A discussion on the rules.

Dan_Solo

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.

Normally I would agree, but in the case of politics, somebody has to be in power. If you want to give out about one party you have to propose an alternative. It really does matter if one party is bad and the other party is worse.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

That was carded today IIRC, .............

No, it was reported on the 7th or 8th of march and it has not been carded, hence why I took to feedback to complain about the state of things, something I very rarely do.

Nodin

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, I said much the same earlier. However in the absence of sufficient sanction, that's the way it will go.

Chips Lovell

I don't think it's inevitable, but I guess we'll just have to differ on that.

But what I really wanted to stress that, most of the time, getting into a flame war isn't in someone's interest. If your opponent says something idiotic or just plain nasty, often the most effective tactic is to just leave it there for all to see rather than lowering yourself to their level and engaging in trench warfare.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

It is good to see (but not suprising) who is clinging on to the right to insult here.
Godge, Permabear, would you be willing to take part in a 3 month trial where parties are called by their proper names or accepted abbreviations and where all use of the 'bot' appendage is simply banned as being troublesome, that would allow us all and the mods to see if the place is 'diminished' as a result.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is good to see (but not suprising) who is clinging on to the right to insult here.
Godge, Permabear, would you be willing to take part in a 3 month trial where parties are called by their proper names or accepted abbreviations and where all use of the 'bot' appendage is simply banned as being troublesome, that would allow us all and the mods to see if the place is 'diminished' as a result.

How is it an insult again? If one is simply spouting SF manifesto with no evidence to support same then how can that person be insulted by being called a shinnerbot?

Chips Lovell

I'd be careful what I wished for. If there was a ban on pejorative remarks against entire parties and their supporters, as opposed to just remarks directed at individual posters, there's going to be a lot of people from a lot of persuasions who'll get caught in the crossfire.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

How is it an insult again? If one is simply spouting SF manifesto with no evidence to support same then how can that person be insulted by being called a shinnerbot?

If somebody is doing that, then the proper recourse is to the mods. In a heated debate is not the place.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

If somebody is doing that, then the proper recourse is to the mods. In a heated debate is not the place.

In the Café there doesn't seem to be a rule against -botting

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In the Café there doesn't seem to be a rule against -botting

Would you be willing to give it a try? If the forum suffers as a result, we can always revert.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is good to see (but not suprising) who is clinging on to the right to insult here.
Godge, Permabear, would you be willing to take part in a 3 month trial where parties are called by their proper names or accepted abbreviations and where all use of the 'bot' appendage is simply banned as being troublesome, that would allow us all and the mods to see if the place is 'diminished' as a result.

No, Happyman, because that would be used as a justification for other complaints.

For example, the continued use of SF/IRA has been conclusively discussed and resolved and a clear understanding is in place that its use can be appropriate depending on the context. Introducing a rule as you suggest would be a back door/Trojan Horse to reopening that particular debate.

Furthermore I have looked and the only -bot reference that I can find outside of boards is "shinnerbot" (fgbot is a computer virus). I would be happy with a rule that said you cannnot use a term that is not in general usage elsewhere and that you must use the term in an appropriate context. How would this work?

"blueshirt" would be appropriate in discussing historical events of the 1930s and the subsequent career of people who were involved in the blueshirt movement.

"SF/IRA" would be appropriate in discussing events and people where the line between SF and IRA is allegedly blurred.

"shinnerbot" would be appropriate in discussing general behaviour of a class of posters and should not normally be used directly against an individual poster.


Obviously the above is only my view, and I am not a mod, and have been warned and carded several times so that may not be a consensus opinion but there is a logical consistency to it - if the word/phrase is not in common usage outside boards it is banned.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

No, Happyman, because that would be used as a justification for other complaints.

For example, the continued use of SF/IRA has been conclusively discussed and resolved and a clear understanding is in place that its use can be appropriate depending on the context. Introducing a rule as you suggest would be a back door/Trojan Horse to reopening that particular debate.

Furthermore I have looked and the only -bot reference that I can find outside of boards is "shinnerbot" (fgbot is a computer virus). I would be happy with a rule that said you cannnot use a term that is not in general usage elsewhere and that you must use the term in an appropriate context. How would this work?

"blueshirt" would be appropriate in discussing historical events of the 1930s and the subsequent career of people who were involved in the blueshirt movement.

"SF/IRA" would be appropriate in discussing events and people where the line between SF and IRA is allegedly blurred.

"shinnerbot" would be appropriate in discussing general behaviour of a class of posters and should not normally be used directly against an individual poster.


Obviously the above is only my view, and I am not a mod, and have been warned and carded several times so that may not be a consensus opinion but there is a logical consistency to it - if the word/phrase is not in common usage outside boards it is banned.

There are plenty of 'terms' in use elsewhere that are banned here. I can list them if it is allowed.
That really is not an argument Godge. It is an argument to be allowed the right to insult as you see fit.
If, and I am not convinced this is true, somebody is on here as a closet member of any party...so what? Just debate with them, if they then behave the way you say a 'bot' does to the point of restricting the debate...call in the mods by reporting. Very simple, non divisive way of dealing with it and you don't run the risk of insulting others with a tar brush.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well my suggestion of implementing a 'clear rule' shouldn't be a problem to anyone wanting to raise the 'standards'.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are plenty of 'terms' in use elsewhere that are banned here. I can list them if it is allowed.
That really is not an argument Godge. It is an argument to be allowed the right to insult as you see fit.
If, and I am not convinced this is true, somebody is on here as a closet member of any party...so what? Just debate with them, if they then behave the way you say a 'bot' does to the point of restricting the debate...call in the mods by reporting. Very simple, non divisive way of dealing with it and you don't run the risk of insulting others with a tar brush.

"Terms" in use elsewhere that are banned here tend to be foul language or generally applicable insulting remarks.

The three terms I listed all have an appropriate context for use and also inappropriate contexts for use.

So while it is never appropriate to call another poster or a class of people a "scumbag" or "scumbags", referring to "SF/IRA" when discussing Gerry Adams' alleged membership of the IRA is appropriate. Very very different.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well my suggestion of implementing a 'clear rule' shouldn't be a problem to anyone wanting to raise the 'standards'.

I have also set out a clear rule, ambiguous terms such as those under attack should only be used in their proper context. Simple.

Like anyone else trying to set rules (like any of us), you are not interested in simple rules per se, you are interested in rules that match your vision of the world.

Other than agreeing to disagree and accepting that it is the mods who will determine the rules, I am not sure where this debate can go.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

Godge wrote: »

I have also set out a clear rule, ambiguous terms such as those under attack should only be used in their proper context. Simple.

The problem is that those terms are not being used unambiguously. And the core of my point is that there is no need (only the right to insult) to use them at all.

Chips Lovell

I thought what was being proposed was banning statements like:

"The Shinners won't be happy with this"

and insisting people say:

"Sinn Fein won't be happy with this".

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

The problem is that those terms are not being used unambiguously. And the core of my point is that there is no need (only the right to insult) to use them at all.

I take it back to my original argument.

If shinnerbots are defined as SF mouthpieces who constantly post the party talking-points, refuse to engage in rational debate and have no evidence to support their positions; how is it an insult?

As I said before "if the shoe fits, wear it" - by feeling insulted by the term shinnerbot, one is admitting that they agree that their posts are below the standard of debate.

Happyman42

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Using proper party names is just manners on a politics forum imo. A standard of behaviour that separates us from AH.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

Using proper party names is just manners on a politics forum imo. A standard of behaviour that separates us from AH.

... and as I said, I'm perfectly willing to call rational posters "SF supporters" or whatever. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

I have no issue with banning the term "shinnerbot" from Politics, where there are rules. But it shouldn't be banned in the Cafe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I take it back to my original argument.

If shinnerbots are defined as SF mouthpieces who constantly post the party talking-points, refuse to engage in rational debate and have no evidence to support their positions; how is it an insult?

As I said before "if the shoe fits, wear it" - by feeling insulted by the term shinnerbot, one is admitting that they agree that their posts are below the standard of debate.

It isn't your place to decide what is 'rational debate' that should be for a mod to decide. Otherwise I could wade into any debate and claim you are not being 'rational'.

I frequently describe the behaviour of some on these forums as 'irrational antiSFbots' because it is to me, quite frankly that, an irrational objection for anything that emanates from SF.
In future I would simply take that kind of posting to a mod and let them assess it and deal with it, if it is damaging the debate.
That is my behaviour clearly moderated by a 'clear rule'.

FreudianSlippers

Happyman42 wrote: »

It isn't your place to decide what is 'rational debate' that should be for a mod to decide. Otherwise I could wade into any debate and claim you are not being 'rational'.

I frequently describe the behaviour of some on these forums as 'irrational antiSFbots' because it is to me, quite frankly that, an irrational objection for anything that emanates from SF.
In future I would simply take that kind of posting to a mod and let them assess it and deal with it, if it is damaging the debate.
That is my behaviour clearly moderated by a 'clear rule'.

It doesn't take much to see constantly posting nonsense and failing to provide any evidential support for their position is not "rational debate" - are you seriously going to disagree with me on that?

As for the failure to engage in rational debate, in the Cafe there is no requirement for rational debate, hence all the shinnerbotting that is going on.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

......faced bravely by a cohort who spend 18+ hours a day doing the opposite.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Happyman42

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It doesn't take much to see constantly posting nonsense and failing to provide any evidential support for their position is not "rational debate"

Are you seriously suggesting that only one type of poster is posting 'nonsense'?

Fair enough, you don't want to improve the standard of the forum if it removes your right to be trite and insulting. With absolutely no benefit to the debate it has to be added. So what if you are debating with a bot from any party, how does that diminish the strength of your argument?

FreudianSlippers

Nodin wrote: »

......faced bravely by a cohort who spend 18+ hours a day doing the opposite.

We work smarter, not harder.