A discussion on the rules.

Eliot Rosewater

The problem with academic sources is that they can't be verified by the moderators or by individual posters.

Of course, in some cases an academic source must be considered the only thing going. For a specialist topic in Political Theory, for instance.

However, in the case of the Dutch Health System - that's a big issue which attracts a lot of attention outside of academia. One then presumes that newspapers and internet sites have reported on it. If there's a gaping hole in the Dutch Health system it won't be quietly tucked away in a big academic tome somewhere - it will probably be explained online.

We're being especcially strict with the election on Friday, as we want to avoid mud-slinging by posters with agendas.

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Whats the deal with giving sources, just Reading Jolly Red Giants thread and getting flack from Eliot Rosewater for giving non linked sources, what is the official Politics stance on academic refences, considering they are generally the most accurate of sources (and generally quite easy to find academic rebuttals of them too) and citing a newspaper/magazine report on a study is often extremely uninformative due to reporters often biase and lack of understanding, but these sources are unavailable (apart from abstracts) to most users (though traditionally lot of students etc on boards.ie so still a fair few should have access).
Whats deal no academic references even though most accurate?

The problem is that's it's extremely easy to lie or misrepresent a position if you're quoting it from a document that no one else has access to. No easy way around this other than asking people to find 2nd hand references to the academic source they're talking about to be used when those 2nd hand references can be viewed publicly online.

RDM_83 again

Cheers thats the clarification I was looking for, was just a bit worried that there was now total ban on academic sources which could affect certain discusions, and too be honest a lot of time you can post a google scholar link that is available to wider public anyway.

Wolfe Tone

I would like a clarification with regards to advocating violence with regards to the Libya situation. Ok or not?

nesf

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I would like a clarification with regards to advocating violence with regards to the Libya situation. Ok or not?

I'll start a thread in the Politics Mods forum and one of us will get back to you with the consensus.

Could you perhaps clarify exactly what you're referring to?

Wolfe Tone

Thanks nesf, I'm just curious as to whether it is acceptable to advocate that the west send in troops, or do xyz, or champion their missile attacks, or advocate that the rebels kill/attack Libyas forces(or gadaffi himself!), things like that, when we take this into account:

GuanYin wrote: »

Also, as per the rules of the charter, ANYONE celebrating murder or death, be it of a soldier, informant, IRA member or anyone alleged to be one of these, will be removed from the forum.

Its a bit of a grey area! And I would be of the opinion that if it is to be allowed, it should be for all sides.

Wolfe Tone

Any update on this?

Is the question here that posts in praise of terrorism should be given equal status to posts in favour of un security council sanctioned acts or acts of war done by democratically elected and accountable governments?

I'd assume posts against both already have equal status.

Scofflaw

I don't think it's possible to put it more concisely than GY already has:

Also, as per the rules of the charter, ANYONE celebrating murder or death, be it of a soldier, informant, IRA member or anyone alleged to be one of these, will be removed from the forum.

If you celebrate the murder or death of anyone involved in any current action, we will sanction you. There's no particular ban on advocating military action - but, as usual, we'll continue to use our discretion in the matter.

The reason why grey areas are grey is that they're grey - there isn't a hard and fast applicable-to-every-post line between advocating Gadaffi's removal and celebrating his possible/actual murder or death, and attempts to make one simply play into the hands of barrack-room lawyers who will then attempt to use the exact wording to defend their preferred celebrations of murder or violence and condemn those of their opponents.

And I'm sure we all agree that that's of no real value to the forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wolfe Tone

Scoff, in practice though does that not result in the mod team effectively "picking a side"?

P. Breathnach

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Scoff, in practice though does that not result in the mod team effectively "picking a side"?

Come off it.

By disposition, I am in favour of clarity in rules to the greatest extent possible, but I recognise that the world is a complicated place and the amount of work that would be involved in covering all the bases is immense (look how lengthy many pieces of statute law are, and the courts still often find them deficient). So we get by here mostly on the basis of guiding principles, the goodwill and good sense of most participants, and sensible judgement calls by moderators. It seems to work fairly well, albeit with the odd hiccup, but we have the Dispute Resolution forum for those.

The mods are on the side of those who would prefer not to see the deaths of people celebrated and it seems that they are also against people making specious attempts to circumvent the rule. Unless somebody can demonstrate that they consistently fail in a way that is not even-handed, that's good enough for me.

[I also recognise that moderators give their time and effort voluntarily, and think it unreasonable to try to hog-tie them more than is necessary for the maintenance of basic good order in the forum.]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Can we please have a NI thread with quicker/more sensible modding? We have eliot rosewater thanking permabears post

Originally Posted by Wolfe Tone
"Derrys walls are between the carpark and the sheltered housing"

Permabear
And that excuses the planting of the bomb, does it?

Wolfe Tone posted an image that clearly shows the buildings referred to in the OP's post, whats wrong with facts being displayed? The fact is that area is busy enough anyway that a bomb going off would certainly cause casualties, however not in the buildings referred to (but for some reason the Verbal arts centre isn't worth comment?)

Clear case of moderator biase IMO

RDM_83 again

To clarify, Also reported Permabears post at approximately 1 or 2 pm, if there was a problem with Wolfe Tones post it clearly should also have been removed then as well.

Wolfe Tone

I have to say I think this is an absolute disgrace of the highest order.

K-9

Problem is, I've seen posts that were soap boxing and I think Permabear was clearly doing that, not actioned. If it agreed with a few of the complainers here, or they seen a point in it, they'd have no problem with the post.

There needs to be a consistency, I think it's too lenient now.

I think PM's post is one that should have been allowed during the election given the increased exposure, that excuse shouldn't be used now.

There's always AH!

RDM_83 again

I don't have an issue with the First post (silly as it may be), I'm actually reffering to post #26 on the thread which I had an issue with as it was an unwarrented attack and was going to take the thread completely off topic which it did, yet we have a mod thanking that post (who as far as can be seen from this forum holds very similar views to the OP) and then locking the thread! to me the optics of this look terrible.

Wolfe Tone

My issue is posters being allowed to accuse me of supporting and defending dissident actions when I have done no such thing.
Started a feedback thread on it, no need to clog this thread up.

K-9

It's clearly an issue, otherwise a mod thanking it wouldn't be raised.

Sand

Srsly lads - NI/Thunderdome forum with a sanity warning, very relaxed moderation, and all these issues (celebrating death/murder tends to be NI specific) get quarantined in their own sub forum where the interested parties can scrap it out ad nauseum.

The only rule ought to be libel/death threats against named figures and you can reward informers from either side for ratting out the others whenever it occurs.

Laminations

I was thinking of starting a thread on this but I thought I'd probably get infracted or it would be anonymously moved to an obscure place without comment. If a moderator feels this issue deserves discussion, you can make it a thread.

There has been a lot of talk of faffing about at the edges with the politics forum with regards to subforums etc but I would like to propose a larger scale overhaul.

Just like threads can be thanked, why couldn't a report system be set up that was transparent and mod free. If I don't like your post I hit report and then select from

Libel
Ad hominem
Misrepresentation
Soap boxing
Fallacious - Strawman
Fallacious - Authority
etc.


Cumulative reports could be represented like a poll, so that each has the number of complaints made about the posting, and clicking in further you could see who was reporting (just like thanks are shown)

Libel could be investigated by a mod immediately after one report (mods will have plenty of free time), but the other reports would need to reach some threshold (gradated based on seriousness) and then the post is blocked (similar to youtube comments). If you get 5 blocked posts, you get an automatic short ban. Repeated bans lead to a permaban.

Mods could actually moderate in the background of a democratic board where we are not treated like children.
Furthermore if your posts are getting reported you can check to see what the most common complaint is and also who is making it. Then you can avoid arguing with the more easily offended posters (the quick to complainers), or the ones guilty of strawmanning ever chance they get.

I think this forum is deficient in a number of ways and if I had tekkers and money I'd set up a forum of my own, but I don't so I won't

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

I was thinking of starting a thread on this but I thought I'd probably get infracted or it would be anonymously moved to an obscure place without comment. If a moderator feels this issue deserves discussion, you can make it a thread.

There has been a lot of talk of faffing about at the edges with the politics forum with regards to subforums etc but I would like to propose a larger scale overhaul.

Just like threads can be thanked, why couldn't a report system be set up that was transparent and mod free. If I don't like your post I hit report and then select from

Libel
Ad hominem
Misrepresentation
Soap boxing
Fallacious - Strawman
Fallacious - Authority
etc.


Cumulative reports could be represented like a poll, so that each has the number of complaints made about the posting, and clicking in further you could see who was reporting (just like thanks are shown)

Libel could be investigated by a mod immediately after one report (mods will have plenty of free time), but the other reports would need to reach some threshold (gradated based on seriousness) and then the post is blocked (similar to youtube comments). If you get 5 blocked posts, you get an automatic short ban. Repeated bans lead to a permaban.

Mods could actually moderate in the background of a democratic board where we are not treated like children.
Furthermore if your posts are getting reported you can check to see what the most common complaint is and also who is making it. Then you can avoid arguing with the more easily offended posters (the quick to complainers), or the ones guilty of strawmanning ever chance they get.

I think this forum is deficient in a number of ways and if I had tekkers and money I'd set up a forum of my own, but I don't so I won't

There's a system that offers immediate opportunities for gaming it.

Not every reported post is actionable by quite a way - some people report posters who argue with them, some people take offence over bizarre trifles, many people don't actually understand whether something is an ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority - and so on. Republican posters tend not to report other republican posters, but do tend to report unionist posters, and the same on various other divides. Whoever was in the majority in any of the more bitter disputes would win the 'report post' war, and effectively have the power to censor and ban their opponents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a system that offers immediate opportunities for gaming it.

Not every reported post is actionable by quite a way - some people report posters who argue with them, some people take offence over bizarre trifles, many people don't actually understand whether something is an ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority - and so on. Republican posters tend not to report other republican posters, but do tend to report unionist posters, and the same on various other divides. Whoever was in the majority in any of the more bitter disputes would win the 'report post' war, and effectively have the power to censor and ban their opponents.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm not saying a mod could not step in to adjudicate. This method would be more transparent. But I think posters could police themselves and each other in relation to vindictive and inaccurate reporting for the most part. If 50 people deem my post as strawmanning then it gets blocked for strawmanning, blocked from view but not inaccessible. Now whether it was strawmanning or not doesn't matter, a threshold of people perceived it as so, and why should a mods judgement/perception overrule the majority perception? There is no objective reality, only judgements of such. Mods are subject to the same biases against posters. Whoever is in the majority should 'win' a debate, the whole point of a debate is to convince others, sometimes the majority, using reasoned logical argument. You are saying that people are unable to recognise good arguments but that you somehow are?

Laminations

Your argument is that posters will be dishonest when reporting posts. I'm sure this happens anyway and the mods make a judgement on it. Why couldn't it be left to the posting community to make that judgement? Afterall it is not like mods are disconnected from the debates here, they have friends, they have posters they like, they contribute to the debates, they have their own ideological positions.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Your argument is that posters will be dishonest when reporting posts. I'm sure this happens anyway and the mods make a judgement on it. Why couldn't it be left to the posting community to make that judgement? Afterall it is not like mods are disconnected from the debates here, they have friends, they have posters they like, they contribute to the debates, they have their own ideological positions.

But unlike other posters, they have a duty to be impartial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

But unlike other posters, they have a duty to be impartial.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A duty overseen by whom? Or are you now suggesting that mods are inherently more honourable and honest than other posters? We do not get to vote for mods every X years. If you are to remain impartial then mods should be forbidden from posting on topics. Its like a judge making a case for the prosecution or defence and then attempting to impartially judge the veracity of both sides arguments.

K-9

That sounds a bit like an extension to the karma system they had on here years ago and politics.ie had something similar, both didn't end well.

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

A duty overseen by whom? Or are you now suggesting that mods are inherently more honourable and honest than other posters? We do not get to vote for mods every X years. If you are to remain impartial then mods should be forbidden from posting on topics. Its like a judge making a case for the prosecution or defence and then attempting to impartially judge the veracity of both sides arguments.

We're kept honest and impartial by the feedback from the majority of posters, the ability for our decisions to be challenged and overturned, the fact that posters can vote with their feet by leaving forums in which the mods are unfair and partial - and, yes, by the fact that we try to ensure that only the most honourable and honest posters become mods. It doesn't satisfy absolutely everyone, but then nothing ever will.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Laminations

And here I was thinking you'd run to the defense of my anti-authoritarian idea.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And I'd love to see the percentage of decisions that are overturned at arbitration, the whole arbitration process is sidelined anyway. 'Of course you can protest, just do it over in this room here where nobody visits'

Do you think the site would function better if the most popular posters were also the moderators?

I think a democracy is better than an aristocracy. The people will get the moderators they deserve.

Are you saying that someone who is politically partisan cannot moderate impartially? Why?

Well yes, and you both are saying that too. All posters here are politically partisan, and Scofflaw is saying they are unable to moderate the forum due to biases and pettiness. The wisdom of crowds works fine for Wikipedia