A discussion on the rules.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it that difficult to scan a half a dozen(some days it wouldn't even be that) topics opened in the course of a day?

Maybe it is too much of an ask, I don't know the workload or what is expected of a mod.

In such a busy forum no harm reporting it, we get reports like that from time to time. Sometimes they are moved, sometimes not, sometimes we just see how it pans out.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

In such a busy forum no harm reporting it, we get reports like that from time to time. Sometimes they are moved, sometimes not, sometimes we just see how it pans out.

Fair enough, I made my point. Thanks

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah my side is the Gooder one!

Actually, on that issue, I am open to persuasion that there is a better way of running the health service that involves lower pay for more doctors. But that is a reform argument and involves a deeper discussion about the merits of different delivery methods as well as the tradeoff between excellence and mass coverage (a similar debate to how we deal with higher education) but there isn't one poster on the SF side capable of putting such an argument together in defence of the SF policy which inevitably leads to cynicism not only about shinnerbots but also SF policy.

Such a discussion is appropriate to the main forum (or possibly Irish economy) but there is nobody who could engage in it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have left the thread, so your 'keep on' remark is a bit moot. The OP made a statement about 'mass exodus' and collapse and when asked why he believed it, clung to the defence, 'because I do'. He/she didn't offer anything else but personal belief, despite being shown several instances where doctors themselves said their primary reason for leaving was 'workload and conditions'

And the irrational hysterical low quality anti Sinn Fein type Bot posts (generally those that use the terms ShinnerBots, SF/IRA, ****ehawks, Paedo, Murder Apologists) is just as prevalent (particularly in the Cafe and can also be seen on that thread) as any other type of Bot post.

That can be cured throughout the forum by a word ban and the simple rule that Political party's be referred to only by their name or accepted abbreviation.

RecordStraight

K-9 wrote: »

But it's a discussion forum and eventually it was shown the Op was based on old policy.

Indeed. And we learned what the new policy was - and it's basically the same. So we thrashed out a policy issue, uncovered new information, and are trying to argue the consequences of this.

This is how a discussion thread should work.

K-9

I don't know if it's basically the same but that's for that thread.

It's a politics board, we'll have Shinnerbots, people who'll defend the Government no matter what, Russian/Israel defenders, whatever your having yourself, such is life. Sometimes positions get shown for the ridiculousness they are in debates, sometimes it is better for mods to let the forum sort it out and let the thread die from natural causes.

RecordStraight

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have left the thread, so your 'keep on' remark is a bit moot. The OP made a statement about 'mass exodus' and collapse and when asked why he believed it, clung to the defence, 'because I do'.

This is a total misrepresentation. Links were posted demonstrating the difficulty the HSE had in hiring consultants following a pay-cut, and eventually pay had to be restored. A link was posted demonstrating that hundreds of doctors were being imported from Pakistan to plug gaps. A link was posted showing that one third of our doctors are trained and come here from abroad, presumably for the high salaries that are paid.

On top of that, basic economic logic tells us that when you pay less for something, supply goes down. I even posted a graph to that effect.

None - none - of this was refuted in a meaningful way.

The fact that you can still misrepresent the thread in such a fashion suggests you are not interested in the content of the thread at all, and were merely concerned with rubbishing it - as you explicitly stated many times.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have left the thread, so your 'keep on' remark is a bit moot. The OP made a statement about 'mass exodus' and collapse and when asked why he believed it, clung to the defence, 'because I do'. He/she didn't offer anything else but personal belief, despite being shown several instances where doctors themselves said their primary reason for leaving was 'workload and conditions'

(1) Evidence was produced to show the HSE currently has recruitment problems
(2) Evidence was produced to show the HSE is currently increasing salaries because they have recruitment problems.
(3) "conditions" includes remuneration

The logical conclusion from the above is that if you want to cut pay, it won't work. The onus then lies on those who believe it does work, to show how and why. They singularly failed to do.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the irrational hysterical low quality anti Sinn Fein type Bot posts (generally those that use the terms ShinnerBots, SF/IRA, ****ehawks, Paedo, Murder Apologists) is just as prevalent (particularly in the Cafe and can also be seen on that thread) as any other type of Bot post.

That can be cured throughout the forum by a word ban and the simple rule that Political party's be referred to only by their name or accepted abbreviation.

Isn't there a system of reporting posts for things like that?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

In fairness, neither are you. I backed up what I was saying and refused to accept the OP's premise of a certain 'mass exodus and system collapse' based on the surveys and comparisons I was presenting. You, he and anyone else is entirely within their rights to argue against that, but the Bot accusation is very unfair.

.

But when the flaws in your argument were pointed out, you reverted to type and refused to engage in discussing the flaws. Permabear's points about Norway above refer.

Your arguments were demolished in detail - I post a summary here, but nobody on the SF side can address the debate at the point we have reached.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94672355&postcount=738

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

Leave political beliefs, consistency of arguments and even the fact that SF was the subject aside for a moment (it could happen on any topic) it seems to me that the reason the thread was posted in Cafe was to enable people to be able to make comments like these,(otherwise there must be a valid reason why it wasn't posted in the main forum, it is a serious and legitimate OP) there are other examples in that thread where this type of comment was resorted to.
I think it wouldn't be too hard for a mod to assess an OP and make a decision about motive, and move a thread the other way-into the main forum where this kind of comment would be moderated.

2 posts well in the 600s - the thread was far off the rails at that point due to deflection and attempts to change the subject from SF posters.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

I am not dragging a mentality into a feedback forum, I made supporting arguments for those points.

It is a reality that not one post in that thread has been able to demonstrate a causal link between reducing consultant pay and improving the health service. There is not a single empirical example of how such a strategy worked elsewhere there isn't even a theoretical mechanism set out for how it would work.

On the other hand, there have been numerous links to articles and research showing how difficult it has been to retain consultants in Ireland and how the government increased pay in the last year to deal with it. These show clearly the inherent dangers in the SF policy.

Now there are actually intelligent arguments out there as to how it might work - it would involve far wider changes to the system of delivery of health care - but there is nobody on the SF side making those arguments.

So when I argue that there isn't anybody capable of explaining SF policy in detail as to how it would work, I am making a point of fact.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who dares to challenge SF policy on logical or factual grounds gets called a government shill and then an attempt is made to shift the discussion to a topic they feel they have the upper hand in.

From then on, it matters not what your political views are; if they're not blindly pro-SF, divert/attack/ridicule.

FreudianSlippers

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I don't think the problem is unique to Sinn Fein supporters

I don't disagree, but I can count the number of times I have been called a "name" for questioning and disagreeing with FG/Lab policy on one hand, whereas being called a "government shill" or "blueshirt" etc for questioning or disagreeing with SF policy must be in the hundreds at this stage.

I call it as I see it - most people here for some time know that about me. It's unfortunate that, for "some reason", it's only the SF threads that turn into trench warfare of SF vs everyone that dares question them on any issue. Given that it doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently in other threads must say something to you?

FreudianSlippers

K-9 wrote: »

But it's a discussion forum and eventually it was shown the Op was based on old policy.

After how many posts? Like 700?

RecordStraight

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

After how many posts? Like 700?

After a few hundred, Rockatansky got word that the new policy is very similar to the policy the OP was based on, involving a 30% across-the-board paycut for those on over 150k, plus a new higher tax rate for earnings over 100k - so while the premise of the OP was out of date, the new policy would have essentially an identical impact.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that anyone who dares to challenge SF policy on logical or factual grounds gets called a government shill and then an attempt is made to shift the discussion to a topic they feel they have the upper hand in.

From then on, it matters not what your political views are; if they're not blindly pro-SF, divert/attack/ridicule.

The anti SF attack are well active on that thread too. 'SF ****ehawks' Shinnerbot'IRA Army Council/SF all beimg used on a thread discussing Health.
Time to dispel the myth that only SF supporters behave in a certain way. It is bull****.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't disagree, but I can count the number of times I have been called a "name" for questioning and disagreeing with FG/Lab policy on one hand, whereas being called a "government shill" or "blueshirt" etc for questioning or disagreeing with SF policy must be in the hundreds at this stage.

You seem to have neglected to count the number of times you've used pejorative terms in discussions with SF supporters yourself here for some reason.
What a major league shock that is.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that anyone who dares to challenge SF policy on logical or factual grounds gets called a government shill and then an attempt is made to shift the discussion to a topic they feel they have the upper hand in.

From then on, it matters not what your political views are; if they're not blindly pro-SF, divert/attack/ridicule.

The anti SF attack are well active on that thread too. 'SF ****ehawks' Shinnerbot'IRA Army Council/SF all beimg used on a thread discussing Health.
Time to dispel the myth that only SF supporters behave in a certain way. It is bull****.

johnnyskeleton

Issues regarding Nowegian Health services and statistics have been moved here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057397985#

If the issue is resolved amongst you, and has a bearing on the rules of this forum, we can port back the conclusions in a nice easy to read post rather than have them clogging up the discussion on the rules thread.

Dan_Solo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Please remove the inference that I started that thread and maybe the derogatory title? Might consider taking part in it then.

What it surprise. It starts with you replying to an off topic post but that off topic post itself can stay here it seems.

Mod: responded to in thread.

Lockstep

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What it surprise. It starts with you replying to an off topic post but that off topic post itself can stay here it seems.

If you think a post is off-topic, report it. Don't back-seat moderate in the thread.

Happyman42

Is it within the rules applying to mods that they can hive off a number of posts(without no connection or continuity) into a separate thread with a derogatory title and then wonder;

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Well, if someone can tell me what the point of all these posts are

Seems to me the mod here is making a mockery of the forum.

johnnyskeleton

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it within the rules applying to mods that they can hive off a number of posts(without no connection or continuity) into a separate thread with a derogatory title and then wonder;

Well yes. That is one of the functions of a mod. However little connection or continuity there is amongst those Norwegian doctor posts themselves, they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the rules thread, other than the first few posts which were designed to illustrate a point. Therefore, in the interests of keeping the thread on track, I removed them. I would normally just delete them, but you guys seemed to be having so much fun I decided to let you at it.

I moved it to the Cafe because that is the suitable place for barstool type arguments. But of course I can still delete the posts if needs be.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Seems to me the mod here is making a mockery of the forum.

Just trying to keep things on track. It may discommode you, but hopefully it is to the benefit of the other posters who want to discuss the application of the rules.

Do you have an alternative proposal for how off topic posts should be managed?

Happyman42

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well yes. That is one of the functions of a mod. However little connection or continuity there is amongst those Norwegian doctor posts themselves, they are utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the rules thread, other than the first few posts which were designed to illustrate a point. Therefore, in the interests of keeping the thread on track, I removed them. I would normally just delete them, but you guys seemed to be having so much fun I decided to let you at it.

I moved it to the Cafe because that is the suitable place for barstool type arguments. But of course I can still delete the posts if needs be.



Just trying to keep things on track. It may discommode you, but hopefully it is to the benefit of the other posters who want to discuss the application of the rules.

Do you have an alternative proposal for how off topic posts should be managed?

Yes, do not make it look like I started a thread with a pointless title designed to be derogatory. And if you cannot maintain a consistent flow and connect between the posts, delete them.
As I said earlier it makes a complete mockery of the forum imo.

FreudianSlippers

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seem to have neglected to count the number of times you've used pejorative terms in discussions with SF supporters yourself here for some reason.
What a major league shock that is.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The anti SF attack are well active on that thread too. 'SF ****ehawks' Shinnerbot'IRA Army Council/SF all beimg used on a thread discussing Health.
Time to dispel the myth that only SF supporters behave in a certain way. It is bull****.

I stand over calling specific posters "shinnerbots" - they do nothing but spout rhetoric and have no support. I do challenge you both to provide evidence of me using the other pejorative terms or making any negative statement about SF's IRA connections in that or any other thread.

I'll await your retraction, which I think is highly unlikely to occur.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'll await your retraction, which I think is highly unlikely to occur.

I will gladly retract if you point out first where I accused you of anything?

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I stand over calling specific posters "shinnerbots" - they do nothing but spout rhetoric and have no support. I do challenge you both to provide evidence of me using the other pejorative terms or making any negative statement about SF's IRA connections in that or any other thread.

I'll await your retraction, which I think is highly unlikely to occur.

I've no problem at all with shinnerbots as long as smearbots, Endabots, troikabots and basically anything else I decide is factually correct (as you have done) are also permitted.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I stand over calling specific posters "shinnerbots" - they do nothing but spout rhetoric and have no support.

What does that even mean? I think you're trying to say "and I don't like them at all at all."?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've no problem at all with shinnerbots as long as smearbots, Endabots, troikabots and basically anything else I decide is factually correct (as you have done) are also permitted.

Haven't we been here before, about 50 pages back...........

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does "shinnerbot" fit into this description of acceptable, suitably civil terminology that isn't being used in discussions specifically as a derogatory term?

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's unacceptable to call another poster a "shinnerbot", for the same reasons as "smear drone" is unacceptable - they're both personally offensive because of their implied mindless following of a party line, and they're both ad hominems for the same reason.

The problem is that something like "the shinnerbots will be all over this one" isn't quite the same thing unless it's clearly intended to mean a particular poster.

More generally, and let me make this clear to you specifically and personally, do not attempt to fight fire with fire. Do not say to yourself, as you appear to do, "aha, well, if they're allowed away with x, I must be allowed away with y, and will say it at every opportunity".

Just because we allow some incivility does not mean we encourage it, and if someone invariably takes anything they consider to be uncivil and uninfracted being said in the direction of them or their preferred political party as license to immediately respond in kind, that person is a problem that needs mod attention.

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.

moderately,
Scofflaw