A discussion on the rules.

K-9

Theory seems more an ideal and emotional attachment at this stage and N.I. is basically dead. Irish Economy still has a regular user base, albeit reduced, which for me is more reason to bring it to the main forum rather than keep it separate.

The more I think of it I can't see any good reasons for keeping things as they are anyway, and the less is more approach seems best. The advantage of one big main forum is we can always split out forums out if needs be, no big deal.

Sand

I'd merge the Irish Economy, Elections and Referendums, European Union and Political Theory into the main Politics forum. I don't see any particular necessity for separate sub-forums with basically the same rule sets and overlapping topics. Any discussion on an Irish political party is going to cross into all of economy, elections, EU and political doctrines.

For the same reason, I don't think an international politics forum would work as there would be too many overlapping issues, and it would all be under the same ruleset so why split them? Are ECB policies an international issue or an Irish one for example?

US I would keep separate: Domestic US politics is a specific topic, that elicits a lot of excitement even amongst non-US posters, and any detailed discussion of the topics raised there would otherwise disappear if merged into a larger, Irish/Euro centric forum.

Northern Ireland I'd be in two minds. Its again a specific topic, that elicits a lot of excitement from several posters, and usually at a very low "I know you are, but what am I?" level of quality in contributions. Threads on single topics generate hundreds of posts, and tens of thousands of views. The topics tend to revolve around historical events, rather than current events. Having it as a separate forum allows for a tweaked ruleset which tolerates the higher noise-signal ratio. If the NI topics of debate are in the remit of politics, then there needs to be an NI forum or else most of the contributors will A) be infracted/banned or will drag standards in Politics down to Politics Cafe levels.

If the NI topics of debate are in the remit of Politics Cafe, then so long as its kept in Politics Cafe then the the purpose of a Northern Ireland sub forum is removed.

20Cent

Hi was kicked off the thread about Greece in politics cafe.
Hold my hands up after significant provocation I did make some smart arse replies so probably deserved. Though I wasn't the worst in the thread, had reported several posts but nothing was done.

Two points about this though.

Firstly there were links to a post I'd made four years ago in order to call me a hypocrite. (taken out of context). This is attacking the poster not the post. In addition it takes the thread off topic. Is it really desirable to have people trolling through old posts in order try and discredit a poster? If everyone did this discussion would become impossible.

Second point is regarding opinions. After expressing an opinion on something I was harangued and called names. Opinions come about from a lifetime of experience there is no one thing one can link to to say where they came from. Is this a new thing now that all opinions have to be cited and where they are from? Another thing that would make debate impossible.

Would be interested in opinions on this (no need to cite where they come from)

regards


20Cent

K-9

The cafe is a separate forum now so it doesn't come under this threads or the mods remit. Maybe PM the cafe mods and take it from there.

lochderg

20Cent wrote: »

Hi was kicked off the thread about Greece in politics cafe.
Hold my hands up after significant provocation I did make some smart arse replies so probably deserved. Though I wasn't the worst in the thread, had reported several posts but nothing was done.

Two points about this though.

Firstly there were links to a post I'd made four years ago in order to call me a hypocrite. (taken out of context). This is attacking the poster not the post. In addition it takes the thread off topic. Is it really desirable to have people trolling through old posts in order try and discredit a poster? If everyone did this discussion would become impossible.

Second point is regarding opinions. After expressing an opinion on something I was harangued and called names. Opinions come about from a lifetime of experience there is no one thing one can link to to say where they came from. Is this a new thing now that all opinions have to be cited and where they are from? Another thing that would make debate impossible.

Would be interested in opinions on this (no need to cite where they come from)

regards


20Cent

sounds sensible to me

johnnyskeleton

lochderg wrote: »

sounds sensible to me

As set out above, this is not the place for Cafe Feedback.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

Ironic I am saying this but why not have a UK and NI sub-forum (Britain and NI?), it would be a bit busier than the standard NI forum (which I read but don't post in) and sometimes the UK politics stuff on the main forum seems to be a bit out on its own.

jank

On the more serious forums can we have a higher level of debate than this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95894780&postcount=693

There is no need to for such racial accusations or insinuations from posters which are known for their drive-by posting style as it cheapens the overall level of debate.

As the US election cycle kicks into gear can we nip this in the bud, that accusations of racism can be just left hanging where there is no basis in fact for them? Its pure trolling tbh.

RecordStraight

jank wrote: »

On the more serious forums can we have a higher level of debate than this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95894780&postcount=693

There is no need to for such racial accusations or insinuations from posters which are known for their drive-by posting style as it cheapens the overall level of debate.

As the US election cycle kicks into gear can we nip this in the bud, that accusations of racism can be just left hanging where there is no basis in fact for them? Its pure trolling tbh.

I think it's pretty well established that the 'voter fraud' legislation is designed to deter minority voters, as openly admitted here:

jank

RecordStraight wrote: »

I think it's pretty well established that the 'voter fraud' legislation is designed to deter minority voters, as openly admitted here:

Eh, that video does not mention minorities or blacks at all...

We can debate the merits of voter ID to the cows come home, that is not my issue. The issue is with the level of debate itself. Satirical references to 'dem minorities' or 'dem blacks' is pointless and is just a way to shut up debate rather then engage.

RecordStraight

jank wrote: »

Eh, that video does not mention minorities or blacks at all...

To be fair, it would be quite surprising if he overtly stated that voter ID was intended to deter minority (read Democrat) voters, but I think it's quite clear that it is implicit.

K-9

jank wrote: »

On the more serious forums can we have a higher level of debate than this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95894780&postcount=693

There is no need to for such racial accusations or insinuations from posters which are known for their drive-by posting style as it cheapens the overall level of debate.

As the US election cycle kicks into gear can we nip this in the bud, that accusations of racism can be just left hanging where there is no basis in fact for them? Its pure trolling tbh.

I was just catching up on that thread after a few days and saw 2 posts like that. Best thing is to report and we'll get at it quicker than posting it here, as reported posts are higher up the list.

porsche959

I find there to be glaring inconsistencies in the application of the rules.

For example, there is a currently a thread in Politics(General) that very obviously does not meet the rules for the subforum. It has been up for almost a full day now and no mod action has been taken.

On the other hand, I have seen examples of threads that in my view do meet the rules, or at least are borderline, attract aggressive interventions from moderators within minutes of posting.

This is subjective, granted, but it is difficult at times to avoid the impression that moderatorship on Politics generally leans heavily pro-establishment. Is there even one moderator that is an SF voter, or that self-identifies as socialist, for example?

Lastly, a suggestion. I think it would be a good idea if all moderators on Politics and its sub-forums are required to state their political allegiance and general political viewpoints in their profiles. This would be good from a transparency viewpoint I feel.

porsche959

jank wrote: »

On the more serious forums can we have a higher level of debate than this?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95894780&postcount=693

There is no need to for such racial accusations or insinuations from posters which are known for their drive-by posting style as it cheapens the overall level of debate.

As the US election cycle kicks into gear can we nip this in the bud, that accusations of racism can be just left hanging where there is no basis in fact for them? Its pure trolling tbh.

I think the post is snippy and basically accurate, as there is ample evidence of local GOP organisations being involved in discouraging minority voters to register. If you genuinely think that post is ought to have been subject to moderator intervention maybe you'd want to consider the possibility that you are the problem as you seem to be looking to censor views you don't agree with.

Sand

porsche959 wrote: »

I think the post is snippy and basically accurate, as there is ample evidence of local GOP organisations being involved in discouraging minority voters to register. If you genuinely think that post is ought to have been subject to moderator intervention maybe you'd want to consider the possibility that you are the problem as you seem to be looking to censor views you don't agree with.

Its the standard of the post that's being criticised, not the value of the argument. If there is a genuine point and issue to be made, great. Make it. If its just a snarky one line hit and run that invites no response or debate, then its for Politics Cafe.

oscarBravo

porsche959 wrote: »

Lastly, a suggestion. I think it would be a good idea if all moderators on Politics and its sub-forums are required to state their political allegiance and general political viewpoints in their profiles.

We don't appoint Soccer moderators based on what team they support. We don't require that the moderators of Christianity be Christians. And we don't care what political parties the Politics moderators support.

Why? Because if someone is going to let their political leanings inform their moderating, then they're not going to be a good moderator. We choose people to moderate because we consider them to be fair-minded and level-headed, not because of what party they support.

Everyone who's ever moderated Politics has been accused of being a left-winger, a right-winger, a west Brit, a provo (yes, even me), a communist, a fascist... If you think your political viewpoint is being oppressed by a biased moderating team, congratulations: so does everyone else.

K-9

What Sand said basically. A crap post is a crap post, politics doesn't come into it.

As regards allegiances, mods past and present covered a fairly wide spectrum of views and I don't recall that ever being an issue in the mods forum.

I don't think we are that aggressive with warnings, generally we'd try and avoid it but sometimes it's necessary.

johnnyskeleton

Just to add to the above, one of the main reasons why some threads receive more moderator attention is because there have been more reported posts in that thread. If you feel a thread should be closed, report it.

Black Menorca

Does anyone else think there's one too many sections in Politics?

I never quite know where to set up a new thread. In the Café, general Politics of elections and referendums.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

What happened to the political theory forum?
Would be good to have one.

oscarBravo

This one?

20Cent

oscarBravo wrote: »

This one?

Oops thought it was gone. Thanks.

K-9

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It was kind of left open at the time and was something I was thinking about last week.

I'll rsise it again in the mods forum. The numbers justify 2 or 3 forums besides the cafe for me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

It is actually the main politics forum which is losing identity.

The Cafe is the Cafe.

The rest of the sub-forums - European Union, Irish Economy, Political Theory, US Politics, Elections and Referenda, and US Politics - are relatively well-defined and have relatively coherent discussions around the various issues. If you actually added another sub-forum - International Politics - that would deal with the UK, Ukrainian, ISIS, Syrian issues, and moved other threads to other appropriate fora (IMF thread to Irish Economy, Next Gov thread to elections), there would be very little left in the main forum.

K-9

That's true and its a reason I'd be slow in moving threads out of the main forum, which then doesn't help the sub forum either.

It's very difficult to justify the existence of the theory and EU forum in particular. Nothing wrong with the idea of them but from an activity point no reason why they couldn't be merged with others.

Godge

The Political Forum could be easily merged into the main forum but if you were to say, merge the European Union forum with the US Politics Forum and call it the International Forum, what would happen if you had the UK referendum at the same time as the US elections and they coincided with a Russian invasion of the Ukraine?

K-9

It'll just be a busy forum for a while! No problem from me with that.
We will get peaks and troughs and that's fine.