A discussion on the rules.

oscarBravo

Agreed - that's why I'd recommend presenting the evidence, and letting people draw their own conclusions.

kaiser sauze

Originally Posted by irish1
would it be ok to say that in my opinion he mislead the public when he stated that he didn't deal in dollars and that the lodgement was only in pounds and punts?

(follwed by this response)

oscarBravo wrote: »

Absolutely, as long as you don't mind not being able to post here for at least a month afterwards.

Are you saying here that if somebody formulates their own opinion, based on the evidence presented at the tribunal, that they will be banned?

If as I expect yes, that's a hilarious, and over-bearing, stance. Debate is stifled in politics and it is now becoming clear to me why it is.

Seriously, this is a national issue and I think that Boards are scared of open debate between people using the freedom of expression that we all derive from the laws of this land.

oscarBravo

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Are you saying here that if somebody formulates their own opinion, based on the evidence presented at the tribunal, that they will be banned?

No. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I write.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

If as I expect yes, that's a hilarious, and over-bearing, stance. Debate is stifled in politics and it is now becoming clear to me why it is.

Seriously, this is a national issue and I think that Boards are scared of open debate between people using the freedom of expression that we all derive from the laws of this land.

If you genuinely believe that you have freedom to prejudice legal proceedings and publish potentially libellous comments, by all means feel free to do so on a website other than this one.

You can formulate any opinion you want. Depending on what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to express it in this forum.

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

No. If you want to know what I'm saying, read what I write. If you genuinely believe that you have freedom to prejudice legal proceedings and publish potentially libellous comments, by all means feel free to do so on a website other than this one.

You can formulate any opinion you want. Depending on what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to express it in this forum.

Oh, I'm reading what you write. It is quite clear that forming your own opinion based on established facts is not allowed. The media are doing this everyday. Why is Boards any different? They don't seem to be too concerned with what legal action, at a very long shot, that named parties might try. Besides they will not want any more publicity and there is a thing called freedom of speech. Ever heard of it? I won't accept a "they are far larger than us and can afford all the lawyers in China" argument.

Speaking of which, has Boards actually been threatened? That is what it is beginning to look like.

oscarBravo

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Oh, I'm reading what you write. It is quite clear that forming your own opinion based on established facts is not allowed.

I'll repeat myself, since you seem to be having trouble grasping my point: you can form any opinion you want. Depending what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to post it here.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The media are doing this everyday. Why is Boards any different? They don't seem to be too concerned with what legal action, at a very long shot, that named parties might try. Besides they will not want any more publicity...

Great. I look forward to reading your interpretations of the tribunal's events on your blog.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

...and there is a thing called freedom of speech. Ever heard of it?

I have. What's it got to do with a privately-owned website?

Lest that point was unclear, I'll be unequivocal: you have no freedom of speech on this website. Deal with it.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I won't accept a "they are far larger than us and can afford all the lawyers in China" argument.

With all due respect, I don't really care what you will and won't accept.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Speaking of which, has Boards actually been threatened? That is what it is beginning to look like.

You think waiting for a lawsuit is the most appropriate course of action? Publish what you want on your own website.

kaiser sauze

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'll repeat myself, since you seem to be having trouble grasping my point: you can form any opinion you want. Depending what that opinion is, you may or may not be allowed to post it here. Great. I look forward to reading your interpretations of the tribunal's events on your blog. I have. What's it got to do with a privately-owned website?

Lest that point was unclear, I'll be unequivocal: you have no freedom of speech on this website. Deal with it. With all due respect, I don't really care what you will and won't accept. You think waiting for a lawsuit is the most appropriate course of action? Publish what you want on your own website.

Looks like I struck a nerve. I hope I didn't hurt it too much.

I got the response that I expected.

oscarBravo

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Looks like I struck a nerve. I hope I didn't hurt it too much.

Heh. You don't know me very well.

kaiser sauze wrote: »

I got the response that I expected.

Always happy to live up to expectations.

edit: I won't be holding my breath for your free-speech blog, all the same.

Morlar

Can I possibly get a 2nd opinion here from another moderator ?

On the politics forum sometimes I am asked to provide links to back up things I say. As everyone here knows links are pretty much the currency of many arguments on politics. Often the source of the links are questioned (wiki is serb propaganda, youtube is invalid etc) sometimes I am asked to provide more than one link. Thats all fine and I tend to go along as its easier providing you have nothing to hide.

Yesterday in politics forum a dutch person posted - and I asked them a question in passing about something I heard about ages ago - it was about when the indigenous dutch may become a minority in holland. The said dutch person answered and that was fine and that should have been the end of that.

However it was responded to by someone who posted a hyperlinked jpeg of a graph which showed the projected trend of population numbers into 2018.

Fine too more information to assess - except there was something suspicious about it.

I thought it was wierd for a couple of reasons :
that over the course of the next 10 years the population of Native dutch in holland would decrease by 1%
there didnt seem to be a margin of error whatsoever. Normally you would expect a margin of error of at least 2% in demographic studies
I have also seen population studies where when they are projecting that far forward they provide 3 estimates (due to the number of variables), a best circumstance, a worst circumstance and a medium estimate. The medium estimate is arguably the more reliable. The person who posted the jpg link didnt specify which number theirs was - worst, best or medium estimate. I thought this was odd and asked for the source of the study, also what date it was from (which is always relevant) and where was it from - equally relevant.

None of this was provided. So I asked again and the person who posted the jpeg replied to say that it was data they put together by himself in excel and then plotted forward.

This was not stated at the time they provided the jpeg - it was presented as if it was part of an independent study and that the number of 1% was arrived at in a professional manner. Simply taking the previous 4/5 years numbers and graphing them forward is not necessarily very thorough - it does not take into account any expected change in any variable which can effect the outcome.

I mentioned that I did not think it was acceptable to be your own source - and that perhaps a moderator could clarify.

The reply I recieved was not overly helpful in my view - so I was wondering if other moderators would give an opinion on this ?

Here is a link to the thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055212328

The part where this person posted his jpeg (without mentioning date, independence or source)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54817646&postcount=68

Where I questioned this x2 (this is before the source became known)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54818338&postcount=71
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54819365&postcount=74

This is where the person clarified how he arrived at the numbers
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54819771&postcount=76

Where the moderator replied:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54820180&postcount=79

Anway without boring everyone to death - the gist of this all this is that in my opinion - if you post data that you have created in ms excel or any other document you create - you should clearly state that it was you who created it and how.

This information was forthcoming eventually - however I think it should be a rule that you can not post anything you yourself create without clearly stating that fact.

cabinteelytom

I thought Morlar did a good job of exposing shady practice that pretended to authority; and bringing it up for debate , which is really what message boards are about. But I doubt if trying to police this kind of thing comprehensively is possible. I'm not sure it's desireable. We all know posts are not peer reviewed. 'There's lies, damned lies, and..then there's statistics'. '84% of statistics are made up on the spot.'

Time Magazine

On a minor pedantic point, should the new forum be called something more like "European Politics"? Referring it to as the EU Forum kind of excludes talk about the Commission etc.

Of course I appreciate that the two are practically synonymous in Irish vernacular and that you'd be losing some of the advantages of the current name by changing it. Nonetheless, warrants a mention I think.

Grudaire

Any news on the China discussion rules?

I learned something from that debate, then now it's gone....

Victor

Ibid wrote: »

On a minor pedantic point, should the new forum be called something more like "European Politics"? Referring it to as the EU Forum kind of excludes talk about the Commission etc.

Surely "European Union - Forum for discussing EU politics." allows discussion on the commission - are they not political?

Your suggestion "European Politics" points towards discussing national and local politics in Europe without an EU slant.

An American Politics board might be useful, so the subject doesn't hog the main board.

Time Magazine

Victor wrote: »

Surely "European Union - Forum for discussing EU politics." allows discussion on the commission - are they not political?

The Commission is a bad example. I'm more pointing out that there are distinctions between the EU/EC/EEC and "the EU" is not quite all encompassing. The Commission is a bad example here because it is considered as part of the Union moreso than, say, the ECtHR. I imagine cases brought under the ECHR are fair game on this forum, but are not technically EU-related, and thus not quite covered by the name.

Your suggestion "European Politics" points towards discussing national and local politics in Europe without an EU slant.

I accept this.

Pocono Joe

Why do some Mod’s feel the need to diss posters just because they personally don’t like the legitimate (well at least some might consider legitimate anyway) sources provided by an individual, when that individual is requested to supply sources?

Grudaire

Why is it that Mods teand to shut threads down if one or two step over the line?

I'm talking about the United Ireland thread - It was shut down because of another post about Collins - surely punishing the poster is a better idea?

Note: This has happened before - are we allowed discuss Tibet yet!?

oscarBravo

Cliste wrote: »

Why is it that Mods teand to shut threads down if one or two step over the line?

I'm talking about the United Ireland thread - It was shut down because of another post about Collins - surely punishing the poster is a better idea?

That thread had pretty much run its course anyway, the usual trenches had been retreated into.

Note: This has happened before - are we allowed discuss Tibet yet!?

Yes, but it would really help if everybody fully informed themselves about both sides of that story too.

kaiser sauze

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Why do some Mod’s feel the need to diss posters just because they personally don’t like the legitimate (well at least some might consider legitimate anyway) sources provided by an individual, when that individual is requested to supply sources?

Politics forum has not changed, this is one of the many problems with it.
I notice your query was ignored and a subsequent query has already had a response. No surprises there, either.

sceptre

Without pointing fingers on-thread PJ, a few examples wouldn't hurt (it'd be easier for me to answer the question as a general one that way, obviously this thread isn't about answering specific incidents, that's what the Help Desk is for). I'm not actually aware of where that's happened, even when talking about the occasional krazee kidd we get in here (and we do get them and usually where they supply sources they're highly questionable).

(to be honest, for me, the question is non-related to a discussion on the rules, which is what this thread is for and more a question about a practice you reckon is there, which would make the question more at home on the Help Desk anyway but I'm interested as long as it doesn't start an off-topic discussion, which would obviously belong outside of this thread)

Driseog

Bit off topic but how does one Thank? Can't see it in the FAQs

sceptre

Driseog wrote: »

Bit off topic but how does one Thank? Can't see it in the FAQs

At the bottom-right of each post you'll see a line of buttons (anywhere between three and five depending on the post). The one all the way to the right looks like a thumbs-up. That's the one you click. You can't thank your own posts I'm afraid. And some forums (like the Help Desk) don't allow the feature.

Short answer: click the thumbs-up button!

Driseog

sceptre wrote: »

At the bottom-right of each post you'll see a line of buttons (anywhere between three and five depending on the post). The one all the way to the right looks like a thumbs-up. That's the one you click. You can't thank your own posts I'm afraid. And some forums (like the Help Desk) don't allow the feature.

Short answer: click the thumbs-up button!

Go raibh maith agat but that thumbs up button is never there...

sceptre

Driseog wrote: »

Go raibh maith agat but that thumbs up button is never there...

Ah, I just noticed, you've got 7 posts in total on boards.ie as a whole at the moment. The thanks feature only appears when you hit a higher number. 10 or 25 I think. Not an excuse to spam but a few more posts and it'll be available to you.

turgon

I think some article should be amended to the politics charter governing the use of images. Ive discussed this on feedback previously, about how images are often mis-used to evoke emotion. It was rampant on the Israel-Palestine thread.

Pointless image here for example:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59810428&postcount=98



So I think guidelines for why and when to include images should be made.

Grudaire

turgon wrote: »

I think some article should be amended to the politics charter governing the use of images. Ive discussed this on feedback previously, about how images are often mis-used to evoke emotion. It was rampant on the Israel-Palestine thread.

Pointless image here for example:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59810428&postcount=98



So I think guidelines for why and when to include images should be made.

That image was used purely because other posters had been allowed to post up the Union Jack...

Hmmmm, I agree - I would prefer if the Union Jack hadn't been allowed to be posted - in a clearly inflamitory way

turgon

Cliste wrote: »

Hmmmm, I agree - I would prefer if the Union Jack hadn't been allowed to be posted - in a clearly inflamitory way

Absolutely my point. Pictures should be used to prove a point. Posting a flag does not do this. It is meant to spark illogical emotions.

TBH I find irrelevant pictures annoying, they reduce the flow of the conversation whilst contributing nothing.

Grudaire

turgon wrote: »

Absolutely my point. Pictures should be used to prove a point. Posting a flag does not do this. It is meant to spark illogical emotions.

TBH I find irrelevant pictures annoying, they reduce the flow of the conversation whilst contributing nothing.

I agree, and second the pointless image motion!


However I feel that that thread has been dragged so off topic it's not funny.

The thread was taken truely off topic at this point (And for the record I've given up reporting anything that isn't a clear insult because getting the mods to act is like pulling teeth):

futurehope wrote: »

I think it's worse than that jimmy. One only has to read through the posts on this forum (and indeed on other Irish forums) to realise what sort of place Ireland had/has become since it left The Union. Constant whining about The UK/GB/Britain. Is there any other country in the world that goes on about their nearest neighbours like The Irish? Personally I doubt it. If one goes on a German forum, do people there keep bleating about Germany's lost lands - Silesia, East Prussia, Pomerania, etc? Personally I doubt it. Does anyone on UK forums keep moaning about how terrible it was to lose The Empire and wouldn't it be great if it could be recreated? Again, unlikely. Does any civilised country anywhere have the arrogance to constantly keep harping on about taking over part of a neighbouring country's territory AGAINST the will of those who actually live there? If there are such civilised countries, I'd love to know their names. And yet many of these same bleaters, whiners and moaners have either lived in England, are living in England, or will live in England - either them, their parents, their children, etc. This can all be summed up in one word:

EMBARRASSING!

And yet the question remains - WHY do The Irish (or many of them) think like this and act like this? I can only give one answer. In order for corrupt, lazy and incompetent Irish politicians to prosper and in order for said politicians to maintain control over what was a very poor populace until relatively recently, they had to point the finger North and East. It was The terrible British and those nasty Prods who were to blame. And yet, said politicians could not have acted alone. No, they required the assistance of The RC church, which they received in abundance, particularly through the schools, where the anti-British and anti-Protestant bile was spewed out onto innocent children. In return The Irish state did not look to closely at what The RC priests were up to. Well, we all know now what they were up to don't we?

So, instead of blaming The British for their plight (the same British who helped fund Ireland's prosperity through The EU and who welcomed The Irish into England as immigrants) or blaming Northern Protestants (the one's, who contrary to Irish speak, were actually incredibly slow to anger, even during the worst of The Provo outrages), The Irish should take a much closer look at themselves, and damn well grow up.

jank

I agree that the modding in that thread as been terrible. Someone should have a word with futurehope on how to conduct himself on this board.

Also whats the deal with Irish, are you not allowed to post it?

Grudaire

jank wrote: »

I agree that the modding in that thread as been terrible. Someone should have a word with futurehope on how to conduct himself on this board.

Also whats the deal with Irish, are you not allowed to post it?

I asked - someone complained I think...

I didn't say anything about them in Irish - just invited people to Teach na Gealt for some banter. I think the general rule is that Irish is ok in moderation, too much is bad because the Mods don't understand, which is fair enough I suppose... Ó da mbeadh Éireann níos fearr ann...

turgon

Considering that only a small minority speak Irish well enough to converse in it, and that those who do speak Irish can also speak English, I think the use of Irish should be banned with the exception of Irish phrasing.

The only reason otherwise to use Irish is to intentionally make your self misunderstood which is bad form. I think there is no merit in using it, but ye might disagree.

Grudaire

turgon wrote: »

Considering that only a small minority speak Irish well enough to converse in it, and that those who do speak Irish can also speak English, I think the use of Irish should be banned with the exception of Irish phrasing.

The only reason otherwise to use Irish is to intentionally make your self misunderstood which is bad form. I think there is no merit in using it, but ye might disagree.

I didn't do it maliciously at all.

And there is much merit in using Irish - but this will be an issue that takes many locked threads to solve