A discussion on the rules.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

My purpose of showing that you 100% did post an ad hominem personally insulting me and you have for no apparent reason been excused from any moderation?
And yes, you admitting that you couldn't add anything to the debate suits my purposes also.

Godge

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 disagree. A reference to "shinnerbot" can be appropriate depending on the context. It is amazing how a concerted debating approach emerges whenever SF is threatened. It is not just on here - it is on facebook, twitter etc. The party have admitted it themselves in praising their own approach to social media.

If you don't use the term "shinnerbot" or "shinnerbots" to describe this observable and demonstrable behaviour, what should you use?

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

I disagree. A reference to "shinnerbot" can be appropriate depending on the context. It is amazing how a concerted debating approach emerges whenever SF is threatened. It is not just on here - it is on facebook, twitter etc. The party have admitted it themselves in praising their own approach to social media.

If you don't use the term "shinnerbot" or "shinnerbots" to describe this observable and demonstrable behaviour, what should you use?

As you seem to have ignored, I posted links covering FF, FG and Labour's extensive social media programmes.
Therefore FFbot, FGbot and Labbot are just as appropriate. So if you think anybody who wants to agree with those parties' policies should be a "-bot" then fine.
Buy do us a favour and stop pretending only SF adherents do it.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

I sent a PM about my own infraction and got no reply. Posting about it publicly is arguably the only option left after that. Why are they so terrified of public criticism anyway? :rolleyes:

This is not an issue of discussing the rules... At all.

It's discussing an uneven application of the rules.

A bit like Mary Lou publicly calling out Sean Barrett for his bias as opposed to doing so privately where the government majority would have voted to ignore it. :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

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

Sure:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93088897#post93088897

You didn't seem pissed about it yourself tbh, you just responded to it and clarified your own position very well.
Point is, I hardly see how it was abusive at all. If "too personal" means we are to pretend that all posters are anonymous and don't have their own personalities, then IMO this forum is balls. It wasn't always like this, I've been coming here for years and I've never seem such a broad interpretation of the "too personal" rule before. It's usually only been applied to downright abuse or accusations of shilling - now it's being applied to non-abuse AND is only being applied to shill accusations from one side of the debate.

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

I disagree.

Well colour me surprised.

Godge wrote: »

A reference to "shinnerbot" can be appropriate depending on the context.

It is clearly a pejorative term meant to insult personally. Now that's fair enough if that's the type of discussion we're going to have but as the Mods make a point of repeating, they expect a higher level of debate here. "Shinnerbot," a lazy attempt to make someone elses views seem less legitimate because they arent a person, theyre some sort of "bot" does not a higher standard of debate create.

Godge wrote: »

It is amazing how a concerted debating approach emerges whenever SF is threatened. It is not just on here - it is on facebook, twitter etc. The party have admitted it themselves in praising their own approach to social media.

All parties use social media to get their message across. Your problem with SF is that they do it better? Well, long may you have many problems with SF.

Godge wrote: »

If you don't use the term "shinnerbot" or "shinnerbots" to describe this observable and demonstrable behaviour, what should you use?

What behaviour? SF is the most popular party in the country. They picked up almost half a million votes at the last election. So following that logic a higher percentage of people online are going to be SF voters. Again, your problem with SF is that they are popular and again, long may your problems with them continue.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Sure:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93088897#post93088897

You didn't seem pissed about it yourself tbh, you just responded to it and clarified your own position very well.
Point is, I hardly see how it was abusive at all. If "too personal" means we are to pretend that all posters are anonymous and don't have their own personalities, then IMO this forum is balls. It wasn't always like this, I've been coming here for years and I've never seem such a broad interpretation of the "too personal" rule before. It's usually only been applied to downright abuse or accusations of shilling - now it's being applied to non-abuse AND is only being applied to shill accusations from one side of the debate.

Still don't remember much about it.

But, to be fair, there are posters such as Dan Solo and Tinkersbell who consistently post to a much lower standard than that post and remain free of bans.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

But, to be fair, there are posters such as Dan Solo and Tinkersbell who consistently post to a much lower standard than that post and remain free of bans.

Whereas this very post of yours would be in no way trolling...
The two you name just happen to be diametrically opposed to you politically, yes? No coincidence you're begging for them to be silenced there Godge, is there?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Whereas this very post of yours would be in no way trolling...
The two you name just happen to be diametrically opposed to you politically, yes? No coincidence you're begging for them to be silenced there Godge, is there?

There are others who are diametrically opposed to me politically - hattrickpatrick, crooked jack - who post to a much higher standard. There are others with whom I disagree on some issues but not others - permabear, freudianslippers - who also post to a high standard. It is not a matter of who I agree or disagree with.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is impossible to classify your posts in the same category.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is impossible to classify your posts in the same category.

Likewise. The archtypical Godge post consists of:
1. Link to latest crap, immediately forgotten, unsourced anti-Sinn Fein smear in The Independent.
2. Some waffle about shinnerbots mobilising to defend the great leader or somesuch.
3. Replace some accurate terminology such as "expel" with "export" or something and ignore the 100 times you are corrected on it.
4. Go to step 1.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

If you don't use the term "shinnerbot" or "shinnerbots" to describe this observable and demonstrable behaviour, what should you use?

Genuine SF supporters?

glic71rods46t0

I hate Sinn Fein for all their crazy economic policies and I would seriously consider emigration if they become part of government but surely the argument is well made here that the continued acceptance of shinnerbot is an application of double standards and should be banned.
It's tough to take but SF is the most popular party in the country right now and they are, therefore, likely to have a lot of online fans - calling those people shinnerbot (s) is a blatant insult and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly biased in my opinion.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

My purpose of showing that you 100% did post an ad hominem personally insulting me and you have for no apparent reason been excused from any moderation?

You actually didn't show anything of the sort. I simply described "shinnerbots" and you self-identify as one obviously. Not to mention you have no idea whether I was subject to moderation or not; and neither myself nor the Politics Cafe mods are obliged to discuss that with you.

And yes, you admitting that you couldn't add anything to the debate suits my purposes also.

I think you'll find I also didn't say that. You're attempting to rely on the "adding to the debate" rule in Politics which is simply not applicable as per the Cafe charter.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sent a PM about my own infraction and got no reply. Posting about it publicly is arguably the only option left after that. Why are they so terrified of public criticism anyway? :rolleyes:

You have been a member since 2005 - I'm surprised you've never been pointed to the site-wide rules:

No freedom of speech.

This is a private website. There is no "right" to freedom of speech here. We, the Admins and moderators DO want to promote discussion but FREE un-moderated discussion online turns into a screaming match between children. We believe that rules of etiquette should be applied (see below). Shouting about how we have infringed your "freedom of speech" on a privately owned website is silly. You can use blogger.com to say what YOU like, what you aren’t entitled to is access to the community we have built here without abiding by the community's rules, as decided and enforced by us.

Discretion of the Moderator

If you think these rules bind the moderators hands, think again. The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of. You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls). It’s not going to work. The spirit of the law is more important than the wording of the law on boards.ie and our guidelines can and will change if and when there’s need.

Don't back seat moderate

Imagine a game of soccer where one player kept running up to the ref and saying "you should have warned that guy" "that was offside" "time is up on this game". Annoying, yes? Sitting back as a user and consistently directing the moderator like a minion is going to get you kicked off the pitch. The correct way to bring something to our attention is to report the post.

But do not abuse this feature. Report posts which clearly break the rules not just posts you don’t agree with or from people you don’t like. That’s just being a dick.

This is a discussion on the rules of the Politics forum, not a discussion on moderator decisions. Besides, you know full well this isn't a full-time job; the Politics mods cannot be forced to respond to you right away and if they don't it's fair game. You've been a member long enough to know this stuff in fairness.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

You really are just showing a shocking inability to apply any sort of rational review to your own posting style.
Freudian Slippers mentioned that the "he did it first" was his reason for responding in a less than acceptable fashion - but then acknowledges himself that such a reason is not a valid excuse, and states that he should have reported the post, instead of getting dragged into the mire.

It's very telling that you are incapable of applying any sort of similar critical analysis to anything you've posted yourself.

(You also - despite repeated warnings about it - continue to insist on referring to the fact that the poster is a moderator of a different forum. You've been told that the fact that someone moderates a different forum has no bearing on what they do here, but you always insist on making the little personal barbs regardless).

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

You really are just showing a shocking inability to apply any sort of rational review to your own posting style.

Why don't you come out and admit you're a troll?
Yes, that's precisely how lame your observation is.
What's even more shocking is that he is fully admitting he posted in an unacceptable manner, Scofflaw has assured us that calling somebody "shinnerbot" is a personal insult, yet he still has not been infarcted for it.
All I can say is if I did that I'd be carded immediately. But I'm no mod at boards.ie. No connection there I'm sure.

FreudianSlippers

The crux of the matter here is that Dan_Solo is of the mistaken belief that all ad hominem statements are fallacious or somehow insulting. In fact, in argument of fact rather than opinion, ad hominem may be considered a valid argument as it undermines the viewpoint or purposive position or the opponent.

In this case, the use of the word "shinnerbot" allows the audience to be aware that a certain poster is posting with an agenda or presupposed viewpoint at their base.

For example:

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

A fallacious ad hominem requires that the person attacks the opponent instead of attacking the argument. Therefore, a statement that "shinnerbots" post in a manner that is "defensive, argumentative, deflective and ad hominem" is still an attack on the argument and not the person.

See also The Ad Hominem Fallacy Fallacy

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You actually didn't show anything of the sort. I simply described "shinnerbots" and you self-identify as one obviously. Not to mention you have no idea whether I was subject to moderation or not; and neither myself nor the Politics Cafe mods are obliged to discuss that with you.

This is a bare faced and total lie.
That makes you a bare faced liar.
When did I "self-identify"?
You do idiotic and moronic things. Therefore you self-identify as an idiotic moron. Therefore I can call you an idiotic moron. <- not abusive according to your new rules.
This has been explained 10 times now. It's a ****e excuse for insisting on using ad hominems TBH.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What's even more shocking is that he is fully admitting he posted in an unacceptable manner, Scofflaw has assured us that calling somebody "shinnerbot" is a personal insult, yet he still has not been infarcted for it.
All I can say is if I did that I'd be carded immediately. But I'm no mod at boards.ie. No connection there I'm sure.

Ignoring the parts of your post which are clearly unacceptable, I would suggest that (i) you have no idea how the mods dealt with that post and (ii) you are incorrectly applying the Politics charter to the Politics Cafe (which I have now pointed out at least 3 times).

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why don't you come out and admit you're a troll?
Yes, that's precisely how lame your observation is.
What's even more shocking is that he is fully admitting he posted in an unacceptable manner, Scofflaw has assured us that calling somebody "shinnerbot" is a personal insult, yet he still has not been infarcted for it.
All I can say is if I did that I'd be carded immediately. But I'm no mod at boards.ie. No connection there I'm sure.

Please - just one post without resorting to personal insults. :rolleyes:

I've been reading posts in Politics for a long time, and as per the charter there's a certain standard of post and style expected.
Descending into personal abuse and insults every time someone posts something you don't like falls well below that standard.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This is a bare faced and total lie.
That makes you a bare faced liar.
When did I "self-identify"?
You do idiotic and moronic things. Therefore you self-identify as an idiotic moron. Therefore I can call you an idiotic moron. <- not abusive according to your new rules.
This has been explained 10 times now. It's a ****e excuse for insisting on using ad hominems TBH.

No, it just means you don't understand that ad hominem actually is.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ignoring the parts of your post which are clearly unacceptable, I would suggest that (i) you have no idea how the mods dealt with that post and (ii) you are incorrectly applying the Politics charter to the Politics Cafe (which I have now pointed out at least 3 times).

You might tell me why "smeabot" is an instant ban then at the apparently more relaxed Politics Cafe then but "shinnerbot" is A OK.
I can see how they dealt with your personal abuse: as you were mate.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Please - just one post without resorting to personal insults. :rolleyes:

Please, just one post quoting where these fantasy personal insults are? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, it just means you don't understand that ad hominem actually is.

Are you going to lie again and pretend calling somebody a shinnerbot, i.e. attempting to dismiss their arguments by assigning them an insulting label, isn't an ad hominem?
No wonder the other mods are all of a sudden keen to point out you don't have any say in their own forums!

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You might tell me why "smeabot" is an instant ban then at the apparently more relaxed Politics Cafe then but "shinnerbot" is A OK.
I can see how they dealt with your personal abuse: as you were mate.

Because "smearbot" is attacking the poster with nothing to do with the argument at hand: Ad hominem.
"Shinnerbot" goes to the argument and the agenda of the poster: Not ad hominem.


From my own forum's view, we treat people from whom 90% of their posts are below standard very differently than those from whom less than 10% are below standard (if that - I'd argue my percentage is way lower than that).

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The crux of the matter here is that Dan_Solo is of the mistaken belief that all ad hominem statements are fallacious or somehow insulting. In fact, in argument of fact rather than opinion, ad hominem may be considered a valid argument as it undermines the viewpoint or purposive position or the opponent.

OK then, here's an example:

Your posts are like those of an idiot or moron.
Therefore you are an idiotic moron.
Purely descriptive you see.
Now that's done, I don't have to address your arguments (which I couldn't anyway) because obviously you're only an idiotic moron.

No ad hominem there. Oh no.

blackwhite

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please, just one post quoting where these fantasy personal insults are? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

TBH - all you're doing is proving the point at this stage. You've posts on this very page accusing posters of being trolls.


Anyway - a thread that was supposed to be about the rules of the forum has been seriously dragged off-topic - firstly by a poster ignoring the DRP process to try and cry victim, and secondly by the rest of us who've all helped in dragging the thread off into the abyss.

If someone is unwilling to show the slightest little bit of self-reflection, then there's no point in the rest of us feeding their persecution complex.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because "smearbot" is attacking the poster with nothing to do with the argument at hand: Ad hominem.
"Shinnerbot" goes to the argument and the agenda of the poster: Not ad hominem.

And again, if I find idiotic moron is descriptive of your posts, your logic says it's fine for me to call you an idiotic moron.
Not ad hominem.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

TBH - all you're doing is proving the point at this stage.

So you failing to quote these fantasy personal insults I've supposedly posted is me proving I have posted personal insults...
Logic RIP on that one blackwhite.

Dan_Solo

blackwhite wrote: »

Anyway - a thread that was supposed to be about the rules of the forum has been seriously dragged off-topic - firstly by a poster ignoring the DRP process to try and cry victim, and secondly by the rest of us who've all helped in dragging the thread off into the abyss.

Then you haven't read the thread. Go back and learn what we are actually discussing.