A discussion on the rules.

Nodin

Banning anything along those lines outright never struck me as a great idea. "excessive use of ...." or "intent to inflame...." would be far more constructive.

I'm not too happy about the fact that it happened after just two or three posted here about it either. It gives the impression - rightly or wrongly - that its he who complains loudest gets his way, rather than considered measures for the long term good.

Nodin

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Should there not be, for consistencies sake?

Thats the kind of thing that leads to more problems than you'd think. Best to preserve freedom in sentencing, as it were.

P. Breathnach

Nodin wrote: »

Banning anything along those lines outright never struck me as a great idea. "excessive use of ...." or "intent to inflame...." would be far more constructive.

I suspect that you will find that the application of the rule will be tempered by a judgement of the overall tone of the post, and its value as a contribution to discussion. I think you and I and many other regular participants in the forum might share a view that posts which contain little or nothing other than abusive language are a problem here, and that the problem has grown greater recently, to the point that discussion is being drowned out.

Nodin wrote: »

Thats the kind of thing that leads to more problems than you'd think. Best to preserve freedom in sentencing, as it were.

Agreed. And best also to allow moderators some discretion in the application of the rules, subject to overall fairness.

Scofflaw

Nehaxak wrote: »

I find it strange that the words scum and scumbag are now not allowed to be used. Though I fully support and understand that rule, it's something I asked for months ago, but not just on the politics forum here.

Only reason I find it strange is that it's being banned now it seems mostly because the words are being used a lot more to describe politicians, bankers, et all - rather than previously just being used to describe mostly people from certain parts of Dublin, dissident republicans, travellers, drug dealers etc.,

Seems like it's only when the words start being turned around and used to describe what were once people in society to look up too and respect but who are now mostly defunct and devoid of any public admiration due to their extreme failings after the collapse of our economy - did they then become such disgusting unmentionable words.

Amused,

Me.

It's more that we came to the stage where everybody and everything was being described as 'scum' and 'scumbags'. Posters here have been using the term for bankers and politicians for ages, but we seemed to get to a point where every second post had those terms as every second word, with little other content in the post. Overload, rather than a question of target.

After all, we're also willing to infract the use of the terms 'teabaggers', 'beards', 'ZANU-FF', 'sheeple' and a variety of others for exactly the same reason. It's really a question of whether a post is a constructive one, or just a little snarl of thoughtless epithets and scat, and whether the use of the term has become so popular as to make a serious dent in the forum's signal to noise ratio.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RDM_83 again

Would it be possible to clarify the rules in relation to the labelling of a poster as the supporter of X, if you read through the thread on "L/Derry car bomb" within the thread posters have been labelled as dissident republican supporters for trying to clarify the what could labeled the thought processes/idealogy/belief systems of the Dissident republicans.
This is occuring even though posters such as myself have clearly stated condemnation of their actions, and to my mind it is offensive to be labelled as a supporter of an illegal organisation that has already been condemend in previous posts.
The constant accusations remove any level of discussion apart from at the most basic level and there has been little to no discussion of the actual impacts of the Dissident actions and their political repecusions for NI and the Stormont excutive.
Or off topic the possibility of setting up of a NI politics forum where the discusion could relate to issues on the ground.

Wolfe Tone

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Would it be possible to clarify the rules in relation to the labelling of a poster as the supporter of X, if you read through the thread on "L/Derry car bomb" within the thread posters have been labelled as dissident republican supporters for trying to clarify the what could labeled the thought processes/idealogy/belief systems of the Dissident republicans.
This is occuring even though posters such as myself have clearly stated condemnation of their actions, and to my mind it is offensive to be labelled as a supporter of an illegal organisation that has already been condemend in previous posts.
The constant accusations remove any level of discussion apart from at the most basic level and there has been little to no discussion of the actual impacts of the Dissident actions and their political repecusions for NI and the Stormont excutive.
Or off topic the possibility of setting up of a NI politics forum where the discusion could relate to issues on the ground.

Been down this road mate, good luck.

oscarBravo

Let's try a reductio ad absurdum argument, for a moment.

Suppose someone said "I wouldn't call the dissidents terrorists or criminals. As long as there are foreign soldiers occupying part of our country, it's only to be expected that a resistance movement will take up arms against that occupation. But I condemn the actions of the dissidents."

You think I should sanction someone for pointing out that the condemnation rings a little hollow?

Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Would it be possible to clarify the rules in relation to the labelling of a poster as the supporter of X, if you read through the thread on "L/Derry car bomb" within the thread posters have been labelled as dissident republican supporters for trying to clarify the what could labeled the thought processes/idealogy/belief systems of the Dissident republicans.
This is occuring even though posters such as myself have clearly stated condemnation of their actions, and to my mind it is offensive to be labelled as a supporter of an illegal organisation that has already been condemend in previous posts.
The constant accusations remove any level of discussion apart from at the most basic level and there has been little to no discussion of the actual impacts of the Dissident actions and their political repecusions for NI and the Stormont excutive.

It's really not feasible for us to police that line, because what seems to you to be an unequivocal condemnation of the acts of group X may seem to other people to be quite genuinely nothing of the kind.

On the other hand, if threads are constantly derailed into personal attacks and accusations, that's something you should report, because that's something we can do something about.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Or off topic the possibility of setting up of a NI politics forum where the discusion could relate to issues on the ground.

Worth considering, certainly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RDM_83 again

This is a discussion forum that is meant to be based on the content of a persons post. The clear reply to that example you posted is to refute the argument put forward. eg they are criminals because of X and no, armed resistance is not to be expected.

Instead what occurs next is that poster be would be attacked for supporting the actions of the dissidents not a logical case of why what they are stating is false. And this occurs for every post that tries to put forward analysis on this issue.

RDM_83 again

I'm just wondering, where do the RIP threads really fit in the politics forum? the one currently active does not meat any of the posting a new thread guidelines.

Not meaning to be insensitive but perhaps there would be a more appropriate forum for them?

southsiderosie

I have a question about an issue that has come up more in other forums, but seems to be popping up more and more in politics: at what point is there a line of civility drawn when discussing politicians? I'm asking in response to posts in the wake of the Mary Harney paint incident. I know jokes about Mary Harney's weight and appearance are de rigueur in other forums, but is that really necessary here? (and not just related to Harney, but in a broader sense)

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have a question about an issue that has come up more in other forums, but seems to be popping up more and more in politics: at what point is there a line of civility drawn when discussing politicians? I'm asking in response to posts in the wake of the Mary Harney paint incident. I know jokes about Mary Harney's weight and appearance are de rigueur in other forums, but is that really necessary here? (and not just related to Harney, but in a broader sense)

Doesn't get much broader than Harney tbh

Nodin

I thought this was for a discussion on rules in general, however it seems to be becoming the backseat moderation forum. If you've trouble with specific threads or posts, theres a report function....

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

I thought this was for a discussion on rules in general, however it seems to be becoming the backseat moderation forum. If you've trouble with specific threads or posts, theres a report function....

I would like a clarification on the rules regarding civility.

As for moderation, the charter specifically notes:

The moderators will not discuss their moderating in the Politics threads. If you wish to discuss moderation, there is one specific thread to do so here. This is the only thread in this forum where moderation may be discussed. If you wish to discuss an issue with a moderator privately or directly, either PM the moderators, or take it to the Helpdesk forum.

The "here" takes you to this thread.

Wolfe Tone

I thought boards have implemented a policy were you treat public figures the same as you would another poster?

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

I would like a clarification on the rules regarding civility.

As for moderation, the charter specifically notes:



The "here" takes you to this thread.

Did you report any of the posts in question?

southsiderosie

Nodin wrote: »

Did you report any of the posts in question?

Yes. But I also thought this was a discussion thread on the rules; what are you getting so worked up about?

Nodin

southsiderosie wrote: »

Yes............

...and was action taken?

Scofflaw

MUSSOLINI wrote:

I thought boards have implemented a policy were you treat public figures the same as you would another poster?

In general, no, the rule isn't quite that you treat public figures as you would another poster (unless they're actually posting on boards.ie).

southsiderosie wrote: »

I have a question about an issue that has come up more in other forums, but seems to be popping up more and more in politics: at what point is there a line of civility drawn when discussing politicians? I'm asking in response to posts in the wake of the Mary Harney paint incident. I know jokes about Mary Harney's weight and appearance are de rigueur in other forums, but is that really necessary here? (and not just related to Harney, but in a broader sense)

It's a good question, but doesn't have an entirely satisfactory answer, because a lot depends on whether what was said was cruel-but-funny or just crude. There is an argument that public figures have to expect a level of comment that would not be acceptable in the case of private citizens, and in general that's something I support. It's not political discussion to make a joke about Mary Harney, and past a certain level of such posts, or if the post isn't in any sense funny anyway, that becomes a moderation issue plain and simple - however, under a certain level, or with the saving grace of humour, that's more an issue of what kind of forum we're aiming to have.

There are two possible forums one can reasonably aim for (a politics.ie style free for all is not something one needs to aim for as such) - a highbrow only political discussion club, or a forum for political discussion which is as open as possible within certain limits. I appreciate there are posters who would prefer the former, but my aim is the latter: that nobody should be excluded from discussing politics here who has a contribution to make, without any requirement that they follow a particular party or ideological bent, or have educated themselves in political affairs before coming here (although that's obviously very welcome), or have to pass some subjective 'educational' requirement designed to keep the forum free of those people felt to be not quite 'our sort'. Obviously, posters are free to disagree that that's a worthwhile goal, and I admit that a 'club' style forum would be a whole lot easier to moderate (and not merely because it would inevitably be a lot smaller and less active).

A degree of leeway in regard to the civility which would be accorded public figures in the 'club' style forum is something that seems necessary to me to achieve the 'open' style of forum, although I am open, as ever, to persuasion - and, on different occasions, am likely to stray slightly either side of the imaginary and highly subjective line which denotes that degree.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

Obviously, posters are free to disagree that that's a worthwhile goal, and I admit that a 'club' style forum would be a whole lot easier to moderate (and not merely because it would inevitably be a lot smaller and less active).

cordially,
Scofflaw

It is already 'club' style. Or perhaps 'party' style in the political sense is a more appropriate description. It seems that if one doesn't 'toe the party line', the 'whip'/moderator shuts down the debate...

Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett wrote: »

It is already 'club' style. Or perhaps 'party' style in the political sense is a more appropriate description. It seems that if one doesn't 'toe the party line', the 'whip'/moderator shuts down the debate...

Lenny, you've now posted a couple of threads that really weren't going to generate any political discussion. That may have been simply because of the way you phrased them, or it may have been because there wasn't really a political discussion to be had. I let the first one run, and as we can easily see, it didn't generate anything worthwhile at all.

Trying to dress that up as some kind of oppression is nonsense. This isn't your blog - it's a political discussion forum. You don't get to just post any old stuff that you want to comment on - it needs to be political, and it needs to generate debate. Both have to be the case, because there are other forums where you can generate debate without it being political. This is about the quality of your OPs, and you're kidding yourself if you think it's not.

Let's take some of your recent OPs:

"Let 'em eat cake cheese!" was the cry from Leinster House, in answer to crys for help from the poor. Are these FF/Green guys trying to see how much they can insult us before we finally crack? They have no money to pay welfare to the poor or care for the sick but they can buy cheese and give it out to "the poor". How fúcking out of touch are these clowns? They have no idea of the pain and suffering that so many people are enduring in this country? What the fcuk are the outside world thinking of us as this latest act of imbecility flashes around the world? WHEN WILL WE COLLECTIVELY CRY STOP?!

What political discussion comes out of that? It's a rant. People can either agree with you, or disagree with you, and that's it.

Here's another:

From today's Indo:
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...b-2406939.html

TAOISEACH Brian Cowen's brother has been appointed to a new post with the Irish Greyhound Board.He went for the job after the slowdown in his auctioneering and valuing business following the collapse of the property market.
Barry Cowen, who is a Fianna Fail councillor for the Cowen family's home town of Clara in Co Offaly, is to take up his new job at Mullingar Greyhound Stadium next Monday.
Mr Cowen has been appointed sales, commercial and operations manager in Mullingar and said he was looking forward to the challenge.

And they insist it was not a Political Decision... Of course it wasn't Perish the thought...

Again, what's the point of this? It either was, or was not, a political decision - but your OP is essentially just an invitation for people to weigh in behind you saying "yeah, right on, brother!".

This isn't your echo chamber. Setting up these sort of "support me here please" threads isn't the point. That applies to everybody, regardless of political orientation.

Your "recession, what recession?" OP was a bit better, but it was incredibly unclear what the point was. What you were asking was whether there should be incentives to get people's savings mobilised, but you actually managed to bury that point in the stuff about concert tickets.

You need to learn how to start a thread. Until you do, you're not doing anything useful by starting threads - you're just cluttering the forum with your half-digested thoughts. And that's not any sort of right.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

Lenny, you've now posted a couple of threads that really weren't going to generate any political discussion. That may have been simply because of the way you phrased them, or it may have been because there wasn't really a political discussion to be had. I let the first one run, and as we can easily see, it didn't generate anything worthwhile at all.

Surely the substance of a thread is a matter of opinion. The Marie Antoinette thread was generating discussion several replies in under half an hour.... but then you shut it down. I know it may have been getting a bit uncomfortable for you but should that cloud your judgement?


Your "recession, what recession?" OP was a bit better, but it was incredibly unclear what the point was. What you were asking was whether there should be incentives to get people's savings mobilised, but you actually managed to bury that point in the stuff about concert tickets.

Recession? What Recession?
So we've seen clear evidence that there is plenty of disposable cash available at short notice - for one example: Two major concerts selling out over 160,000 tickets in less than two hours at a value of nearly €12million. So, is it time in this coming budget to make substantial incentives for people to actually spend some of the money obviously stashed away and so kick off the economy? People saving for the rainy day need to realise that the rain is well and truly bucketing down...

The mention of the concert was merely one sentence taking up the equivelant of one line in a seven line thread. It was and is a valid point for discussion/debate. We are all aware that there are tens of billions of Euro sitting in personal bank accounts and their circulation would do wonders for re-generation of the economy. That's not worthy of discussion? I question your judgement. With respect, I feel your allowing your political beliefs to cloud your moderation judgement!

Scofflaw wrote: »

You need to learn how to start a thread. Until you do, you're not doing anything useful by starting threads - you're just cluttering the forum with your half-digested thoughts. And that's not any sort of right.

moderately,
Scofflaw

A matter of opinion...

And yet threads such as this that refer to a happening years ago are allowed to run on...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68869707&postcount=1

Scofflaw

I have to say that while I can see why you might prefer to believe that I closed your threads out of political bias rather than because they're low quality, the latter is in fact the case.

It's a pity you're not willing to accept that, because it means that next time you want to start a thread you'll ask yourself the wrong question - "will this pass Scofflaw's prejudices?" - and then you'll be very surprised when you discover that you're using the wrong yardstick.

To save me issuing the advice then, and for the benefit of anyone reading this without their nose already in a sling, here's the advice: when you want to start a thread make your point clearly, and make it political. Don't indulge yourself, and don't bury the issue you want discussed in a mound of verbiage - separate the evidence from the question. A good pointer is to put the discussion issue in the form of a question at the end of the post, on its own, with a question mark - and, finally, a rhetorical question isn't usually a good thread starter.

Here's Lenny's "recession, what recession?" post rephrased as per the above:

So we've seen clear evidence that there is plenty of disposable cash available at short notice - for one example: Two major concerts selling out over 160,000 tickets in less than two hours at a value of nearly €12million. There's obviously wealth out there!

So, is it time in this coming budget to make substantial incentives for people to actually spend some of the money obviously stashed away and so kick off the economy?

That's a political discussion question, and it was there in Lenny's original OP, but hard to spot.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Lenny Lovett

Scofflaw wrote: »

I have to say that while I can see why you might prefer to believe that I closed your threads out of political bias rather than because they're low quality, the latter is in fact the case.

It's a pity you're not willing to accept that, because it means that next time you want to start a thread you'll ask yourself the wrong question - "will this pass Scofflaw's prejudices?" - and then you'll be very surprised when you discover that you're using the wrong yardstick.

LOL! You've a high opinion of yourself! Do you really think I'll give a sh1t whether it'll pass your ridiculous prejudices? You're even more deluded than I previously thought!

To save me issuing the advice then, and for the benefit of anyone reading this without their nose already in a sling, here's the advice: when you want to start a thread make your point clearly, and make it political. Don't indulge yourself, and don't bury the issue you want discussed in a mound of verbiage - separate the evidence from the question. A good pointer is to put the discussion issue in the form of a question at the end of the post, on its own, with a question mark - and, finally, a rhetorical question isn't usually a good thread starter.

That's a political discussion question, and it was there in Lenny's original OP, but hard to spot.

moderately,
Scofflaw[/QUOTE]
So, in effect, you want all posts/political questions shortened and no expansion of points? Is that to be a standard or just a selected/randomly applied rule?

Scofflaw

Fair enough - you don't get that the rules apply to you, so we'll part ways now to save some time. The forum is moderated for a reason, and part of the reason is to keep standards above a certain minimum, rather than simply being the delusions of tinpot megalomaniacs whose every action is the result of having a political axe to grind.

We're expecting to be very busy between now and Christmas, what with the by-election and the Budget, so my tolerance for people who either can't understand the rules, or can't understand that they apply to them, is low.

Permabanned. I'm sure we'll talk in DR.

moderately,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

We're expecting to be very busy between now and Christmas, what with the by-election and the Budget, so my tolerance for people who either can't understand the rules, or can't understand that they apply to them, is low.

Based on the quality of some of the posts today I really wish the mods would start to enforce this. Some of the posts have been of a disgracefully low standard and the very fact they are even been left on the threads in question is only encouraging more posts of an equally low standard.

I know that you are looking at getting more mods on board but I really think an effort needs to be brought on now to maintain and increase standards of discourse on the Politics board. You have had offers of temporary mods which you have said were not desirable or not necessary. If thats the case can you put a request into the admins to keep an eye on the forum as well. I know DeVore has been posting here on a semi-regular basis maybe he could use his unique and direct style to help restore sanity to the forum.

gandalf

gandalf wrote: »

Based on the quality of some of the posts today I really wish the mods would start to enforce this. Some of the posts have been of a disgracefully low standard and the very fact they are even been left on the threads in question is only encouraging more posts of an equally low standard.

I know that you are looking at getting more mods on board but I really think an effort needs to be brought on now to maintain and increase standards of discourse on the Politics board. You have had offers of temporary mods which you have said were not desirable or not necessary. If thats the case can you put a request into the admins to keep an eye on the forum as well. I know DeVore has been posting here on a semi-regular basis maybe he could use his unique and direct style to help restore sanity to the forum.

Hi Gandalf,

One of the main problems I'm seeing straight away is the absence of reported posts. For instance, today has been quite a busy day on the forum, yet there are only 25 reported posts (since 12 am until now, 21:36) The mods need help from the community in reporting posts they have a problem with. We will have a look at all reported posts, and take action when necessary. And obviously we will carry on taking action when we see posts that haven't been reported, yet warrant action.

I will be focussing a lot on the quality of posting in politics and while I will not be "ruling with an iron fist" (yet ) I will be asking people to rephrase if necessary, or go back to AH.

Any advice you can offer, my inbox is always open.

Yours,

Papa

Wolfe Tone

I think people are not entirely sure what should be reported.... I dont wanna be reporting stuff which shouldnt be.

gandalf

If you think it is dodgy or substandard report it and let the mods decide whether it is.

Papa Smut I think a lot of the regulars like myself have gotten disheartened over the last few months so they may have said "what's the point" in reporting posts. I know I have pissed off one mod a least with the way I have reported posts recently as well but again that has been borne from the degradation of standards here recently.

Wolfe Tone

Ive been diligently reporting every post I have seen with any variation of the word "scum" in it... my pet peeve.