the sub-forum (likely to contain many with a vested interest in being anti-I.I. and maintaining the status quo), you call that getting hammered? What a joke.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You complained of prejudicial moderation, subsequently.

I'm complaining of prejudicial moderation right here right now - and it's plain to see for any neutral. You are labelling Integrity Ireland as 'crazy' and 'cranks'. That's not equitable and it's not a decision that was borne out of equitable consideration and one that is borne out of complete and utter self interest.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

And now bullying? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Again, for any neutral, it's plain to see what you're at. I don't back down - see the other thread. The only reason I withdrew from that particular debate in YOUR sub-forum is that the basis of the 'debate' was inequitable (by way of your refusal to remove I.I. from a thread that has nothing to do with them and by way of you or your fellow mods declaring them to be 'cranks' or 'crazy').

If you don't have the ability to articulate your point of view without such inequitable behaviour, then you simply shouldn't get involved in the debate - end of.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

There is no point in going crying to mammy just because the bigger boys gave you a hard time on the pitch.

Not worthy of comment.

Taltos wrote:

That's not the first time you've mentioned defamation.
Do you want to clarify what you mean instead of dancing around it?

There's nothing unclear in what I've stated. I asked you if I took out a full page ad in the National Media saying YOU were 'crazy' or a 'crank', how would I fare with that? I didn't receive an answer.

Taltos wrote:

As it stands we cannot be clearer.
Boards.ie does not run the forum.
The mods guide the forum within the strict guidelines of the site.
The posters shape and determine how each forum grows and progresses, generally positive posters shape the flow and ebb, the negative can result in charter tightening but generally just cards and headaches. That's not to say the office doesn't step in, they do, rarely but they do. Normally when needed either by the mods or posters or the forum one of the Community Managers steps in and clarifies things, they don't like doing this of course as there is rarely any discussion at that point which none of us want. But it is needed sometimes, not least because the mods here are all volunteers and I'm sure many of them have better things to be doing than playing verbal toss the ball on disagreements like this.

Ergo, to your mind, it's quite alright if an organisation is wrongly branded and their good name tarnished.
To your mind, it's quite alright if your mods have a vested interest in wrongly branding and tarnishing an organisation - because they are volunteers!
To your mind, you don't want to bother boards.ie admin with such a minuscule thing as wrongly branding and tarnishing an organisation that is doing sterling work in the interests of all citizens of this country.

Taltos wrote:

Remember, as you called out just above, if you find that a forum is not for you then the simple solution is not to post there, as if you do despite thinking you won't fit in then there's not really all that much we can do is there?...

I see. So essentially, I should either ignore this completely inequitable position or sling my hook.
I may well sling my hook. However, you are going to continue to allow forum participants - and more importantly, your own community/forum moderators (!!) to wrongly brand and tarnish the good name of a reputable organisation?

That - in effect - is what you are saying.

I continue to give you every opportunity to stand back a bit and consider what I have raised here.

Pat Mustard

It takes balls to go on to a forum and challenge other people. It's not for everybody. You can't even make a clear, straight point. It has to be "just a question", which isn't really a question at all.

Your accusations of bullying are absolutely farcical. You can't handle the criticism that comes with discussion, so you run over here to throw your toys out of the pram.

I'm having nothing more to do with this childish melodrama.

Taltos

Wow.
Just wow.
So somehow you can now read my mind. That is just amaze-balls, flaming amaze-balls. I'm not kidding here - do you know what I'm thinking right now? Do you? You do! Wow. Freaky...

It's late. So I'm going to cut to it.
Your threats around a front page article - already answered. Go ahead, do it, and see what happens.
No mods are not prejudiced because they are volunteers, that's more than twisting my words, they try to be impartial but were chosen because they proved repeatedly they CARED about their forums as posters. We ask them to try to be impartial but we do not insist on it. You might be, but I for one don't. We do ask them to be fair and reasonable. We also have multiple mods, cmods and admin teams to try to protect against rogue mods but I am not seeing any sign of that here. None. Nada. Zilch.

I have also given you choices here.
Sling your hook - your words and picked up from your impression of Legal when you first posted. I would prefer not to be so crass though.
Or get Integrity Ireland to contact HQ and request and pay for a REP account.

Wrap up:
We've heard your complaint.
I find no grounds to overrule the mods on the basis of your opening arguments, and in fact reading how your posts have unfolded here has reaffirmed in my mind that they were more than right in their initial assessment. I also agree with your own initial assessment that Legal was not a good fit for you.

So you've a choice.
a) Rant on here - I'm not going to waste anymore time than I have at this stage.
b) Agree to disagree - we aren't going to see eye to eye on any of this but I had at least tried to be civil with you. Threats and bully boy tactics just wear thin very very rapidly.
c) Follow my original suggestion and if II want to participate formally request a REP account.

Have a great weekend, sorry we couldn't come to a common understanding beyond that where we clearly are on two different planes here.
Taltos - that's all folks....

johnnyskeleton

If I can make a brief observation, the purpose of the legal discussion forum is to discuss legal issues, concepts, cases etc, its not really appropriate to have a thread about Integrity Ireland alone. if you want to discuss problems with the legal profession, regulation etc im sure they would be happy to allow that kind of thread.

If you want to discuss Integrity Ireland as a political movement, you can open a thread in the politics forum (plug plug). But the core of your complaint is that I-I dont get their own thread in Legal Discussion and are lumped in with freemen, the Hub etc, and the reason for that is that the Legal Discussion forum is meant for legal discussion topics, not for discussion on individual groups etc.

Does that answer your question?

makeorbrake

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It takes balls to go on to a forum and challenge other people. It's not for everybody. You can't even make a clear, straight point. It has to be "just a question", which isn't really a question at all.

Go back and read what I wrote. It was a clear question. Rather than answer the question, your fellow legal professionals discussion posters started into various tirades all with a view to discrediting an honourable organisation. In so doing, deflecting away from the original question.

As regards it taking balls to go on a forum and challenge other people, given that it's a fair enough assumption that the vast majority of 'contributors' to your sub-forum are members of either the legal profession or ancillary professions - and have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, I'm not exactly lacking in the balls department.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your accusations of bullying are absolutely farcical. You can't handle the criticism that comes with discussion, so you run over here to throw your toys out of the pram.

When 'moderators' wade in and inequitably alter the basis for the discussion and that's deemed to be acceptable, then that says it all, really.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I'm having nothing more to do with this childish melodrama.

Childish?
Some examples of 'childish' for you =>

whippet wrote:

Talk soon Stephen

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Take your ball and run along.

Is that the quality of 'contribution' that you stand over?

Taltos wrote:

Wow.
Just wow.
So somehow you can now read my mind. That is just amaze-balls, flaming amaze-balls. I'm not kidding here - do you know what I'm thinking right now? Do you? You do! Wow. Freaky...

Calm yourself. Are you referring to this?

makeorbrake wrote:

Ergo, to your mind, it's quite alright if an organisation is wrongly branded and their good name tarnished.
To your mind, it's quite alright if your mods have a vested interest in wrongly branding and tarnishing an organisation - because they are volunteers!
To your mind, you don't want to bother boards.ie admin with such a minuscule thing as wrongly branding and tarnishing an organisation that is doing sterling work in the interests of all citizens of this country.

How else can your inaction - and your attempts at justifying that inaction - be rationalised? The good name of an honourable organisation is being tarnished by the actions of your partisan moderators and rubber stamped by you. That's the reality.

Taltos wrote:

Your threats around a front page article - already answered. Go ahead, do it, and see what happens.

I made no such threat. I provided you with a comparative example and asked you to consider if it would be equitable. I asked you how I.I. being categorised by representatives of boards.ie as 'cranks' or 'crazy' would be any different.

You said that this would be 'defaming' your character. When I articulated that categorising I.I. in this way may well be seen to be defamatory, you responded with this;

Taltos wrote:

Do you want to clarify what you mean instead of dancing around it?

It was clear to anyone what I was referring to (seeing as you had referred to it yourself!). Notwithstanding that, I went on to point that out to you...again.

Taltos wrote:

No mods are not prejudiced because they are volunteers, that's more than twisting my words, they try to be impartial but were chosen because they proved repeatedly they CARED about their forums as posters

The 'twisting' is being done by yourself. You seemed to be using the 'volunteer' angle as an excuse for this behaviour. i.e. to blatantly tarnish the good name of an organisation. There is no excuse for same - particularly when the issue is brought to the specific attention of boards.ie

Taltos wrote:

they try to be impartial but were chosen because they proved repeatedly they CARED about their forums as posters.

I have no doubt that they care about their forums. Whether that's with everyones interests or self-interest in mind is another question.
With regard to them 'trying' to be impartial, please - don't insult people. A 5 year old could determine the lack of impartiality expressed by mods on that thread.

Taltos wrote:

We do ask them to be fair and reasonable

As above. Their actions and comments - together with your endorsement of same don't fall into the 'fair and reasonable' category.

Taltos wrote:

So you've a choice.
a) Rant on here - I'm not going to waste anymore time than I have at this stage.

If you mean articulate my point of view, yes, I will avail of same by way of this post.

Taltos wrote:

b) Agree to disagree - we aren't going to see eye to eye on any of this but I had at least tried to be civil with you. Threats and bully boy tactics just wear thin very very rapidly.

Yes, of course we can agree to disagree. With regard to being civil, I have not been anything else but civil in this discourse. I couldn't say the same for others.
With regard to threats and bully boy tactics, I can only speak from a personal point of view but for me, they only serve to strengthen the resolve.

Taltos wrote:

Have a great weekend, sorry we couldn't come to a common understanding beyond that where we clearly are on two different planes here.

I wish you the very same.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

the purpose of the legal discussion forum is to discuss legal issues, concepts, cases etc, its not really appropriate to have a thread about Integrity Ireland alone.

If you are saying that Integrity Ireland is beyond the scope of the legal discussion forum, then I'm fine with that. However, that would mean that you agree to remove all mention of Integrity Ireland from said forum.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

If you want to discuss Integrity Ireland as a political movement, you can open a thread in the politics forum (plug plug).

Insofar as I'm aware, Integrity Ireland isn't a political entity - a lobby and support group, yes.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

But the core of your complaint is that I-I dont get their own thread in Legal Discussion and are lumped in with freemen, the Hub etc, and the reason for that is that the Legal Discussion forum is meant for legal discussion topics, not for discussion on individual groups etc.

Firstly, I don't give a fiddlers if you wish to allow an individual thread on Integrity Ireland or not. I'd wager that it's very much relevant to your profession since one core objective which has brought about it's existence is to effect change and reform in your profession (amongst others). If you don't want to discuss that, no problem.
However, what you describe as my complaint is not wholly accurate. When I.I. is 'lumped in' under a subject titled 'Freeman Megamerge' - it misleads. You don't have to take my word for this. Contributors to another thread in the 'After Hours' section were of the opinion that I.I. held a Freeman ideology - on the basis of the mere mention (and subsequent discussion) of the organisation in your 'Freeman Megamerge' thread.
The central premise of my complaint is based on this prejudicial statement and moderating decision;

Pat Mustard wrote:

All of the pseudo-legal, crank stuff and crazy nonsense is contained in one thread for a good reason.

That statement and action explicitly casts aspersions with regard to the reputation and integrity of Integrity Ireland in a manner which is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a boards.ie moderator. (or indeed moderators - given that quite a few boards.ie legal discussion forum moderators at this stage have endorsed this stance and decision).

BuffyBot

OP: it appears the forum is not for you.

I'd suggest avoiding it voluntarily if you cannot abide by it's rules and customs. Nothing you've posted has given me a moment of doubt about that.

I'm closing this off.

makeorbrake

BuffyBot wrote: »

OP: it appears the forum is not for you.

Whether a forum is or is not 'for me' was not the query that was put towards boards.ie

BuffyBot wrote: »

I'd suggest avoiding it voluntarily if you cannot abide by it's rules and customs.

Can you outline WHERE I have not abided by forum rules?

BuffyBot wrote: »

Nothing you've posted has given me a moment of doubt about that.

That wasn't the subject that you were respectfully asked to examine. I asked you to look at the prejudice inplicated in one of your forum moderators decisions.

From my last post;
That statement and action explicitly casts aspersions with regard to the reputation and integrity of Integrity Ireland in a manner which is neither fair nor reasonable on the part of a boards.ie moderator. (or indeed moderators - given that quite a few boards.ie legal discussion forum moderators at this stage have endorsed this stance and decision).

I can only deduce from your post - and that of others - that boards.ie endorses prejudicial moderation.

BuffyBot

Whether a forum is or is not 'for me' was not the query that was put towards boards.ie

However, it is the answer you're being given, based upon the impression you've left upon me.