A discussion on the rules.

Dan_Solo

Well in that case FreudianSlippers in stating he's free to call anybody he wants "shinnerbot" which has been confirmed as an insult.

FreudianSlippers

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.

If a poster constantly posts FG talking points and provides no evidential support to the FG policy that they are spouting, by all means call them a Blueshirt. Simply disagreeing with nonsense spouted by a clear shinnerbot doesn't qualify I'm afraid.

I do note you haven't provided evidence of these alleged posts from me which contained pejorative SF references

K-9

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.

Scofflaw wrote:

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

You seem to be able to pick out the part of that post that suits, but let me reiterate what was addressed to you specifically in that exact same post.

Chips Lovell

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people see a false dichotomy, i.e. if you're not an SF supporter you must be an FG or FF supporter or vice versa, and therefore insults/quips/flames about one party should be countered with the same about another.

The reality is that for every one party loyalist there's probably about a dozen people without any real loyalties. They may not be particularly enamoured with some parties, but it doesn't mean they're very attached to others.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

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

Fair enough - I think I misinterpreted your post on first read.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to be able to pick out the part of that post that suits, but let me reiterate what was addressed to you specifically in that exact same post.

Which is fantastically ironic as you have quite deliberately deleted the first line of Scofflaw's post:

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.

FreudianSlippers asserts he is free to call posters here "shinnerbots" if he so feels. How is this possible when it "unacceptable"?

You are also reprinting part of a post specifically for me which currently has no relevance as I am not calling any other posters anything with impunity.

Dan_Solo

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I do note you haven't provided evidence of these alleged posts from me which contained pejorative SF references

You can note what you like about something I have never claimed except for "shinnerbots".
I will repeat that you have reserved the right to call other posters here "shinnerbots" at will when it has been described by a moderator as "unacceptable".

FreudianSlippers 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.

Dan_Solo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that a lot of people see a false dichotomy, i.e. if you're not an SF supporter you must be an FG or FF supporter or vice versa, and therefore insults/quips/flames about one party should be countered with the same about another.

The reality is that for every one party loyalist there's probably about a dozen people without any real loyalties. They may not be particularly enamoured with some parties, but it doesn't mean they're very attached to others.

Well that's fair enough, but somebody has to be in power. Saying party X is bad but party Y is worse is absolutely important as people have to vote (well, the ones who bother anyway) for one or the other. It's a zero sum game as they say.

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which is fantastically ironic as you have quite deliberately deleted the first line of Scofflaw's post:

FreudianSlippers asserts he is free to call posters here "shinnerbots" if he so feels. How is this possible when it "unacceptable"?

You are also reprinting part of a post specifically for me which currently has no relevance as I am not calling any other posters anything with impunity.

We've been over this before.

This feedback thread is fast becoming the "Republican posters discussion on what the rules should be" thread, little else for months and months and page after page.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

We've been over this before.

This feedback thread is fast becoming the "Republican posters discussion on what the rules should be" thread, little else for months and months and page after page.

Have we?
FreudianSlippers calls another poster a shinnerbot and claims he can do this whenever he wants.
A moderator says calling another poster a shinnerbot is unnacceptable.
I missed the bit where these two things were reconciled.

BTW, I'm not a Republican. What was that about lumping everybody together... I support SF and a lot of their policies but I have no interest (or even desire) in a 32 county state.

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Have we?
FreudianSlippers calls another poster a shinnerbot and claims he can do this whenever he wants.
A moderator says calling another poster a shinnerbot is unnacceptable.
I missed the bit where these two things were reconciled.

Did we?

I didn't think you answered FS's question:

I do note you haven't provided evidence of these alleged posts from me which contained pejorative SF references

We'll need to see the evidence first!

BTW, I'm not a Republican. What was that about lumping everybody together... I support SF and their policies but I have no interest (or even desire) in a 32 county state.

It wasn't addressed at you, a general observation on the trend of posts.

The last 700 posts, or about 1/3rd of a 10 year old thread, all within the last 6 months seem to be mostly, by some distance, discussing Republican related matters.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

Did we?

Well if it's not reconciled which is it? Calling another poster a shinnerbot is either acceptable or not? So it's not reconciled, it's not going to be and that's it?

K-9 wrote: »

I didn't think you answered FS's question:


We'll need to see the evidence first!

Already done. Once more then.

FreudianSlippers 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.

K-9 wrote: »

It wasn't addressed at you, a general observation on the trend of posts.

That's fine, but you quoted me, addressed me and then switched to apparently talking about other posters of which I am not one without pausing for breath. Sounded suspiciously like you were addressing me.

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You are also reprinting part of a post specifically for me which currently has no relevance as I am not calling any other posters anything with impunity.

Does "antishinner" qualify?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94724409&postcount=296

Or "antishinner land"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94723385&postcount=3216

Or "antishinner" again?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94723051&postcount=1023

Or "smearbot"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94718340&postcount=170


Oh, the irony. I only had to go back to yesterday morning for those four gems and the search was only showing me the first four lines of the posts, I may have missed a few others.

Maybe I should report them all, that would end the discussion pronto.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

The last 700 posts, or about 1/3rd of a 10 year old thread, all within the last 6 months seem to be mostly, by some distance, discussing Republican related matters.

Which, if nothing else means that there is a significant problem on the board.

This isn't going to get any better as we approach an election. Feelings among those who dislike SF are running high at the moment as the terms are creeping back in all over the forum.

I suggest a trial period of a ban for three months.
See how it goes and if posters are restricted in getting their meaning across, let them make their case then.
Simple rule: All parties are referred to by their accepted names or abreviations and all 'bot' endings banned. If you think somebody is behaving like a bot, report to a mod.

Would save mods who have complained about workload on two threads an awful amount of work imo.

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

Does "antishinner" qualify?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94724409&postcount=296

Or "antishinner land"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94723385&postcount=3216

Or "antishinner" again?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94723051&postcount=1023

Or "smearbot"?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94718340&postcount=170


Oh, the irony. I only had to go back to yesterday morning for those four gems and the search was only showing me the first four lines of the posts, I may have missed a few others.

Maybe I should report them all, that would end the discussion pronto.

Ah Godge, that's laughable. If "shinner" is grand, and no SF supporter has even batted an eyelid at it, then "antishinner" is hardly an insult.
Who did I call a smearbot again? Could you specify? Under Scofflaw's rules it has to be a specific poster remember, not just flung to the four winds for somebody to take offence.

K-9

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well if it's not reconciled which is it? Calling another poster a shinnerbot is either acceptable or not? So it's not reconciled, it's not going to be and that's it?

It's pretty clear, I'm not going over it for the nth time.

Already done. Once more then.

From Dec 14, fair enough.

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which, if nothing else means that there is a significant problem on the board.

This isn't going to get any better as we approach an election. Feelings among those who dislike SF are running high at the moment as the terms are creeping back in all over the forum.

I suggest a trial period of a ban for three months.
See how it goes and if posters are restricted in getting their meaning across, let them make their case then.
Simple rule: All parties are referred to by their accepted names or abreviations and all 'bot' endings banned. If you think somebody is behaving like a bot, report to a mod.

Would save mods who have complained about workload on two threads an awful amount of work imo.

The bot type stuff isn't a major problem.

The personal stuff is, and I don't think us mods can do much to solve the N.I./S.F. situation on the forum! If we did, we'd be going up to Stormont afterwards to sort them all out.

Dan_Solo

K-9 wrote: »

It's pretty clear, I'm not going over it for the nth time.

It's clear that "shinnerbot" is acceptable to use directly at another poster but is unacceptable to use directly at another poster. OK...

K-9 wrote: »

From Dec 14, fair enough.

What's that supposed to mean? It didn't happen then? It was acceptable then but it isn't acceptable now?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ah Godge, that's laughable. If "shinner" is grand, and no SF supporter has even batted an eyelid at it, then "antishinner" is hardly an insult.
Who did I call a smearbot again? Could you specify? Under Scofflaw's rules it has to be a specific poster remember, not just flung to the four winds for somebody to take offence.

But I am not "antishinner", I have a few good friends who are shinners. We agree to disagree.

However, I am "anti-shinnerbots" if you feel the need to label me. (The hyphen is there to show that I am against shinnerbots, not that I am an antishinnerbot, which is a different thing:D).

Dan_Solo

Godge wrote: »

However, I am "anti-shinnerbots" if you feel the need to label me. (The hyphen is there to show that I am against shinnerbots, not that I am an antishinnerbot, which is a different thing:D).

Well would you care to specify who these "shinnerbots" are at boards.ie that you are "anti". Bear in mind that it is an unacceptable term. If you are claiming this as a general description of posters here then it would qualify as trolling, as the term is unacceptable to use against other posters.
You mean you are "anti-shinnerbots" down your local then I take it?

Chips Lovell

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well that's fair enough, but somebody has to be in power. Saying party X is bad but party Y is worse is absolutely important as people have to vote (well, the ones who bother anyway) for one or the other. It's a zero sum game as they say.

What I was saying was more that someone being opposed to party X doesn't automatically make them a supporter of party Y

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

But I am not "antishinner", I have a few good friends who are shinners. We agree to disagree.

However, I am "anti-shinnerbots" if you feel the need to label me. (The hyphen is there to show that I am against shinnerbots, not that I am an antishinnerbot, which is a different thing:D).

And that should be between you and the mods.
Not on a thread where it is only used to flame.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

The bot type stuff isn't a major problem.

It is part of the problem.
We are on a Politics forum, not in After Hours, the easiest and most respectful thing to do is insist that proper names for democratic parties are used. And it is easier to maintain that rule than wade in after a thread goes out of control.
Somebody either did or did not use the proper name/abbreviation
Somebody either did or didn't use the 'bot'' term.

I'm up for posting following those rules, why wouldn't everybody else? Haven't mods already agreed that the words are problematic?

Godge

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well would you care to specify who these "shinnerbots" are at boards.ie that you are "anti". Bear in mind that it is an unacceptable term. If you are claiming this as a general description of posters here then it would qualify as trolling, as the term is unacceptable to use against other posters.
You mean you are "anti-shinnerbots" down your local then I take it?

As I have pointed out before "shinnerbot" has become an accepted cultural term with wide usage online.

https://twitter.com/dsmooney/status/417011666111705088

https://twitter.com/hashtag/shinnerbot

https://youngcarson.wordpress.com/tag/shinnerbots/

http://www.veooz.com/photos/FI99bhf.html

Nodin

Godge wrote: »

But I am not "antishinner", I have a few good friends who are shinners. We agree to disagree.

).

I will break my self imposed exile from this thread to add "Ha!" to that.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

As I have pointed out before "shinnerbot" has become an accepted cultural term with wide usage online.

https://twitter.com/dsmooney/status/417011666111705088

https://twitter.com/hashtag/shinnerbot

https://youngcarson.wordpress.com/tag/shinnerbots/

http://www.veooz.com/photos/FI99bhf.html

If ever you needed an example of the type of bile that should be banned on a self respecting Politics site, that little gem is it; https://youngcarson.wordpress.com/tag/shinnerbots/

YoungCarson indeed. :rolleyes:

Chips Lovell

I think the solution to the teething problems of the Café lies more in the posters themselves and less in moderation.

All too often, people on both sides of contentious discussions can't resist the temptation of fighting fire with fire. And frequently those dishing out the inflammatory rhetoric are the ones who're the quickest to cry foul when they're on the receiving end of it themselves.

Dropping to your opponent's level does you no favours. The sniping is occasionally entertaining but mostly just tedious to read.

The forum would be better served if more people simply ignored the bait rather than rise to it and reported any remarks they believe breach the charter.

Nodin

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think the solution to the teething problems of the Café lies more in the posters themselves and less in moderation.

All too often, people on both sides of contentious discussions can't resist the temptation of fighting fire with fire. And frequently those dishing out the inflammatory rhetoric are the ones who're the quickest to cry foul when they're on the receiving end of it themselves.

Dropping to your opponent's level does you no favours. The sniping is occasionally entertaining but mostly just tedious to read.

The forum would be better served if more people simply ignored the bait rather than rise to it and reported any remarks they believe breach the charter.

Being told you vote for a child abuse supporting party tends to be bait that few can ignore. Reporting it brought no sanctions as of the time of my previous posts on this thread.

Chips Lovell

That's all well and good, but responding by saying your opponent supports something equally or more heinous is hardly going to make the situation any better.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

Being told you vote for a child abuse supporting party tends to be bait that few can ignore. Reporting it brought no sanctions as of the time of my previous posts on this thread.

That was carded today IIRC, and another poster was banned for repeated trolling of SF threads.

Because of the lighter moderation it sometimes takes time for a pattern to develop.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

That's all well and good, but responding by saying your opponent supports something equally or more heinous is hardly going to make the situation any better.

Indeed, if somebody is on a wind up why give them a reaction? No reaction, they get ignored and bored, or else get worse and mods can deal with them easily enough.