A discussion on the rules.

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are a mod here at boards.ie. It says it quite clearly beside your nick. You seem very confused as to your own status here. I can't say that surprises me.

You were told this over and over on the other thread and a C-mod told you to stop it, you've been told the difference numerous times.

Are you suggesting "shinnerbot" would be adding constructively to the discussion in certain forums but not in others? Or that "smearbot" would be a bannable term in certain forums but acceptable in others?
Then again, no mod of this forum seems to want to touch this inexplicable double standard with a barge pole for some reason. Oh, kinda answered myself there didn't I.

It's been done to death, shinnerbots exist, so do people who always defend the Govt. line. I've seen it pointed out plenty of times on here without going to extremes like goldencirclebot and other such nonsense you've been using lately.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So it's pot luck? How are we to possibly know whether terms like "shinnerbot" and "smearbot" or "mother****er" are actionable then until we try to use them? In the absence of clear, consistent rules on these terms it is impossible to predict whether they will be considered as adding to the debate or not.
I know for a fact I would be carded for that post of course.

Posters who contribute little or nothing other than personal swipes and vendettas against others and who seem to have enormous difficulty understanding and sticking to rules will attract quite the track record. At this stage it only seems to be you, and nobody else, who is having difficulty with the concept.

I'm sorry we can't give the answers you want and don't mod the forum to your personal liking.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

It's been done to death, shinnerbots exist, so do people who always defend the Govt. line. I've seen it pointed out plenty of times on here without going to extremes like goldencirclebot and other such nonsense you've been using lately.

Idiots exist. Therefore it's OK to call people idiots. Your logic.
Note: I never objected to the term "shinnerbot", just using it directly against other posters here as it is quite obviously (even Scofflaw said so) an ad hominem.

K-9 wrote: »

Posters who contribute little or nothing other than personal swipes and vendettas against others and who seem to have enormous difficulty understanding and sticking to rules will attract quite the track record. At this stage it only seems to be you, and nobody else, who is having difficulty with the concept.

What rule? That shinnerbot isn't OK, now it is, it's not OK here but it is over there? You call that a rule? Or that shinnerbot gets a post of the year award but smearbot is the verbal equivalent of napalming an orphanage?

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sorry we can't give the answers you want and don't mod the forum to your personal liking.

It's not the answer I wanted, but it most certainly is the answer I expected.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Idiots exist. Therefore it's OK to call people idiots. Your logic.
Note: I never objected to the term "shinnerbot", just using it directly against other posters here as it is quite obviously (even Scofflaw said so) an ad hominem.
What rule? That shinnerbot isn't OK, now it is, it's not OK here but it is over there? You call that a rule? Or that shinnerbot gets a post of the year award but smearbot is the verbal equivalent of napalming an orphanage?
It's not the answer I wanted, but it most certainly is the answer I expected.

You seem to take offence to a range of insults directed at people. I assume that we are in this thread to try and raise the standard of debate on the forum.

Would you therefore agree that the following examples of invective and debate are either below standards or unacceptable and should result in the poster being carded and banned if persistent in using them:


"You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear"
"Have you got anything with a real actual number in it or just this sort of feeling in me water tripe?"
"I can't help it if you spew out random garbage and get your knickers in a twist when called out on it"
"Now, to really amaze everybody what does "Communist Party" mean? "We think we're socialists really"?
GUFFAW."
"You're a snore and a bore? Not sure why you'd want to advertise that, but whatever you say Mr Gecko"
"LOL. Don't really know what you're doing, do you?"
"Obviously the smearbot message isn't doing Inda, Mehole and Go On all that much good is it?"
"No more than yourself smearbot."
"Smearbots whining "transfer toxic!" in 3... 2... 1..."
"Smearbot whining "transfer toxic!" in 3... 2... 1.." (it was actually posted twice)
"Incapable of arguing logically? Why not just call your opponents something because then you magically win the debate, don't you?" (ironic, isn't it?)
"with his latest bucket of smeary nonsense."

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

You seem to take offence to a range of insults directed at people. I assume that we are in this thread to try and raise the standard of debate on the forum.

Would you therefore agree that the following examples of invective and debate are either below standards or unacceptable and should result in the poster being carded and banned if persistent in using them:


"You can have that tail surgically removed from between your legs I hear"
"Have you got anything with a real actual number in it or just this sort of feeling in me water tripe?"
"I can't help it if you spew out random garbage and get your knickers in a twist when called out on it"
"Now, to really amaze everybody what does "Communist Party" mean? "We think we're socialists really"?
GUFFAW."
"You're a snore and a bore? Not sure why you'd want to advertise that, but whatever you say Mr Gecko"
"LOL. Don't really know what you're doing, do you?"
"Obviously the smearbot message isn't doing Inda, Mehole and Go On all that much good is it?"
"No more than yourself smearbot."
"Smearbots whining "transfer toxic!" in 3... 2... 1..."
"Smearbot whining "transfer toxic!" in 3... 2... 1.." (it was actually posted twice)
"Incapable of arguing logically? Why not just call your opponents something because then you magically win the debate, don't you?" (ironic, isn't it?)
"with his latest bucket of smeary nonsense."

Which of these is a personal ad hominem Godge?
(clue: it's the one and only one of those were I actually called another poster something)
Want me to list all the times you've announced "shinnerbots do..." or "shinnerbots think" or "their great leader" or "SF acolytes" which are just as equally as my posts you have diligently listed here aren't actually directed at anybody in particular?

Dan_Solo

"all you have to offer is insults, diversion and blather."
"The answer is they aren't and he was just spouting off."
"Oh dear, epic fail."
"I must be still overestimating your capacity to understand my posts."
"The nuances of that were lost on you."
"you are beginning to look a little silly"
"I suppose your posts are good for a laugh, if nothing else."

That's from the first page of your latest posts.
Glad you opened that can of worms now, are you?

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which of these is a personal ad hominem Godge?
(clue: it's the one and only one of those were I actually called another poster something)
Want me to list all the times you've announced "shinnerbots do..." or "shinnerbots think" or "their great leader" or "SF acolytes" which are just as equally as my posts you have diligently listed here aren't actually directed at anybody in particular?

If the best defence you can muster is "but look what someone else does," then maybe you should try looking in the mirror a little bit.

In general, the standard of debate in Politics is getting dragged into the toilet. Attitudes like the posts above are the main reason.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

If the best defence you can muster is "but look what someone else does," then maybe you should try looking in the mirror a little bit.

In general, the standard of debate in Politics is getting dragged into the toilet. Attitudes like the posts above are the main reason.

"A lot of people around here don't seem to be able to distinguish nuances in posting."
"Par for the course around here that most of the posting is nonsensical. Especially from the Shinners."
"Given some of what you are posting you are likely to be caught by the phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me""
"this has been explained to you many times but you fail to comprehend."
"No level of ignorance around here surprises me any more."
"Please read my posts and then make an intelligent response addressing the points I make, not the ones you think I make."
"That is rubbish."
"Don't be silly."

All of this would be adding to the debate in your eyes no doubt.

I notice nobody can actually make a case that these posts by Godge add to the debate but are quite happy to hit thanks on the "look what someone else does" post.
How objective of ye.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And yet aggressive insulting posts from those you agree with politically are just fine, judging by which list you have thanked here.
So you are not against certain types of posts per se, you are against certain types of posts from certain people.
No doubt you find this post also "adds to the debate"

FreduianSlippers wrote:

Defensive, argumentative, deflective and ad hominem? Those are the key characteristics of the shinnerbots on here; so if the shoe fits, I guess slide that mother****er on your foot.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"A lot of people around here don't seem to be able to distinguish nuances in posting."
"Par for the course around here that most of the posting is nonsensical. Especially from the Shinners."
"Given some of what you are posting you are likely to be caught by the phrase, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me""
"this has been explained to you many times but you fail to comprehend."
"No level of ignorance around here surprises me any more."
"Please read my posts and then make an intelligent response addressing the points I make, not the ones you think I make."
"That is rubbish."
"Don't be silly."

All of this would be adding to the debate in your eyes no doubt.

I'll thank you not to go putting words in my mouth. I can post for myself.

You've been asked already - do you think that your own posting style is up to the standards that are set out in the charter - specifically at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91351345&postcount=2 ?

I fail to see why the behaviour of another poster - who you seem keen to hold up as an example of poor posting - should suddenly make your own standard somehow acceptable.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet aggressive insulting posts from those you agree with politically are just fine, judging by which list you have thanked here.
So you are not against certain types of posts per se, you are against certain types of posts from certain people.

It's usually the case that the standard of posts is dragged into this type of lower posting by certain people who have a much higher percentage of "certain types of posts".

At that stage it's a judgement call by the mods and it may result in different reprimand for each concerned.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

And yet aggressive insulting posts from those you agree with politically are just fine, judging by which list you have thanked here.
So you are not against certain types of posts per se, you are against certain types of posts from certain people.
No doubt you find this post also "adds to the debate"

Do you have any defence at all for your own posts, other than "look what the other person did?"

You seem obsessed with everyone else's postings - why so averse to turning the same critical eye to your own?

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Do you have any defence at all for your own posts, other than "look what the other person did?"

You seem obsessed with everyone else's postings - why so averse to turning the same critical eye to your own?

I'm sorry, who stared with the list making, and yet I'm the one apparently obsessed with somebody else's posts?
Biased much?
If the "rules" here say that calling somebody a "shinnerbot", which we were previously told is definitely an ad hominem, is OK, with a "mother****er" thrown into the post for good measure, then I can safely say absolutely everything I have posted is 100% grand and dandy TBH.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

I'll thank you not to go putting words in my mouth. I can post for myself.

When it suits your agenda, yes, I noticed. Is defending only one side of an argument what you call being objective?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sorry, who stared with the list making, and yet I'm the one apparently obsessed with somebody else's posts?
Biased much?
If the "rules" here say that calling somebody a "shinnerbot", which we were previously told is definitely an ad hominem, is OK, with a "mother****er" thrown into the post for good measure, then I can safely say absolutely everything I have posted is 100% grand and dandy TBH.

Are you suggesting it was ad hominem to call a hypothetical shoe a mother****er?

gladrags

Dan_Solo wrote: »

When it suits your agenda, yes, I noticed. Is defending only one side of an argument what you call being objective?

I admire you're persistence.

Whether I agree or disagree,with what you say.

Well done.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm sorry, who stared with the list making, and yet I'm the one apparently obsessed with somebody else's posts?
Biased much?
If the "rules" here say that calling somebody a "shinnerbot", which we were previously told is definitely an ad hominem, is OK, with a "mother****er" thrown into the post for good measure, then I can safely say absolutely everything I have posted is 100% grand and dandy TBH.

Ignoring the fact that the post you keep referring to does not specifically point at any individual as a "shinnerbot", and that the "mother****er" being referred to is a shoe (as per usual, you ignore things being repeatedly pointed out to you when it doesn't suit your agenda) - I'll once again ask the question:

Do you have any defence at all for your own posts, other than "look what the other person did?"

And I'll add a new one:
Can you find a single instance in the Prison or DRP forums where a defence of "but look what the other person did" was accepted as a valid excuse for repeatedly breaching the rules?

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you suggesting it was ad hominem to call a hypothetical shoe a mother****er?

Are you suggesting mother****er can ever add to the debate? Or calling somebody directly a shinnerbot?

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that the post you keep referring to does not specifically point at any individual as a "shinnerbot", and that the "mother****er" being referred to is a shoe (as per usual, you ignore things being repeatedly pointed out to you when it doesn't suit your agenda) - I'll once again ask the question:

You've veered off into surreal territory here. Even FreuduanSlippers himself hasn't tried to make a case that he wasn't calling me a shinnerbot. (Of course Godge will agree with you. Godge will always agree with you.)
And I never claimed FreudianSlippers called me a mother****er. I've already requested anybody who can specify where I did so should quote me for all to see. Still hasn't happened. Wonder why, eh?

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Are you suggesting it was ad hominem to call a hypothetical shoe a mother****er?

No, and which quote of mine are you reading that says you used mother****er as an ad hominem, because it sure as duck isn't the one you've quoted.
Feel free to try and post a quote of mine which matches the one in your head.

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wow, that's sounds suspiciously like the "he did it first" excuse that people are telling me would never be acceptable to a moderator.
You probably didn't even notice that, did you, so busy defending yer mate?

Sand

Quick query - At what point does a poster refusing to accept mod directions, ignoring explanations and rationales, being disingenuous and basically soap boxing become disruptive?

hatrickpatrick

Any chance someone could summarize exactly what's going on in here?
Personally I feel that some evidence of bias is obvious enough. I perhaps wouldn't reckon it's on the scale that Dan perceives it to be, but there's no doubt in my own mind that it's more taboo to smear non-establishment politicians and their supporters than the reverse.

Case in point, I was infracted a few weeks ago for posting (and not even in a derogatory manner I must add) that I had always assumed Godge was a supporter of FG and was surprised to see him state that he wasn't.
Now if that counts as "too personal", then in my view any poster who calls someone a "shinnerbot" or anything remotely along those lines and is not infracted, is being shown undue leniency or else I was being shown undue harshness by having my own post infracted.

Being anti-censorship I'd prefer if no one was infracted for these things, but to be honest the only thing that pisses me off more than debates being stifled is the application of double standards.

Dan_Solo

Sand wrote: »

Quick query - At what point does a poster refusing to accept mod directions, ignoring explanations and rationales, being disingenuous and basically soap boxing become disruptive?

Dunno, what have you done this time?

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you suggesting mother****er can ever add to the debate? Or calling somebody directly a shinnerbot?

Why does it need to add to the debate? In fact what does it have to do with the rules here at all considering it was posted in the café and is subject to the charter there: http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056298011/1/#post72752099

But I suspect that you know all that, you're simply being disingenuous again to suit your purposes.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any chance someone could summarize exactly what's going on in here?
Personally I feel that some evidence of bias is obvious enough. I perhaps wouldn't reckon it's on the scale that Dan perceives it to be, but there's no doubt in my own mind that it's more taboo to smear non-establishment politicians and their supporters than the reverse.

Case in point, I was infracted a few weeks ago for posting (and not even in a derogatory manner I must add) that I had always assumed Godge was a supporter of FG and was surprised to see him state that he wasn't.
Now if that counts as "too personal", then in my view any poster who calls someone a "shinnerbot" or anything remotely along those lines and is not infracted, is being shown undue leniency or else I was being shown undue harshness by having my own post infracted.

Being anti-censorship I'd prefer if no one was infracted for these things, but to be honest the only thing that pisses me off more than debates being stifled is the application of double standards.

Do you have a link to the post referencing me? I don't remember it.

Crooked Jack

If the point of moderation is to ensure there is constructive debate on the forum then I think it's pretty clear that terms like "shinnerbot" are an obstacle to that.
They're thrown out when anyone has the temerity to agree with the most popular party in the country on almost any issue and this daft arguement of "wether or not shinner bots exist" aside, they almost immedietly veer the whole conversation off topic and the whole things descends into a shouting match.
Nobody uses the term in anything but a pejorative manner and its clear intent is to personally insult.
if the politics forum does indeed expect a higher standard of debate then discouraging lazy terms like this would be a start. They are simply not conducive to constructive, civil debate.

FreudianSlippers

Crooked Jack wrote: »

If the point of moderation is to ensure there is constructive debate on the forum then I think it's pretty clear that terms like "shinnerbot" are an obstacle to that.
They're thrown out when anyone has the temerity to agree with the most popular party in the country on almost any issue and this daft arguement of "wether or not shinner bots exist" aside, they almost immedietly veer the whole conversation off topic and the whole things descends into a shouting match.
Nobody uses the term in anything but a pejorative manner and its clear intent is to personally insult.
if the politics forum does indeed expect a higher standard of debate then discouraging lazy terms like this would be a start. They are simply not conducive to constructive, civil debate.

I don't disagree and my use was an admitted point of reacting to what I considered a poster who was posting in an inflammatory nautre. I should have reported, obviously, but the point is that there are certain posters on here who are constantly attempting to provoke low quality posts and it works occasionally.

I don't feel I need to discuss my receipt of warnings or infractions here and in reality doing so is nothing but a personal grudge from a poster arguing with mod decisions in the most public way they can think of. This is not an issue of discussing the rules... At all.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't disagree and my use was an admitted point of reacting to what I considered a poster who was posting in an inflammatory nautre. I should have reported, obviously, but the point is that there are certain posters on here who are constantly attempting to provoke low quality posts and it works occasionally.

Now watch the posts pile in to tell you that "he did it first" is never an acceptable excuse... or not I guess since they're your mates. Strange that, eh?