Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…5657596162…89

Comments

  • Options
    #1742
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    BTW: Maybe you should wait for them to deal with your reported posts before airing your complaints in public.
    How do you know they are reported?


  • Options
    #1743
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    FreudianSlippers
    Moderator
    No, not a mod at boards, oh no.

    You've been a member for 4 years now and have nearly 6k posts. Are you that disingenuous in all your dealing on here that you are now going to pretend that you have been blissfully unaware this entire time that moderators are only moderators in the forum they moderate?

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1744
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Firstly, I'm not a mod here and you know that.
    Secondly, was it ever on the list? There was much discussion, but I was never aware of it being banned. If it is on the list of banned words I apologise and will remove it.

    BTW: Maybe you should wait for them to deal with your reported posts before airing your complaints in public.

    I knew I remembered something about this since it's your personal crusade: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92884568&postcount=1709

    You got your answer it seems.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    How do you know they are reported?
    It's not that difficult of a deduction to make now is it?


  • Options
    #1745
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You've been a member for 4 years now and have nearly 6k posts. Are you that disingenuous in all your dealing on here that you are now going to pretend that you have been blissfully unaware this entire time that moderators are only moderators in the forum they moderate?

    :rolleyes:
    Are you going to pretend I said you were a moderator of this category? Yes, it seems you are. Care to stick to what I actually posted?


  • Options
    #1746
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Are you going to pretend I said you were a moderator of this category? Yes, it seems you are. Care to stick to what I actually posted?
    I guess that answers my question in the affirmative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1747
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I knew I remembered something about this since it's your personal crusade: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92884568&postcount=1709

    You got your answer it seems.
    Did you bother to read that at all?
    Scofflaw himself said such people exist, much as do pedophiles and idiots. He did not say it was OK to call people things just because they exist somewhere.
    Maybe that's how you run your categories though, which wouldn't surprise me.


  • Options
    #1748
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I guess that answers my question in the affirmative.
    Answers your question as to whether I said you were a mod of this category, when I clearly never said it?
    Confused a bit there?


  • Options
    #1749
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Did you bother to read that at all?
    Scofflaw himself said such people exist, much as do pedophiles and idiots. He did not say it was OK to call people things just because they exist somewhere.
    Maybe that's how you run your categories though, which wouldn't surprise me.
    If you take it that by lumping you in with the other posters who mindlessly and repetitively defend SF on all subjects, whilst avoiding any meritorious conversation about their policy I am somehow personally attacking you, doesn't that mean that it is inherently bad to be associated with SF?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Sure, we could force people into long-winded versions like "the people who are always found on social media posting only the party line will be all over this", but what's the point? How would that not have exactly the same effect? [...] I'm perfectly happy to look at instances where the use of something like shinnerbots is reported because a poster feels it's being used specifically as an insult/ad hominem aimed at them - but you always feel that's the case, which makes your reports of such instances only a litany of your hair trigger feelings.

    Hence my point - shouldn't you wait for the moderators to do their jobs (and I'm using that term almost ironically as we're obviously volunteers) and determine whether they, subjectively, believe that you are clearly one of "the people who are always found on social media posting only the party line".

    No, instead, you feel the need to actually go on the offensive and attack me personally in the most visible way you can think of.


  • Options
    #1750
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Answers your question as to whether I said you were a mod of this category, when I clearly never said it?
    Confused a bit there?
    That doesn't even make sense. No, clearly the question I asked (as opposed to the question you asked) was whether you were that disingenuous in all your dealing on here. A question, based on your response, which must clearly be answered in the affirmative.


  • Options
    #1751
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That doesn't even make sense. No, clearly the question I asked (as opposed to the question you asked) was whether you were that disingenuous in all your dealing on here. A question, based on your response, which must clearly be answered in the affirmative.
    Disingenuous how?
    I said you were a mod.
    You countered that you weren't a mod on some specific category.
    Which isn't what I said, I said you were a mod.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1752
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    If you take it that by lumping you in with the other posters who mindlessly and repetitively defend SF on all subjects, whilst avoiding any meritorious conversation about their policy I am somehow personally attacking you, doesn't that mean that it is inherently bad to be associated with SF?
    No, that's you using personal insults to describe SF and then saying those personal insults apply to me.
    In other words that's you using personal insults. No more, no less.


  • Options
    #1753
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Hence my point - shouldn't you wait for the moderators to do their jobs (and I'm using that term almost ironically as we're obviously volunteers) and determine whether they, subjectively, believe that you are clearly one of "the people who are always found on social media posting only the party line".

    No, instead, you feel the need to actually go on the offensive and attack me personally in the most visible way you can think of.
    Then if I subjectively think you are X I am allowed to call you X?
    You're a moderator and you think that's a good idea? Sheesh.
    Let's see what happens to those posts of mine you have reported, the "personal abuse ones" which you can't seem to specify here.


  • Options
    #1754
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Disingenuous how?
    I said you were a mod.
    You countered that you weren't a mod on some specific category.
    Which isn't what I said, I said you were a mod.


    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous

    I think the use of disingenuous when referring to him being a mod when he isn't a mod for this forum was fair comment.

    Each forum is different and has a different charter. As I understand it, he is only responsible for modding that forum and only has user status on this forum.

    In repeating the comment above, you have only made the point more clear. If it is not relevant that he is a mod elsewhere when posting in this forum, it is disingenuous to refer to it.


  • Options
    #1755
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuous

    I think the use of disingenuous when referring to him being a mod when he isn't a mod for this forum was fair comment.
    Of course you would.
    It is also a cast iron 100% untouchable fact that he is a mod and what I called him was a mod.
    If you add extra words to what I said then I agree I was wrong in the thing I didn't say.


  • Options
    #1756
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Of course you would.
    It is also a cast iron 100% untouchable fact that he is a mod and what I called him was a mod.
    If you add extra words to what I said then I agree I was wrong in the thing I didn't say.


    Nobody has said you were wrong, they have said you were disingenuous. I stand over my belief that you were disingenuous.

    I provided a definition of disingenuous to help you understand what was meant by the word. It is not the same as "wrong".


  • Options
    #1757
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93295427&postcount=60


    I think this post comprehensively answers the question about what a mod is or isn't doing when they post in another forum.

    "MOD REMINDER: The OP is not a mod of Politics. When they post in Politics, they post as a regular member, not a mod. "


  • Options
    #1758
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,229 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Godge wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93295427&postcount=60


    I think this post comprehensively answers the question about what a mod is or isn't doing when they post in another forum.

    "MOD REMINDER: The OP is not a mod of Politics. When they post in Politics, they post as a regular member, not a mod. "

    In addition to this very specific example, it should be noted that all mods may also post as members both inside the forums they mod, as well as outside. When posting as members (not moderating), they are held to the same charter guidelines as other members. I've actioned mods in the past that have violated the charter just like other members. Since becoming a Politics mod, I can remember awhile back when boards founder DeV had been warned for crossing the line when posting in Politics. He agreed, was quite grand about it, and encouraged us to hold him to the same standards as any regular member.

    In saying this, I would strongly recommend that members not use a moderator's title against them when both of you are posting as members. A mod's title has nothing to do with the thread's topic, or in posting meaningful content when arguing a position. Play the ball, not the man or woman personally. Getting "too personal" with another member, be they member or mod, violates the Politics charter; and attacking who they are personally rather than challenging the content of their post falls to the bottom of our discussion standards in Politics.


  • Options
    #1759
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Black Swan wrote: »
    Getting "too personal" with another member, be they member or mod, violates the Politics charter; and attacking who they are personally rather than challenging the content of their post falls to the bottom of our discussion standards in Politics.
    You mean getting personal and attacking the poster like this?
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And no, you don't get to decide off your own bat that there's an imbalance somewhere, because you are in fact far too biased to make any such judgement reliably.


  • Options
    #1760
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You mean getting personal and attacking the poster like this?

    I would have thought the difference between a mod posting as an ordinary user and participating in a thread would be clearly different from a mod posting giving their judgement or giving a mod direction, but some things never cease to amaze me!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #1761
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    I would have thought the difference between a mod posting as an ordinary user and participating in a thread would be clearly different from a mod posting giving their judgement or giving a mod direction, but some things never cease to amaze me!
    That isn't the point though here. It's whether the attack is on a post or report of a post or whether the attack is, as in this case, on the person themselves.
    Would there be a difference between calling a mod decision biased and calling a mod biased?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1762
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    K-9 wrote: »
    I would have thought the difference between a mod posting as an ordinary user and participating in a thread would be clearly different from a mod posting giving their judgement or giving a mod direction, but some things never cease to amaze me!


    No level of ignorance around here surprises me any more.


  • Options
    #1763
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Godge wrote: »
    No level of ignorance around here surprises me any more.
    No level of trolling and insults like this from the right people being ignored around here surprises me either.


  • Options
    #1764
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    Again, it's balance, we don't want people calling everybody who is Republican shinnerbots or FG shills, but pointing out somebody invariably follows the party line seems fair game to me, it's a political discussion board after all.
    Why then is "smearbot", when used to describe somebody who invariable follows an anti-SF agenda, not considered fair game?
    "shinnerbot" is fine as "fair comment" but "smearbot" is a ban?
    It's ridiculous TBH to invent such a distinction.


  • Options
    #1765
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,515 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    IMO

    Shinnerbot and smearbot aren't interchangeable. The former refers to a genuine phenomenon of SF personalities moving, talking and apparently thinking in line with whatever SF HQ says the party position is. SF pride themselves on their discipline and how "on-message" they are in their PR and their exploitation of social media to deliver their message. Shinnerbot is simply an observation of that.

    Smearbot on the other hand is a pretty lame attempt at a pejorative. There is no such thing as an "anti-SF" agenda. Most people who disagree with terrorism, killings of Gardai, harbouring child abusers and rapists, daft economic policies, populist rabble rousing and so on are going to clash with the SF view on the above topics quite often but the only agenda is that of SF.

    SF have introduced the world to the concepts of "the 26 counties" and "the north of Ireland" so I'd think SF would appreciate the subtle nuances and distinctions.


  • Options
    #1766
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    IMO. etc
    None of that matters a bollix unless you're going to lie and pretend "shinnerbot" isn't a pejorative term, whether you think it is an accurate description of something or not.
    "Idiots exist. Therefore you are an idiot as this is a purely descriptive term so I am fully entitled to label you as such."
    See?


  • Options
    #1767
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,515 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Calling another poster an idiot or a shinnerbot will likely get you a card. Referring to the existence of idiots/shinnerbots on the other hand likely wont. As you say, idiots exist. Shinnerbots exist.

    I have to say I find it very ironic that an idealogical group who are happy to throw around loose and lazy terminology regarding their opponents (West Brits, Free Staters, securocrats, etc) would be so bothered about terminology. Last month it was "SF/IRA". This month its "Shinnerbot".


  • Options
    #1768
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    Calling another poster an idiot or a shinnerbot will likely get you a card. Referring to the existence of idiots/shinnerbots on the other hand likely wont. As you say, idiots exist. Shinnerbots exist.
    Incorrect. Freudian_Slippers is allowed to call people "Shinnerbot" directly. I don't know if non-mods have tested this. It used to be a card, but I guess they don't know what to do now one of their own has taken to using it.
    Saying "this place is full of idiots" also seems to be OK judging by the posts just a few back in this thread.


  • Options
    #1769
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    I have to say I find it very ironic that an idealogical group who are happy to throw around loose and lazy terminology regarding their opponents (West Brits, Free Staters, securocrats, etc) would be so bothered about terminology. Last month it was "SF/IRA". This month its "Shinnerbot".
    Oh yeah, worthless generalisation is worthless. I'm not in SF and never have been. I'm not even a republican.
    That didn't work out too well for you, did it?


  • Options
    #1770
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,515 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Oh yeah, worthless generalisation is worthless. I'm not in SF and never have been. I'm not even a republican.
    That didn't work out too well for you, did it?

    Genuine laugh. It might be confirmation bias on my part, but I do get a chuckle out of how many times I see people say something along the lines of "I'm not a Sinn Fein member/voter/activist, but...."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1771
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Sand wrote: »
    SF pride themselves on their discipline and how "on-message" they are in their PR and their exploitation of social media to deliver their message. Shinnerbot is simply an observation of that.
    http://www.webfactory.ie/clients/fine-gael/
    http://www.fiannafail.ie/content/pages/10704/
    http://www.labour.ie/blog/2012/05/18/labour-scoops-social-media-award
    FGbot. FFbot. LBbot. "simply an observation".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement