A discussion on the rules.

Scofflaw

southsiderosie wrote: »

I think it's a stretch to go from "ratings agencies have their own interests" to "it's a plot to bring down the euro/the Irish/whomever. Certainly the ratings agencies have not covered themselves in glory over the last several years, so I don't think it in the realm of the tin-hat wearers to question their credibility.

In fact, we've put down any tinfoil hat suggestions as usual.

ei.sdraob wrote:

Its one thing to question their credibility (as I have myself done in the past on this forum btw)
its another to get distracted (for the second time! we had "evil speculators" last year when Greek crisis first erupted) by accusations that its all the fault of SomeoneElseTM, and loose sight of politicians being unable to agree and solve this crisis.

That's a separate issue, and amounts to you wanting to disallow others from in any way including the markets in the sweep of blame for our difficulties, because you have strong personal feelings as to where the blame rightly belongs. So do other people, though.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, we've put down any tinfoil hat suggestions as usual.



That's a separate issue, and amounts to you wanting to disallow others from in any way including the markets in the sweep of blame for our difficulties, because you have strong personal feelings as to where the blame rightly belongs. So do other people, though.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I've also asked a question twice about a claim that ratings agencies are answerable as claimed by ei.sdraob and am still awaiting an answer. Think I'll be waiting a while while the poster ignores the question and brings up NAMA yet again on an unrelated thread.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I've also asked a question twice about a claim that ratings agencies are answerable as claimed by ei.sdraob and am still awaiting an answer. Think I'll be waiting a while while the poster ignores the question and brings up NAMA yet again on an unrelated thread.

.....non-answering of legitimate topic and post related questions really should be an actionable offence.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Similar to the "scumbag" ban, with mild infractions handed out, how about a similar system for those squabbling about the whole "you're from the island of ireland so you're irish"/"ulster is 9 counties"

Though both these statements are true, they are geographical and historical rather than political. When they're brought up it is nearly always completely irrelevant to the topic, yet still regularly manages to derail threads

When a unionist say they're not Irish they mean "i am nationally different to those from the republic of ireland", and many of them have been callign northern ireland/the six counties Ulster for a long time, so we know what they mean(ulsterbus, university of ulster, ulster bank etc etc). therefore when peopel call them up on it, they are inevitably doing it to get a rise.

So I propose peopel can call the place what they like, "the north, ulster, northern ireland, the six counties, the uk, probably other examples....." but posters who counteract this with an off topic correction, they get an automatic infraction

ei.sdraob

K-9 wrote: »

I've also asked a question twice about a claim that ratings agencies are answerable as claimed by ei.sdraob and am still awaiting an answer. Think I'll be waiting a while while the poster ignores the question and brings up NAMA yet again on an unrelated thread.

When one comes up with a theory (in this case that rating agencies are involved in a conspiracy to bring down europe) the burden of proof is one the ones making the claim.


As I have said these rating agencies have made mistakes, but obviously they are still giving out enough good advice/assessments and are still in business. Is that such a difficult concept for you to comprehend? On the other hand how come the Irish Regulator is still around for "rating" the Irish banks as "well capitalised" and promising a "soft landing" :rolleyes:

Whats easier to believe:
1. Ireland is bust
2. A bunch of cigarette smoking men are sitting in a dark room somewhere moving chess pieces on a board.

There is a knee-jerk reaction to shoot the messenger being helped along by politicians wanting to deflect attention from themselves, I have posted large section of the Moodys assessment of Ireland, does any of it read like a conspiracy? If anything they are quite supportive of the country.

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a separate issue, and amounts to you wanting to disallow others from in any way including the markets in the sweep of blame for our difficulties, because you have strong personal feelings as to where the blame rightly belongs. So do other people, though.

If anyone made a post in Politics along the lines of "Bilderberg/Trilateral Commisions/G8/insert someone else etc are plotting to bring down europe" it would be quickly dismissed as conspiracy theory junk, yet in this case nothing. Since you yourself seem to support this point of view then I can see how it could be difficult to admit of oneself engaging in conspiracy theorizing.

Scofflaw

If anyone made a post in Politics along the lines of "Bilderberg/Trilateral Commisions/G8/insert someone else etc are plotting to bring down europe" it would be quickly dismissed as conspiracy theory junk, yet in this case nothing. Since you yourself seem to support this point of view then I can see how it could be difficult to admit of oneself engaging in conspiracy theorizing.

As usual, you ascribe a position to me that I don't hold, and go on to make an inaccurate and tendentious assessment of the situation based on that initial error.

There are a variety of shades of opinion about the ratings agencies. Some of them are the classic NWO-style conspiracy theories, and they are being treated the same as usual. But asking whether the interests of a set of influential people or companies are involved in current events isn't 'conspiracy theory' - far from it, it's rather obviously the bedrock of politics, and as I said, your attempt to have it dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory' simply because it involves your particular sacred cows is rather transparent.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Similar to the "scumbag" ban, with mild infractions handed out, how about a similar system for those squabbling about the whole "you're from the island of ireland so you're irish"/"ulster is 9 counties"

Though both these statements are true, they are geographical and historical rather than political. When they're brought up it is nearly always completely irrelevant to the topic, yet still regularly manages to derail threads

When a unionist say they're not Irish they mean "i am nationally different to those from the republic of ireland", and many of them have been callign northern ireland/the six counties Ulster for a long time, so we know what they mean(ulsterbus, university of ulster, ulster bank etc etc). therefore when peopel call them up on it, they are inevitably doing it to get a rise.

So I propose peopel can call the place what they like, "the north, ulster, northern ireland, the six counties, the uk, probably other examples....." but posters who counteract this with an off topic correction, they get an automatic infraction

Sure - that's basically just tribal hooting and chanting along the lines of Derry/Londonderry "discussions". Report it, and cards can be handed out.

moderately,
Scofflaw

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

When one comes up with a theory (in this case that rating agencies are involved in a conspiracy to bring down europe) the burden of proof is one the ones making the claim.

Yet you made a claim that they are answerable and can go bust or "dead as a Dodo" as you put it, when asked to back up the claim you don't answer it and go on a rant about NAMA and now soft landings, all very interesting but not answering the question. It's a common enough scenario with certain posters, instead of saying "I don't know" or none they go of a tangent instead.

beeftotheheels

K-9 wrote: »

Yet you made a claim that they are answerable and can go bust or "dead as a Dodo" as you put it, when asked to back up the claim you don't answer it and go on a rant about NAMA and now soft landings, all very interesting but not answering the question. It's a common enough scenario with certain posters, instead of saying "I don't know" or none they go of a tangent instead.

You do realize that you're engaged in an argument over evolution with someone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis? Belief in an efficient market hypothesis, like creationism, struggles to deal with contrary evidence, which to non-believers appears to abound.

Nodin

Could we have an amendment to the charter concerning the idea of "free cars" for refugees/"nigerians"/asylum seekers similar to that as exists with regards to the Dublin Regulation? It comes up far too regularily and personally I'm sick of it.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

Could we have an amendment to the charter concerning the idea of "free cars" for refugees/"nigerians"/asylum seekers similar to that as exists with regards to the Dublin Regulation? It comes up far too regularily and personally I'm sick of it.

I'll be honest, I'm uncomfortable enough with the Dublin Regulation part of the charter without restricting the debate further. Plus if we do this we'd have to put every "settled argument" into the charter etc.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

I'll be honest, I'm uncomfortable enough with the Dublin Regulation part of the charter without restricting the debate further. Plus if we do this we'd have to put every "settled argument" into the charter etc.

This isn't even an argument. Unlike the Dublin regulation and its previous incarnation, there is not, never has been "free cars" for asylum seekers/"nigerians"/refugees/africans or "being black". There is therefore no question of interpretation.

It's a myth of the same ilk as jews running the world with a secret council, all nigerians being scam artists, all Brits being cromwell in waiting and so on. It's a crock of xenophobic (occassionally racist) hatemongering shite, to be blunt.

nesf

Nodin wrote: »

This isn't even an argument. Unlike the Dublin regulation and its previous incarnation, there is not, never has been "free cars" for asylum seekers/"nigerians"/refugees/africans or "being black". There is therefore no question of interpretation.

It's a myth of the same ilk as jews running the world with a secret council, all nigerians being scam artists, all Brits being cromwell in waiting and so on. It's a crock of xenophobic (occassionally racist) hatemongering shite, to be blunt.

Sure but what's wrong with it just being rebutted strongly by the vast majority of the forum and leaving it at that? Do we really need a rule for this?

oscarBravo

nesf wrote: »

Sure but what's wrong with it just being rebutted strongly by the vast majority of the forum and leaving it at that? Do we really need a rule for this?

It's the repetition of the big lie. Enough people claim it loudly and often enough, it becomes accepted wisdom, and those who refute it are bleeding heart liberals who don't know what the dogs in the street know.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's the repetition of the big lie. Enough people claim it loudly and often enough, it becomes accepted wisdom, and those who refute it are bleeding heart liberals who don't know what the dogs in the street know.

It's similar to the "why don't they land in the first EU country" myth at this stage. Tbh, I don't think it'll make people who believe this stuff change their mind but some sort of post in the charter might put an end to the very repetitive claims in every asylum seeker thread.

Nodin

nesf wrote: »

Sure but what's wrong with it just being rebutted strongly by the vast majority of the forum and leaving it at that? Do we really need a rule for this?

Unfortunately the majority is insufficiently vast. If anything when it appears you get a few chiming in to back up the claim with their "evidence" of how their neighbour/brother in law the garage owner/former taxi driver got a HSE cheque from a "nigerian" etc.

Nodin

It has to be said that I made that post at 12.04 before I had a look at the classic example of the genre going on in the Pamela I. thread.

southsiderosie

Nine out of ten immigration threads on boards turns into a conspiracy theory-laden cluster****. While this is to be expected to some extent, it is getting ridiculous in the Politics forum.

I accept that immigration is a contentious issue, and the people who post about it care about it one way or another than most other people do. But I find it ironic that threads that are speculative when it comes to the behavior of politicians are locked, but the kind of wild "my sister's cousin's brother-in-law" ****e (to list just one example) that goes on in your average politics immigration-related thread is allowed to continue.

I honestly don't know what the solution is here, but frankly I can't tell the difference between an immigration-related thread in the Politics forum and migration-related threads on any other part of this website anymore. And that is a travesty.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

#15

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's somewhat of a vicious circle though.

Anyone who wants to discuss reform of the asylum process, including how to deal with bogus applicants, is met with a volley of ''they're all the same'' ''****** nigerians'' ''scrounging africans'' etc.

Therefore they don't bring up the topic of bogus applicants, because the mob use it to tar all asylum seekers and silence any reasonable debate.

We'll be able to discuss bogus applicants when the mob is not allowed to abuse any acknowledgement of bogus claims and claim it to be representative of all asylum seekers.

There are far less of the politically correct types (and I agree, they are frustating too) than the anti-foreigner buffoons, from what I can see.

Nodin

What we have is a case of urban myth - forever backed by anecdote - being constantly trotted out. Whats worse, when denied, its backers swarm. There is, as Southsiderosie pointed out, a great deal of this kind of behaviour, but in this most common of cases we know - categorically and without doubt - that it is not a matter of opinion or perception, its just 100% untrue.

southsiderosie

I would also add that there has been a creeping "Fox News-ification" for lack of a better term of the Politics forum over the last few months.

By this I mean engaging in the following tactics:

* The 'false hysteria' lead in, i.e. "COULD (wink, wink) x be causing y?" type stuff. Last I checked, this was not the Daily Mail, although threads often look like they are generated here. It isn't quite soapboxing and it isn't quite trolling, but it usually ends up as a ****show of a thread.

* "Labeling" people politically if you disagree with them; i.e. "the LIBERALS" or "the LIBERTARIANS". While it was at first mildly amusing to see how many people actually have no idea what these terms actually mean based on how they use them, it has become less so over time.

* Sarah Palin tactics, i.e. letting loose a torrent of words and phrases that may or may not have any relation to each other and will have no punctuation and may have been lifted completely from another source that has nothing to do with the topic at hand and may or not be attributed to the original author but it doesnt really so much now does it because by the time you realize what the person was on about in the first doggone place well by golly youre about ready to stab yourself in the eye with a pencil shall i go on or stop here wat do u all think hm?????????????????????????????????????????????????:):cool::P:pac::eek::(:mad::mad::mad:

I am not sure how this could even begin to be addressed, but it has increasingly made this forum a less interesting place to post.

later12

Could it have anything to do with the politics cafe? There are a few threads in the PC which have been moved there from the main forum, which you would wonder if they are not AH material instead of politics cafe material.

Before politics cafe, a political issue whose OP had no central or coherent argument would probably be locked. Now it may be more likely to find its way to the cafe, so some posters who favour this specific style just 'stick around'.

Exhibit 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056335084

Exhibit 2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056330280

Exhibit 3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056329750

All of those started life in the main forum, and two were expressly moved there simply because they were of a low posting standard - nothing to do with having been actually appropriate for the politics cafe then??

The politics cafe is doing well, I think, and has some great threads, but it can't just be expected to take trash, can it?

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Could it have anything to do with the politics cafe? There are a few threads in the PC which have been moved there from the main forum, which you would wonder if they are not AH material instead of politics cafe material.

Before politics cafe, a political issue whose OP had no central or coherent argument would probably be locked. Now it may be more likely to find its way to the cafe, so some posters who favour this specific style just 'stick around'.

Exhibit 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056335084

Exhibit 2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056330280

Exhibit 3
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056329750

All of those started life in the main forum, and two were expressly moved there simply because they were of a low posting standard - nothing to do with having been actually appropriate for the politics cafe then??

The politics cafe is doing well, I think, and has some great threads, but it can't just be expected to take trash, can it?

There definitely could be a debate about whether Politics Café should be for light hearted discussion or low quality discussion. I'd fall into the former camp.

Nodin

later10 wrote: »

Could it have anything to do with the politics cafe? .......

Never crossed my mind, tbh. I was keeping my complaint fairly specific.

What think Messrs Scofflaw and Dades?

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

Never crossed my mind, tbh. I was keeping my complaint fairly specific.

What think Messrs Scofflaw and Dades?

Not quite sure - I do know that I've had to permaban two people in the last 24 hours for overt racism, though, so my view would be that there is clearly a problem. If I'm 100% sure that there has never been an example of an asylum seeker being given state money to buy a car - and I'm 99% certain, because I've seen it discussed before - then I'm happy enough to make a hard and fast distinction, but only for people who repeatedly claim it without offering evidence for it.

But that is, and has been all along, something we're prepared to penalise anyway, if it is reported to us. If posters are going to make "big lie" claims, the other posters should challenge them on it - and if they're evasive, or prepared to keep repeating the claim after it's been shown to be false or at least without evidence, then you're welcome to ask a mod to put the "evidence or GTFO" rule to them with a backing of sanctions. But the first bit is up to yourselves.

We're not keepers of the holy truth, after all. If I were going to add something to the charter, it would be to formalise the "evidence or GTFO" intervention.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Fair enough then so.

later12

Can someone explain why this was moved, like the above posts, to politics cafe?

Sorry, I'm really not trying to interfere with the obviously challenging task of modding a political forum, but this sequence just looks ridiculous to an outsider.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056336690

nesf

later10 wrote: »

Can someone explain why this was moved, like the above posts, to politics cafe?

Sorry, I'm really not trying to interfere with the obviously challenging task of modding a political forum, but this sequence just looks ridiculous to an outsider.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056336690

It wasn't moved, it was started there.

later12

And when I click on it, nesf, it comes under Irish Economy, why?