A discussion on the rules.

BoJack Horseman

jank wrote: »

Pictures? yay or nay?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94018284&postcount=9

Ive no issue with images, I use them often in posts.

jank

Same here, no problem with that image, however there seems to be no clarity on what images are or are not appropriate.
I have had posts deleted with images in them as they are 'beneath' the standards of the forum. Yet, often see images similar to what I posted in other threads being let go.

K-9

jank wrote: »

Pictures? yay or nay?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94018284&postcount=9

That was deleted by the original poster by the looks of it, but it was quoted by the other poster before the edit.

Report the post please to help the mods out.

jank

I didn't see anything wrong with the post, so I didn't report it. What I do want is clarity which seems to be lacking.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

I didn't see anything wrong with the post, so I didn't report it. What I do want is clarity which seems to be lacking.

I'm not sure what you need clarity for. If you don't see anything wrong, don't report it. If you do see something wrong, report it. The mods will decide whether or not action is warranted.

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

What I do want is clarity which seems to be lacking.

Maybe they should save the picture at the highest resolution they can or you need glasses?

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not sure what you need clarity for. If you don't see anything wrong, don't report it. If you do see something wrong, report it. The mods will decide whether or not action is warranted.

So ultimately the mods have ultimate discretion to what is and what is not acceptable.
Keep calm picture is OK, facepalm picture not OK.

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

So ultimately the mods have ultimate discretion to what is and what is not acceptable.
Keep calm picture is OK, facepalm picture not OK.

There's a contextual difference in the situation you're describing though

K-9

jank wrote: »

I didn't see anything wrong with the post, so I didn't report it. What I do want is clarity which seems to be lacking.

Nothing has to be "wrong" to report a post. The user deleted the photo for whatever reason so it would be reasonable to expect that they wouldn't want the picture quoted.

A fair bit of modding is that type of janitorial stuff, deleting double/treble posts, moving threads etc.

Keep calm picture is OK

How did you reason that one out?

BoJack Horseman

Can the two Ukraine threads be merged?

gandalf

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Can the two Ukraine threads be merged?

I think this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057359400 should actually be closed as it has run its course and in reality was a blatant attempt to push the "Nazi Ukrainian" agenda of certain posters.

Leave the other one open as it is more relevant and wide ranging.

K-9

gandalf wrote: »

I think this one http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057359400 should actually be closed as it has run its course and in reality was a blatant attempt to push the "Nazi Ukrainian" agenda of certain posters.

Leave the other one open as it is more relevant and wide ranging.

Well, the newer thread was opened while the existing one was dormant, nearly 500 posts too! Seems a bit harsh to just close it.

I'll try and move todays posts over as the discussion seemed to just move over to the old thread.

Scofflaw

A reminder about reporting posts on the basis that they disagree with you and you believe the poster is ignoring the facts:

southsiderosie wrote:

At the end of the day, yes, we can report posters who continue along a certain trajectory when confronted with specific empirical evidence, or who are continually disrupting threads. But pearl-clutching, hyperbolic posts are there to be ridiculed or ignored, no more no less. Someone's extreme dislike of your particular hobby horse may be annoying but such is life in a Politics forum.

Please don't report posts simply because your opponent is making a ridiculous argument - if the argument is ridiculous, ridicule it yourself. It's a politics forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

gandalf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Please don't report posts simply because your opponent is making a ridiculous argument - if the argument is ridiculous, ridicule it yourself. It's a politics forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ah but if some of us ridicule them we tend to get yellow carded by you

RecordStraight

Question: Are the terms 'Shinnerbot' and 'Blueshirt' acceptable on this board?

Godge

RecordStraight wrote: »

Question: Are the terms 'Shinnerbot' and 'Blueshirt' acceptable on this board?

From what I have seen it depends on the context.

If you are talking about the FG of the 1930s, then "blueshirt" is quite clearly an acceptable term.

Similarly, if you are talking about the observable modern social media phenomenon of Sinn Fein supporters slavishly following a party line, then "shinnerbot" is acceptable.

Using them as insults outside of those contexts may not be acceptable. But that is something for the mods.

RecordStraight

Godge wrote: »

Using them as insults outside of those contexts may not be acceptable. But that is something for the mods.

It makes sense that if you are referring to the actual organisation, you can use the term. But it seems to me that the terms should be explicitly allowed or banned. I've seen a thread where a mod threatened to ban anyone using the term 'Shinnerbot'.

I think a decision needs to be made on these terms - leaving gaps in the rules just to trap people in them based on discretion seems a tad silly.

Scofflaw

RecordStraight wrote: »

It makes sense that if you are referring to the actual organisation, you can use the term. But it seems to me that the terms should be explicitly allowed or banned. I've seen a thread where a mod threatened to ban anyone using the term 'Shinnerbot'.

I think a decision needs to be made on these terms - leaving gaps in the rules just to trap people in them based on discretion seems a tad silly.

The discretionary element isn't there to trap people, though - it's there because sometimes the use of "Shinnerbot" or "Blueshirt" is appropriate, sometimes not. A few guidelines:

1. If it's being used as an epithet or an ad hominem about other posters - as in "you're a blueshirt/shinnerbot" or "I see the shinnerbots/blueshirts are here" - then it's clearly not acceptable.

2. If it's being used in reference to non-posters - as in "the Journal's comments section is full of shinnerbots/blueshirts" - then it's usually acceptable by default.

3. If it's being used in its historical context in the case of 'blueshirts', then it's usually acceptable.

4. It's not acceptable if (a) it's being done to annoy people, or (b) it's being done because the poster doing it thinks it's incredibly clever, or (c) it's being done excessively.

The discretionary element on the last is obviously larger, and falls under the general "don't be a dick" principle from which all modding rules spring.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RecordStraight

Scofflaw wrote: »

The discretionary element isn't there to trap people, though - it's there because sometimes the use of "Shinnerbot" or "Blueshirt" is appropriate, sometimes not. A few guidelines:

1. If it's being used as an epithet or an ad hominem about other posters - as in "you're a blueshirt/shinnerbot" or "I see the shinnerbots/blueshirts are here" - then it's clearly not acceptable.

2. If it's being used in reference to non-posters - as in "the Journal's comments section is full of shinnerbots/blueshirts" - then it's usually acceptable by default.

3. If it's being used in its historical context in the case of 'blueshirts', then it's usually acceptable.

4. It's not acceptable if (a) it's being done to annoy people, or (b) it's being done because the poster doing it thinks it's incredibly clever, or (c) it's being done excessively.

The discretionary element on the last is obviously larger, and falls under the general "don't be a dick" principle from which all modding rules spring.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There seems to be a 'first strike' principle at work here. If someone calls me a 'Shinnerbot', and I retaliate by calling them a 'Blueshirt', then it seems that I am the person who will get in trouble. If I don't rise to it, then they will get away with it as I guess I am deemed not to have been annoyed by it. I think the discretionary "don't be a dick" element is completely unworkable as invariably it will be the 'retaliator' who is deemed be be acting the dick.

An outright ban or clear green light is required when applying the term to other posters.

Scofflaw

RecordStraight wrote: »

There seems to be a 'first strike' principle at work here. If someone calls me a 'Shinnerbot', and I retaliate by calling them a 'Blueshirt', then it seems that I am the person who will get in trouble. If I don't rise to it, then they will get away with it as I guess I am deemed not to have been annoyed by it. I think the discretionary "don't be a dick" element is completely unworkable as invariably it will be the 'retaliator' who is deemed be be acting the dick.

An outright ban or clear green light is required when applying the term to other posters.

That's point 1 above - there's no discretionary element, but do be careful to report the post rather than responding in kind, even if a mod response doesn't appear as quickly as you might prefer.

We do try to look back for provocation (easy if you've quoted the post, of course) and take it into account, but if you don't report and do respond, we may miss the original provocation, and your response will still be carded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RecordStraight

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's point 1 above - there's no discretionary element, but do be careful to report the post rather than responding in kind, even if a mod response doesn't appear as quickly as you might prefer.

We do try to look back for provocation (easy if you've quoted the post, of course) and take it into account, but if you don't report and do respond, we may miss the original provocation, and your response will still be carded.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It still seems to be a system that invites scope for confusion and extra work for the mods, but it's your dime I guess.

Nodin

Scofflaw wrote: »

A reminder about reporting posts on the basis that they disagree with you and you believe the poster is ignoring the facts:



Please don't report posts simply because your opponent is making a ridiculous argument - if the argument is ridiculous, ridicule it yourself. It's a politics forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

...of course then theres the difficulty of separating the ridiculous from the conspiracy theory, if such a thing is actually possible.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

...of course then theres the difficulty of separating the ridiculous from the conspiracy theory, if such a thing is actually possible.

Exactly, also it should be very obvious from the first reported interaction that a poster is a sockpuppet and tbh the mods should deal with them there and then rather than allow them build a platform to derail a thread.

Rather than "ridicule" them and risk an infraction from the mods I will keep reporting them.

Scofflaw

Nodin wrote: »

...of course then theres the difficulty of separating the ridiculous from the conspiracy theory, if such a thing is actually possible.

And the necessity of recalling that ridiculing an argument is different from ridiculing a poster. Admittedly some people will take offence at either, but that's life.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers

Scofflaw wrote: »

A reminder about reporting posts on the basis that they disagree with you and you believe the poster is ignoring the facts:



Please don't report posts simply because your opponent is making a ridiculous argument - if the argument is ridiculous, ridicule it yourself. It's a politics forum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I have to entirely disagree with this. Continuing to ignore factual evidence and post nonsense in the face of same is, effectively, trolling.

K-9

Mod:

We are not turning this into yet another Republican discussion.

The shinnerbot thing has come up again and again over the last few months, page after page. The answer has been given plenty of times.

K-9

RecordStraight wrote: »

Well I suppose it gives a working example of how certain factions attempt to shut down discussion of topics they don't like. The only thing that surprises me is that there aren't another five or six posters jumping down my throat.

There are a good few anti-shinnerbot posters to balance it out.

It's a politics discussion board, not a soap box, we have to allow discussion to take place, and yep that may mean allowing minority or anti-mainstream opinions!

Scofflaw

18 off-topic posts deleted. This thread is not for reprising arguments from elsewhere.

moderately annoyed,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to entirely disagree with this. Continuing to ignore factual evidence and post nonsense in the face of same is, effectively, trolling.

Continuing in the face of good contradictory factual evidence is trolling/soapboxing, I agree. However, I'm seeing a pattern where posters don't provide such evidence, or attempt to argue, but simply assume their opponent is talking rubbish on the basis that "everyone knows x is false", and attempt to have the mods shut down discussion before it even happens.

It's been common, for example to assume that anything said by pro-Russian posters is false, and should be penalised/deleted by mods, without any attempt whatsoever to show that it is. On the other side of the argument we've had posters reporting everything from official sources as false, and looking for exactly the same thing. That's not going to happen - first someone demonstrates falsity, then a poster who continues to push the false line is actionable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

We have to allow some sort of discussion as well, without allowing the obvious trolls and bots. Russian and the marriage referendum threads spring to mind in that regard.