A discussion on the rules.

Villain

An opinion is just that popebenny16 it isn't making a factual statment its stating an opinion and the person who states that opinion is responsible for that opinion, thats why for years on Politics forum people have got away with saying all sorts of things because it was their opinion if my opinion having looked at all the infromation available is that someone mislead someone and I can reason that opinion there is nothing wrong with it except that you may choose to agree or disagree with the my opinion and give your opinion.

Time Magazine

Tristrame wrote:

To be frank,I don't think you are getting the reasoning I am using here yet.

Oh trust me, I understand it. I just disagree with it.

It's rather similar to the position we took here on the poster who was using his blog to declare who in his opinion supported the IRA on this forum.

The difference is that blog could cast Boards users/Boards in general in a bad light and thus Boards has a right (imo) to interfere. AFAIK, irish1 doesn't go and say "Oh that Blueshirt bastard Ibid on boards.ie refuses to accept Enda Kenny's part to do with this." He states his opinion - which he may or may not get in trouble for - but it's not Boards' problem.

In this case the position is, a poster is not being allowed to have a link in his signiture to a blog used in a thread...just one thread discussing the same subject that the blog explicitly was set up for.

Just because it's one thread doesn't mean I think it's allowable.

Thats not censoring the blog,it might even be promoting it.

No it's not censoring his blog, as I said Boards has no ability to censor his blog. What I do think it is, however, is restricting his signature rights.

It is though in actual fact protecting the thread from any flout of the instructions.

I appreciate its motive. In the same way you could request everyone send in a photo of their mouths muzzled to make sure they make no such utterance against An Taoiseach.

Plenty of notice and room has been provided in the mean time to make the situation absolutely clear prior to the thread being opened.

First off, well done on providing notice. It's a good way to deal with it, as it provides time for debate. Regardless, I still think it's wrong. Wrong with advance warning is still wrong.

Ibid

Ibid wrote:

Oh trust me, I understand it. I just disagree with it.

Fair enough.

The difference is that blog could cast Boards users/Boards in general in a bad light and thus Boards has a right (imo) to interfere. AFAIK, irish1 doesn't go and say "Oh that Blueshirt bastard Ibid on boards.ie refuses to accept Enda Kenny's part to do with this." He states his opinion - which he may or may not get in trouble for - but it's not Boards' problem.

You're unilaterally stating that as if it's the case without recourse to any discussion behind the scenes [referred to earlier].Thats also fair enough but I'll reserve the right not to make you privy to that discussion-this place not being a democracy.
You'll just have to trust me on that score

Just because it's one thread doesn't mean I think it's allowable.

Again and with respect,thats not a decision for you to take.
The thread in question is being moderated in this way for good reason.

No it's not censoring his blog, as I said Boards has no ability to censor his blog. What I do think it is, however, is restricting his signature rights.

Lol

I appreciate its motive. In the same way you could request everyone send in a photo of their mouths muzzled to make sure they make no such utterance against An Taoiseach.

That has no relevance whatsoever though to decisions in relation to the moderating of the conduit that is the thread on Mahon.

First off, well done on providing notice. It's a good way to deal with it, as it provides time for debate. Regardless, I still think it's wrong. Wrong with advance warning is still wrong.

Fair enough.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

Can you explain why that thread has different rules than every other thread?

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

I can. That thread has different rules because of your continued efforts to circumvent the guidlines of this forum when it comes to that particular topic. I'm not entirely sure why you're so all-fired desperate to call Bertie a liar before all the evidence has been made public, but you're not going to be given an opportunity to do it. This isn't about a specific word starting with the letter "L", it's about a principle that we maintain on this forum and that you've been trying really hard - through sophistry and indirection - to circumvent.

Ibid, I'm supporting Tristrame's ruling on irish1's signature in that thread for one very specific reason: the blog it links to was set up for the sole and only purpose of circumventing this forum's rules on calling people liars, and more specifically in relation to the very issue the thread in question is discussing. I don't see any reason to allow that circumvention to happen.

In short: if I see irish1's signature in that thread, I will remove it and warn him. If I see it again, I'll ban. If I see any "clever" wording amounting to an accusation of lying, I'll ban.

So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules? I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

So the rule is in place because I hold an opinon based on the evidence I have seen which is a lot as I have taken the time to go through the Tribunal Transcripts.

I just told you why the rule is in place. Why are you stating something different from what I said? I don't give a damn what opinions you hold.

irish1 wrote:

How is it that me holding that opinon has resulted in this topic having different rules?

It hasn't. Read what I wrote.

irish1 wrote:

I mean how is different from people saying Gerry Adams was a member of the IRA army council? and been allowed to say it as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

His membership or otherwise of the army council is not the subject of a tribunal of inquiry, as far as I'm aware.

I don't know what contraption you are putting those posts through before posting them irish1 but you've posted yet another obvious bit of sophistry and mis direction.

This is getting to the stage where I'll start getting blunt.
Your sophistry and mis direction won't wash in this thread either.
You know damn well what OscarBravo said-he is upholding a specefic value here with regard to this forum.

Villain

I'm not talking about the rule on my sig, I've already said I won't post my sig in that thread.

I'm talking about how I can't post my opinion of Bertie's dealings and how people were allowed to do so in the past on otehr topics on this forum as long as they clarified it as their opinion.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

I'm talking about how I can't post my opinion of Bertie's dealings...

Who said you can't post your opinion of Bertie's dealings?

Villain

Oh sorry I meant I can only post my opinion of Bertie's dealings if I don't say he mislead or lied before the election.

oscarBravo

It's amazing how much more smoothly a discussion goes when you say what you mean.

I'll generalise further from your statement: you can only post your opinion on any topic if you stay within the forum's rules. Apologies if you feel that's overly restrictive.

Glad we could clear all that up.

Villain

Its also amazing how the rules change depending on who you are talking about, it was ok to say any other politician lied in the past as long as the poster stated it was their opinon, however when it comes to Bertie its different?

oscarBravo

Tell you what: why don't you link me an example of where someone called Gerry Adams a liar, you brought it to my attention and I chose to let it stand.

You've already explicitly accused one moderator of political bias, and you're drifting dangerously close to making a similar blanket allegation for the entire moderating team.

Villain

OscarBravo I'm not sure how long you are a Mod in the Politics forum but this issue was brought up in the past and the mods said it was ok as long as people said it was their opinion and didn't offer their post as fact, go ask the other mods if this is the case, if they tell you that isn't the case I will go searching for examples.

oscarBravo

I'm not sure what the point of this little crusade is, but allow me to be clear and unambivalent for you: as long as I have been a moderator here, it has not been acceptable to call anyone a liar unless you can prove both that what they said was untrue (which immediately rules out any accusations of lying to the tribunal, unless you're arrogant enough to think that you're more competent to make that judgement than the tribunal itself), and that they knew it to be untrue at the time.

This is the way it currently stands. For the purpose of the avoidance of doubt, it has been made particularly clear that accusations of lying in the context of evidence given to a currently sitting tribunal will be dealt with particularly firmly.

The rules have been stated and clarified. Your questions have been answered. If you can prove that a moderator is allowing a political bias to inform his moderation, do so - if not, stop making snide accusations.

If you have nothing further to contribute to this discussion other than continued whinging that we won't let you break the rules, I suggest you accept the status quo and, frankly, deal with it.

Villain

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer, Gerry Adams has said he was not a member of the IRA Army Council however posters have said here in the past that he was and the mods allowed them to post that as long as they said it was their opinion i.e. call him a liar.

However when it comes to Bertie the rules are different, that is my point OscarBravo and I wanted a reason as to why the rule is different, I've been around long enough to know the Mods aren't going to change their mind and this isn't anything like a democracy however I don't see a problem with discussing the rules or rule changes.

oscarBravo

irish1 wrote:

However when it comes to Bertie the rules are different...

You know, I could have sworn I said this already on this thread, but maybe I'm losing my memory, or I said it in Danish, or in some way was unclear, so allow me to state my position clearly and unambiguously for you: as long as I have been a moderator here, it has not been acceptable to call anyone a liar unless you can prove both that what they said was untrue and that they knew it to be untrue at the time.

That's the position. If you suggest one more time that the rules don't apply to one particular politician, I will take it that you have accused me of lying, and I will deal with it appropriately.

bonkey

Interesting.

What we now have is a thread on Feedback and a thread here where Irish1 doesn't even have to make his claim, but rather has others make it for him repeatedly, making sure that all are clear that this is the opinion of irish1, which is exactly what he was setting out to do in the first place.

So the longer he keeps this "the system is gaming me" line going, the more he games the system.

Nice.

Rock Climber

bonkey wrote:

Interesting.

What we now have is a thread on Feedback and a thread here where Irish1 doesn't even have to make his claim, but rather has others make it for him repeatedly, making sure that all are clear that this is the opinion of irish1, which is exactly what he was setting out to do in the first place.

So the longer he keeps this "the system is gaming me" line going, the more he games the system.

Nice.

Yes he does seem to love the oxygen of publicity and couldn't care less it seems about wasting moderators time with a trail of nonsense and obfuscation.
The implication that we the politics mods are liars too kind of capped it all for it's ridiculousness.

Well anyhow I've withdrawn the oxygen of publicity rights of irish1 from this forum for a minimum of a month.
I suspect when we the mods get round to discussing the length of the ban,it will be permanent.
Thats my current thinking on it anyway.

popebenny16

irish1 wrote:

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer, Gerry Adams has said he was not a member of the IRA Army Council however posters have said here in the past that he was and the mods allowed them to post that as long as they said it was their opinion i.e. call him a liar.

That is not correct. You are either deliberately or accidentally mixing up two different things.

Gerry Adams says "I am not a member of the army council" a poster says "I think he was" or "he was". That is opinion. If that poster says "Gerry Adams is telling a lie when he says he was not on the army council" that is a statement of fact and not an opinion.

Similarly, BA can say "I did not deal in dollars" you can say "I think he did" or "He did" because you can then base your opinion on the evidence of the bank official. You cannot say "Bertie is telling a lie".

That's what I said to you yesterday, and it is also what oscarBravo has also said.

Sparks

Although, technically speaking, you could point out that Ahern stated in his resume that he graduated from UCD and studied at the LSE, but neither body had ever had him as a student and therefore he was a liar because the resume is a deliberately constructed document designed to be used for personal gain...

...but then, that'd be being a bit annoying really, wouldn't it?

oscarBravo

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53987179&postcount=65

hullaball&#250 wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, in no case is there to be allowed the accusation of lying levelled against any person(s).

Sparks

See, I've always thought that there's a small logical problem with that principle, in that it doesn't cover the case where the person actually is lying and is clearly caught doing so. It's more of a "we won't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table" approach than an article 40 approach, if you follow me. It just doesn't sit right. I mean, acting the eejit and calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar is one thing, that's obviously on the wrong side of the line; I'm just saying that there actually is a line in the first place, however gray and fuzzy it is - the politics board's principle is stating that such a line is defined not to exist.

popebenny16

Sparks wrote:

Although, technically speaking, you could point out that Ahern stated in his resume that he graduated from UCD and studied at the LSE, but neither body had ever had him as a student and therefore he was a liar because the resume is a deliberately constructed document designed to be used for personal gain...

...but then, that'd be being a bit annoying really, wouldn't it?

No, you could do the bit in bold all right, but you have to prove the intent to lie in the other bit. Since boards.ie publishes your statements it means that boards.ie would have to prove it if there was to be any nasty legals.

oscarBravo

Sparks wrote:

See, I've always thought that there's a small logical problem with that principle, in that it doesn't cover the case where the person actually is lying and is clearly caught doing so.

If someone has been unequivocally proven to have deliberately deceived another, I personally have no issue with them being called a liar.

lucernarian

Ah siucra.

I was reading a thread on feedback which reminded me of an issue I wanted to clarify with the politics mods. It looks like the issue is also being discussed here:o

I've no interest in the particulars surrounding irish1's issue.

I'm thankful that OscarBravo has spelt out when there is grounds to call someone a liar. Mabye it could be added to the "forum guidelines" for posterity? The existing idea of proving intent to deceive is not as clear-cut as proving that something is untrue and that the poster knew it at the time. Deception is based on more than just falseties.

If someone feels that a lie has been posted, and has conclusive evidence that it is, can the post be reported??

oscarBravo

To_be_confirmed wrote:

If someone feels that a lie has been posted, and has conclusive evidence that it is, can the post be reported??

Wouldn't it be better to challenge the lie in-thread, presenting the evidence that disproves it?

lucernarian

Based on personal experience, even if one's convinced of their case, the mods might disagree for good reasons for their own and will ban accordingly.

I had in mind a way where either the mod would point out the lie after the post was reported, or else the "plaintiff" could call someone a liar with prior approval from a mod.


So to answer your question, I don't agree with you for the reason above. If you still think your approach is better, well I can do nothing about it.

oscarBravo

The alternative, which you don't appear to have considered, is to calmly present evidence that demonstrates the untruthfulness of the original post, rather than calling people names. It's called attacking the post instead of the poster, and it's a general principle of good behaviour on this site.

Sparks

The problem of who judges the conclusiveness of evidence does present itself - "self-evident" not being a term that gets a great deal of acceptance in political debates...