A discussion on the rules.

Thelomen Toblackai

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Politics (General) and its associated subforums are intended for serious debate and as such are subject to tighter moderation. By contrast, the Café is a more relaxed environment with room for banter, humour and the like. I'd suggest you read the fora's respective charters for more information.

Thank you, and cool sig. Wise words indeed !

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

In defence of any who have, there is no similar thread to here over there.

Sorry Nodin, missed that, that's the call of the politics cafe mods, the two forums are very different and it just doesn't make sense discussing their forum here. Maybe pm a couple of the mods and see what they think about setting up a feedback thread.

K-9

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Hardly an original thought, but it irks me when a thread on the polling / seats / battlegrounds / projected outcomes of a forthcoming election devolves into a debate about the policies / ideologies of the parties contesting a forthcoming election. They are separate topics in my mind.

I've probably noticed this more in the ugly duckling adjoining forum to be fair.

By their nature they are going to evolve like that though

A megathread for poll results and just discussing their significance and changes might be an idea.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

and a suggestion for streamlining has gone to the higher ups, so yep, we do listen now and again!

Hey, we finally got there. In fairness to the higher ups the site usability issues over the last few months made this less of a priority naturally enough, but after a bit of nagging we got there.

Hopefully the 2 forums should seem more active and that would encourage more new users to pop in and existing posters to participate more.

We'll work on slimming down the charter next.

FTA69

Just regards some of the recent bannings over people advocating armed political actions; to what extent will this be brought if ye don't mind me asking?

The political conflict in Ireland was a major feature of politics in this country for a long time; and rightly or wrongly many people believe that the IRA's armed campaign was a natural consequence of the conditions which were created in Ireland. From my own personal perspective, the IRA campaign was justified for a variety of reasons in the face of a state which itself was built upon and maintained by a sort of political violence in itself. While I've never been one of the "Up the f*ckin Ra!" type posters, I have expressed my above position on this forum before. Am I now to be sanctioned for having a given opinion on the Hunger Strikes for instance or certain actions that took place?

Similarly, if the forum is resolutely against "advocating violence" does that also mean that people calling for airstrikes in Syria or lauding the invasion of Iraq will also come in for a ban or an infraction?

K-9

FTA69 wrote: »

Just regards some of the recent bannings over people advocating armed political actions; to what extent will this be brought if ye don't mind me asking?

The political conflict in Ireland was a major feature of politics in this country for a long time; and rightly or wrongly many people believe that the IRA's armed campaign was a natural consequence of the conditions which were created in Ireland. From my own personal perspective, the IRA campaign was justified for a variety of reasons in the face of a state which itself was built upon and maintained by a sort of political violence in itself. While I've never been one of the "Up the f*ckin Ra!" type posters, I have expressed my above position on this forum before. Am I now to be sanctioned for having a given opinion on the Hunger Strikes for instance or certain actions that took place?

Similarly, if the forum is resolutely against "advocating violence" does that also mean that people calling for airstrikes in Syria or lauding the invasion of Iraq will also come in for a ban or an infraction?

Ok, to clarify, the posts that got actioned related to a future campaign by the IRA. One post suggested economic targets, Manchester, Canary Wharf, targets like that. Similarly, if somebody suggested the British Army should shoot to kill, or Loyalists go on a murder campaign, they'd get banned. We have a consistent, zero tolerance approach on it. It maybe considered harsh by some but it is strict for everybody.

We do take a strong line on it, I've handed straight out bans for "bomb the Muslims" type stuff before.

The Charter wrote:

Please note that any post deemed to incite hatred or promote violence will be dealt with in the strictest possible manner. Whatever your politics we expect discussion in a manner fit for adults, but first and foremost human beings.
Celebration/promotion/triumphing of murder, violence or aggression will result in an immediate banning from the forum and deletion of your posts.

We are currently working on revising and summarising the charter down, but the above will remain.

FTA69

Grand, if it's based on curbing triumphalist nonsense about "shoot the terrorist scum" or "blow up the Brits" etc then that's fair enough but as I said above, when discussing incidents like South Africa, Irish conflict et al I wouldn't agree with someone being sanctioned for expressing sentiment contrary to a state-sponsored narrative.

Violence is violence at the end of the day.

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand, if it's based on curbing triumphalist nonsense about "shoot the terrorist scum" or "blow up the Brits" etc then that's fair enough but as I said above, when discussing incidents like South Africa, Irish conflict et al I wouldn't agree with someone being sanctioned for expressing sentiment contrary to a state-sponsored narrative.

Violence is violence at the end of the day.

It's based on the sitewide prohibition on encouraging people to commit criminal offences. If a person is seen to be advocating that people take up an illegal armed struggle, then that is against boards.ie site terms. Whether that armed struggle ought be classified as an illegal one or not is a point for discussion, but advocating that the law be disregarded is not permitted.

FTA69

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's based on the sitewide prohibition on encouraging people to commit criminal offences. If a person is seen to be advocating that people take up an illegal armed struggle, then that is against boards.ie site terms. Whether that armed struggle ought be classified as an illegal one or not is a point for discussion, but advocating that the law be disregarded is not permitted.

Here in the UK for instance we are facing a trade union bill which will place severe restrictions on picketing and other trade union activities, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said they'll carry on such actions regardless. If I advocate McCluskey's position (and I do genuinely agree with him here by the way) is that something that would also be covered by the rule you're describing above?

I'm not asking these questions in order to be an awkward bastard either by the way, but I am genuinely curious as to what extent this charter curtails discussion. Unfortunately politics and the dynamics that drive it are not rigidly encased in a legal framework all of the time.

BoJack Horseman

FTA69 wrote: »

Here in the UK for instance we are facing a trade union bill which will place severe restrictions on picketing and other trade union activities, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said they'll carry on such actions regardless. If I advocate McCluskey's position (and I do genuinely agree with him here by the way) is that something that would also be covered by the rule you're describing above?

I'm not asking these questions in order to be an awkward bastard either by the way, but I am genuinely curious as to what extent this charter curtails discussion. Unfortunately politics and the dynamics that drive it are not rigidly encased in a legal framework all of the time.

Perhaps the line is where civil law crosses into criminal law.

ancapailldorcha

FTA69 wrote: »

Here in the UK for instance we are facing a trade union bill which will place severe restrictions on picketing and other trade union activities, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said they'll carry on such actions regardless. If I advocate McCluskey's position (and I do genuinely agree with him here by the way) is that something that would also be covered by the rule you're describing above?

I'm not asking these questions in order to be an awkward bastard either by the way, but I am genuinely curious as to what extent this charter curtails discussion. Unfortunately politics and the dynamics that drive it are not rigidly encased in a legal framework all of the time.

Good example. I would say that it depends on both the wording of the post and the interpretation of the moderator. Moderation is more of an art than a science so we can and will make mistakes from time to time. I agree with Len here as well for what it's worth. However, it's when someone advocates the breaking of the law via a specific action that the problem arises, ie "You should go and protest this specific action and damn the police if they interfere".

nesf

FTA69 wrote: »

Here in the UK for instance we are facing a trade union bill which will place severe restrictions on picketing and other trade union activities, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said they'll carry on such actions regardless. If I advocate McCluskey's position (and I do genuinely agree with him here by the way) is that something that would also be covered by the rule you're describing above?

I'm not asking these questions in order to be an awkward bastard either by the way, but I am genuinely curious as to what extent this charter curtails discussion. Unfortunately politics and the dynamics that drive it are not rigidly encased in a legal framework all of the time.

There's a massive difference between a "right" being taken away and people continuing to exercise it and people doing something that has been illegal for many generations (also a massive difference between violent and non-violent breaches/actions). I think you've a point and one simple rule can't cover it but I think the context will give an obvious course of action in most cases.

Godge

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand, if it's based on curbing triumphalist nonsense about "shoot the terrorist scum" or "blow up the Brits" etc then that's fair enough but as I said above, when discussing incidents like South Africa, Irish conflict et al I wouldn't agree with someone being sanctioned for expressing sentiment contrary to a state-sponsored narrative.

Violence is violence at the end of the day.

I have some sympathy for your view.

Say Berlin suffered like Paris and someone came on here and said Germany should send ground troops to Syria and join the effort against Islamic State. That would be in breach of the German constitution and technically therefore in breach of the charter on illegal violence but would be a fairly normal response.

lochderg

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand, if it's based on curbing triumphalist nonsense about "shoot the terrorist scum" or "blow up the Brits" etc then that's fair enough but as I said above, when discussing incidents like South Africa, Irish conflict et al I wouldn't agree with someone being sanctioned for expressing sentiment contrary to a state-sponsored narrative.

Violence is violence at the end of the day.

absolutely agree-a forum that follows guidelines as in above but that has a modern , fresh take on the 'old white guy' view alongside traditional viewpoints is long overdue

johnnyskeleton

FTA69 wrote: »

Here in the UK for instance we are facing a trade union bill which will place severe restrictions on picketing and other trade union activities, the general secretary of Unite, Len McCluskey, has said they'll carry on such actions regardless. If I advocate McCluskey's position (and I do genuinely agree with him here by the way) is that something that would also be covered by the rule you're describing above?

If you actively encourage people in the UK to break the law then it possibly breaches the sitewite t&c that says you cannot use boards.ie to promote or encourage illegal activity. I havent asked for a specific ruling on whether promoting extra territorial offences is covered because it hasnt arisen (this is not an invitation to test the limits by the way).

Its a sitewide policy and out of our hands Im afraid.

johnnyskeleton

Godge wrote: »

I have some sympathy for your view.

Say Berlin suffered like Paris and someone came on here and said Germany should send ground troops to Syria and join the effort against Islamic State. That would be in breach of the German constitution and technically therefore in breach of the charter on illegal violence but would be a fairly normal response.

Only a problem if the post was designed to encourage the German government to break the law.

Happyman42

Thankfully Rosa Park's work is done. Boards is well, the world is well.

K-9

FTA69 wrote: »

Grand, if it's based on curbing triumphalist nonsense about "shoot the terrorist scum" or "blow up the Brits" etc then that's fair enough but as I said above, when discussing incidents like South Africa, Irish conflict et al I wouldn't agree with someone being sanctioned for expressing sentiment contrary to a state-sponsored narrative.

Violence is violence at the end of the day.

I think that is exactly the spirit of the rule. This isn't the place to discuss dissident armed campaigns, Loyalist paramilitary ones or state sponsored ones.

That's the general idea behind it.

A general civil disobedience campaign doesn't come under it really.

K-9

When it comes to N.I. we'll make a decision.

We aren't here to solve the N.I. Peace process, so whether N.I. should be part of International politics or not, we aren't George Mitchell.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

When it comes to N.I. we'll make a decision.

We aren't here to solve the N.I. Peace process, so whether N.I. should be part of International politics or not, we aren't George Mitchell.

Does that mean you are here to solve all the other issues that haven't been partitioned off into their own corral?

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

Does that mean you are here to solve all the other issues that haven't been partitioned off into their own corral?

Sure it's now reunited so..............

Dyr

So I was just wondering with the anniversary of the 1916 rising coming up will we be seeing bans being handed out for anyone celebrating the violent criminal acts that led to the foundation of the state?

It seems the logical course once you accept this sort of guff at its own level I suppose.

K-9

My post the other day clarifies that.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Nodin and Dan, the legitimacy or otherwise of racism is not part of the discussion on the rules of the Politics forum.

johnnyskeleton

Sigh. Yet another attack on moderation (this is not the free for all attack the mods thread) based on vague assertions and gut feelings. Ive deleted that post.

This thread is to discuss rules and people despite warnings are not discussing rules.

The next poster to make allegations of bias in relation to moderation will be banned. If you want to take this as proof that we really are biased feel free to do so

Edit: Ive moved the whole discussion to feedback for all these grievances. You can post there once it has been mod approved in feedback and they reopen the thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057545787

K-9

I am in the process of reviewing the Mediterranean migrant thread, should be in a position to post about it tomorrow.

K-9

Finally got around to finishing the review, apologies for the delay.

Overall the thread is more lightly moderated than usual because of the subject matter, trying to keep a balance on the thread, mods posting on the thread and it being a megathread. It's a two way street though, and that means posters have to help us out so we can continue to mod it in a lighter style.

I looked over the last 6 weeks or so of posts and can see a few cases when mods could have given cards or on thread warnings but didn't. It would be unfair to name individual posters but I can see 3 cases at least when cards would have been more appropriate, but mods gave the benefit of the doubt, hoping a warning would steer the thread back on track or ignored a few below standard posts to see if the thread would sort itself out.

Often it is best to see if a thread corrects itself, particularly in threads like this, and then discussion goes on as normal, with no intervention needed.

Thanks to everybody for their feedback, there are a few things we can take away from listening to the feedback, and we'll bear those in mind for future modding,

Zaph

Some recent events have brought this thread to the attention of the admins, and some of what we have seen has been a definite cause for concern. While it's clear that the thread was initially created with the best of intentions to generate more feedback from the users of the forum, more recently it appears that it's being used as a one-stop shop to beat the forum mods up over any and every action, or lack of action they take. The mods time is being wasted defending themselves against unfair accusations of bias or in many cases they're just being subjected to some good old-fashioned trolling. This isn't fair to the mods and the efforts they put into running the forum voluntarily, or the rest of the users of the forum as it's taking away from the time the mods have to review other issues that arise in the forum.

I'm not saying that the thread is completely worthless, far from it and I'm sure a lot of excellent feedback has been provided over the years, but from a Boards perspective it is a bit of an oddity. Other forums, most notably AH and Soccer, also have feedback threads, but these are annual events with the threads open for a limited period of time, rather than a permanently open thread. So on that basis it's time to close this particular chapter in the life of the Politics forum. It's had a good run, but having morphed over the years into something that's being used for purposes other than it was originally intended, perhaps a more focussed annual thread is now the better approach. This is one option that the forum mods will be looking at in the future, but they also may come up with better, alternative approaches.

Either way, thanks to all who have contributed positively or who have provided constructive criticism over the years, it has been invaluable in helping to shape the forum.

Zaph