Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

A&A Feedback

1…2223252728…37

Comments

  • #1202
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,964 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Mod: Mr Pudding, that topic is now closed and JC is no longer posting in this thread. See post 1197.


  • #1203
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    What's going on here? At first I thought the thread must have been moved to Christianity, or something...

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104667400&postcount=103

    Circumcision is not a myth and it is entirely reasonable to describe it as butchery of infants, as it is often done without anaesthetic.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #1204
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,964 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Oops, that was me, I thought it was about blood libel but you are of course right. I will sort it.


  • #1205
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Circumcision is not a myth and it is entirely reasonable to describe it as butchery of infants, as it is often done without anaesthetic.
    Without anaesthetic, and sometimes in a fashion which really does sometimes defy belief - see here. Would have been useful to point out that circumcision is common in islam as well, not to mention female genital mutilation which is common elsewhere.

    As regards the jewish blood libel, well, I'm not entirely sure that's something which should be edited out of posts - since a subsequent poster is likely to rebut it. The blood libel, incidentally, has been mentioned/passed-around by a number of hardline catholic conservatives in Ireland recently. Not sure whether that could count as an upsurge, but the rumour is certainly still doing the rounds and still needs to be shredded.


  • #1206
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    looksee wrote: »
    Good point smacl - I'd be in favour of changing the name to Atheism, Agnosticism and Secularism, if only to keep building on the word count in my 'mod description'. The abbreviation would also distinguish us from Aviation and Aircraft :D

    I reckon we should change the name of this forum to better reflect the content therein. Thinking the 'Secularism and Miscellaneous religious rants' forum has a bit of a ring to it, or the S&M forum for those that like to abbreviate (among other things :p )


  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Putting this here in response to this post as it is off topic the the thread in question.
    Swanner wrote: »
    As is customary on discussion fora, I gave an opinion to which you responded.

    Ok, lets have a quick look at that opinion;
    Swanner wrote: »
    I believe this statement reveals far more about the true nature of this forum then was actually intended.

    Perhaps Pherekydes should inform the Cambridge, Oxford and Webster dictionaries that their definitions of atheism are incorrect..

    According to A&A doctrine of course ;)

    So an opinion on the form, fair enough. A snide dig at another poster, not so good. Then a broader dig at the forum in general.
    You decided to follow that up however by labeling me as a troll which kind of backed up my point.

    Yep, that was and remains my reading of your post above.
    And not for the first time on this thread, the irony of that appears to be lost on you.

    And yet another sideswipe, most definitely directed at me in this case.
    I didn't set out to patronise or insult any individual directly and don't believe I did. You appear to be taking my comments about the forum personally. They are directed at the forum in general. They are not a personal attack on you, nor are they about you..

    Really? So how would you describe this exactly if not patronising and insulting?
    Only the good people of A&A believe they know better

    This has to be the least tolerant and inclusive forum on boards.

    Maybe it should be renamed the Militant Atheist forum.

    Seems intentionally incendiary, patronising and insulting to me.
    I find the Christianity forum a lot more tolerant

    If you honestly believe this to be true and want to test it, maybe go over there and post some negative generalisation about Christians and see how far it gets you so.


  • #1208
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Swanner wrote: »
    You don't set the rules for what I do or don't say.. I do.

    I would say the derailment of which smacl speaks, and the subsequent ranting on the same thread by the referenced user is rooted in this fallacious attitude. The simple fact is that on a MODERATED forum, it very much is the moderators that set the rules for what people do or do not say. I fear swanner, seeing themselves above such rules and moderation, is one of those people who deeply misunderstand the concept of "free speech" and what is actually means and entails in a hosted public forum such as this one. And when one users sees themselves above the rules that everyone else signs up to.... then that user is the problem no matter how much they screech at the actions and performance of others.

    I certainly find it laughable to have the tolerance of this forum compared to the one "over the wall". From 2008 through 2016 inclusive I have a total of 4 infractions on my account and zero thread bans. 2 of those 4 from Christianity and 1 from Islam for rather mundane stuff. The 4th and final was from a thread where the Mod basically handed out infractions to 15 people in a row on something of a spree so I do not really count it as relevant.

    And the two from Christianity have no explanation attached that I can read, nor was one offered when I sought it from the (ex) Mod in question. In one of them all my post said was that it was pretty disgusting that women, hearing there was a vision of mary to be found, ran off and left their babies alone in prams in order to see it (as reported in a story from the Irish Times).

    That is tolerance? Whereas the Atheism forum entertains discussion from ALL users who want to question atheism, it's roots and basis, the actions of those who claim to be atheist, or speak for atheism and much more. The mods only appear to step in when someone is soap boxing a point and refusing to offer, when asked, any substantiation for it that might move a stuck conversation forward.

    If anything, given the posts of absolam and JC over the years, the mods are TOO tolerant on this area of the forum on some occasions. To compare that to the other side is laugable. Though recently one mod was TOO tolerant over there too, and 3 users (christians all) basically ran away with it and seriously took the piss out of the leniency. Not only repeating numerous times the very thing the mod warned, rather than infracted, them for.... but openly questioning the mods credentials, competency, intentions and agendas on the thread for numerous posts..... before then opening multiple threads on the matter in the feedback forum.

    I think the mod in question (alas) felt they had to double down and be less tolerant going forward. Which was a true shame and I think the actions of 2 or 3 users ruined it for many others. So far I think the mods of THIS forum, when people have taken the piss out of their leniancy, have nipped it in the bud without letting it influence their general mandate going forward. And well done them.


  • #1209
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

    More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #1210
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

    More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

    I do agree with this, but I think it would be tricky to deal with. They often result in interesting threads, so deleting them would, I think, be damaging. Can a poster be forced to engage?

    MrP


  • #1211
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ^ Yea it is hard to police or implement such a policy. By the time it is obvious the OP will not be engaging, the thread tends to have progressed without them so far that it can not easily just be closed or deleted.

    After Hours seems to have a policy against an OP starting a thread on a subject without engaging with that subject a bit in the OP itself. Which I guess goes SOME way to dealing with the problem.

    As for forcing users to engage. The mods in A&A do take a dim view of people posting on threads JUST to tell you they will not be engaging with you. They come down on that kind of "I could not be bothered engaging with you" post every so often which has resulted in some occasional whinging by some of the users.


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Should OPs be required to actually participate in the threads they start?

    More than once, recently, we have posters starting (rather trollish tbh) threads, then just running away rather than engaging with the questions other posters put to them. It's more like lobbing in a grenade rather than anything resembling an honest attempt to start a discussion.

    ‘‘Twas ever thus, surely?


  • #1213
    mikhail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,862 ✭✭✭mikhail


    I expect it can be tough to be the pigeon among the cats, even for the most well-intentioned poster.


  • #1214
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Folks -

    Just on a legalistic, moderatorly note, accusations of lying can only be sustained when one can know with certainty that there was an intention to deceive - this is clearly not possible without the co-operation of the poster against whom the accusation has been made. "Misrepresentation" conveys the same meaning as "lying", but without implying an unknowable intention, while also keeping the temperature of the discussion a little lower.

    thanking youze.


  • #1215
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    Folks -

    Just on a legalistic, moderatorly note, accusations of lying can only be sustained when one can know with certainty that there was an intention to deceive - this is clearly not possible without the co-operation of the poster against whom the accusation has been made. "Misrepresentation" conveys the same meaning as "lying", but without implying an unknowable intention, while also keeping the temperature of the discussion a little lower.

    thanking youze.


    with respect if one party claims that they have never used a particular phrase and another party posts multiple examples of them doing so and then the first party claims they were quoted of context and then the other shows this to be false i dont think a weak word like misrepresentation quite covers it. Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.


  • #1216
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,740 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    with respect if one party claims that they have never used a particular phrase and another party posts multiple examples of them doing so and then the first party claims they were quoted of context and then the other shows this to be false i dont think a weak word like misrepresentation quite covers it. Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.

    And you could also add in that the said poster has previous form over many fora and many years for "misrepresenting"


  • #1217
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Either the first party is lying or they are detached from reality.
    There may be a few other choices in there, but you have the broad thrust. In either case, asserting that something is a "lie" or that somebody is a "liar" implies complete knowledge of the proposer's wishes and that can never be the case.

    As above - it's a Jesuitical point, but one worth bearing in mind all the same.

    Please also bear in mind that many on the far right - and I'm not necessarily including "end of the road" in this - will hold liberals to liberal standards, but will only hold themselves to the provocative/insulting/inflammatory standards of the far-right.


  • #1218
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1219
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    There may be a few other choices in there, but you have the broad thrust. In either case, asserting that something is a "lie" or that somebody is a "liar" implies complete knowledge of the proposer's wishes and that can never be the case.

    As above - it's a Jesuitical point, but one worth bearing in mind all the same.
    .


    He denied posting them even after the posts were quoted back to him. Frankly he makes the argument sketch from Monty Python look like constructive dialogue.

    robindch wrote: »
    Please also bear in mind that many on the far right - and I'm not necessarily including "end of the road" in this - will hold liberals to liberal standards, but will only hold themselves to the provocative/insulting/inflammatory standards of the far-right.


    I hold all posters to the same standard.

    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yes i have to say i am quite disappointed in robdinchs response.


  • #1220
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1221
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.




    what posts were deleted??


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1223
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    I did notice at one stage that the last post on the thread was by EOTR but when i went to the thread there was no post by him. i assumed he had deleted it himself


  • #1224
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1225
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,035 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    said poster has previous form over many fora and many years for "misrepresenting"

    Like a rapper gone bad:P



  • #1226
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    With respect, if someone lies on boards they should fully expect to be called out on said lie, that's pretty much a given on all internet forums.

    If person A states that abortion is murder, then goes on to deny ever saying that despite there being written proof of them actually stating that - they are lying. Calling it "misrepresenting" is just being ridiculously and unnecessarily political. Call it what it is, a lie.

    An individual in particular told a lie, I spotted the lie and then provided all the required evidence which negated and refuted the lie which that individual told. If I go around boards telling everyone the sky is green and go on to state I never said the sky is green, I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm telling a lie.

    It really is that simple, someone told a lie, got called out, got the evidence put out publicly and then proceeded to ignore everything and continue on in their delusion by trawling across other similarly themed threads like nothing happened.


  • #1227
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

    Most readers are smart enough to spot when somebody's misrepresenting themselves especially if the statement and the denial of the statement are quoted together - as has been done here.

    There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.


  • #1228
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

    Most readers are smart enough to spot when somebody's misrepresenting themselves especially if the statement and the denial of the statement are quoted together - as has been done here.

    There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.


    So you are happy as a mod to let them continue to do this?


  • #1229
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1230
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    robindch wrote: »
    You can call it what you like - I'm simply pointing out that calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head, and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

    More to the point, are the posts of the poster in question contributing in any way to meaningful discussion? Or are they going to continue to be allowed to soapbox and post nonsense endlessly?

    There were a couple of posters here a couple of years ago who delighted in tying threads here up in knots by making it all about them and their posting style, etc. etc. the effect of which was to prevent any useful discussion on those threads in this forum. Trolling for Jebus I used to call it... doing the lord's work by effectively silencing the good posters here.

    I don't know if they got permanently banned or got fed up after a few slaps on the wrist, but moderator action was taken and they don't post on here now.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    calling statements "lies" and directly, or by implication, calling people "liars" requires knowledge about the decision-making process within another poster's head,

    Does it require knowledge though? If it requires knowledge, to the point that you need co-operation of the accused to be sure, then you can't ever be sure of that knowledge as the accused could be a liar and you can't even trust their co-operation. You seem to have created a logical paradox, thereby making "liar" some kind of hypothetical label that can't ever be applied to anyone.
    robindch wrote: »
    and even if one had 100% knowledge of this, using these terms rarely leads to the kind of meaningful discussion which A+A generally tries to have.

    If the person is a liar, then what meaningful discussion can you have with them?
    robindch wrote: »
    There's no real need to call people liars since the juxtaposed quotes stand for themselves and the misrepresenting poster then stands condemned - much more effectively - by his/her own words, not by the words of others.

    Isn't there as much need as any other label? If we are required to review everyones entire history when interacting with them then how will we get anything done? If someone says "I follow Man Utd", do you accept that is true until some contrary evidence comes along, or do you reject the idea of labelling someone as a football fan as you can't be sure of what is in their head?
    How many threads have there been about a-la-carte Catholics? People who reject their accurate label (be it atheist, agnostic, deist etc.) for a cosy one. If they are wrong then why is it ok for someone to reject their accurate label of liar because it might offend them?


  • #1232
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,740 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    More to the point, are the posts of the poster in question contributing in any way to meaningful discussion? Or are they going to continue to be allowed to soapbox and post nonsense endlessly?

    There were a couple of posters here a couple of years ago who delighted in tying threads here up in knots by making it all about them and their posting style, etc. etc. the effect of which was to prevent any useful discussion on those threads in this forum. Trolling for Jebus I used to call it... doing the lord's work by effectively silencing the good posters here.

    I don't know if they got permanently banned or got fed up after a few slaps on the wrist, but moderator action was taken and they don't post on here now.

    This is the issue in a nutshell!


  • #1233
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    How many threads have there been about a-la-carte Catholics? People who reject their accurate label (be it atheist, agnostic, deist etc.) for a cosy one. If they are wrong then why is it ok for someone to reject their accurate label of liar because it might offend them?

    Well, I wouldn't call them liars, just in denial :)

    Different entirely from someone stating they never said X when posts where they said X are easily found.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #1234
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    So you are happy as a mod to let them continue to do this?
    Posters in A+A can post as they wish within the forum rules - and so far, nobody's recently complained within the boundaries of the written forum rules regarding anybody else's posting style in this thread.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You seem to have created a logical paradox, thereby making "liar" some kind of hypothetical label that can't ever be applied to anyone.
    Nope, there's no paradox at all. A person can accurately admit that they are a liar if they say that they have knowingly mislead somebody in respect of something. It seems a little unfair to me to extend, in the general case anyway, the idea that a deceit in one domain implies general deceit everywhere.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If the person is a liar, then what meaningful discussion can you have with them?
    Depends on the breadth of the domain(s) in which they practice their lies, and whether one trusts that the self-confessed liar won't be knowingly misleading elsewhere - for example, a man having an affair might lie to his significant other about everything related to that affair, but be truthful to everybody else about everything else. Is that man a liar? With respect to the affair, yes, but generally? I'd have said not, though I'm sure his SO - on finding out - might disagree.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    More to the point, are the posts of the poster in question contributing in any way to meaningful discussion? Or are they going to continue to be allowed to soapbox and post nonsense endlessly?
    Soapboxing certainly is against the forum rules, however no forum poster has yet complained about it, so you will understand that your friendly moderators cannot action a report which has not been made.

    People have, however, reported posts as "lies", but as I've pointed out here - quite adequately, thank you - this claim can never be found to be true, as your friendly moderators do not have full read-access to the intentions of the complained-about poster and I'm assuming - reasonably, I hope, - that end_of_the_road is not going to announce that he/she was fully aware that his/her posts were misleading when he/she posted them.


  • #1235
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's not like end of the road hasn't been asked repeatedly to explain the discrepancy in his two apparent positions.
    But rather that address it directly, he dodged the issue and ignored it completely for pages. And all the while also rambled on about how we were ignoring stuff and how that no one on his side said anything that was untrue. And also repeatedly stating that abortion WAS murder directly contradicting his earlier stance.
    And now, after finally acknowledging this post exists, he offers a lame obviously untrue excuse. No explanation why he claimed what he did. No clarification of his true position.

    I'm not sure, given his forte for dodging difficult points, why he should have the benefit of doubt.

    But if we assume he does, then to explain all of his actions we have to assume a level of incompetence, ignorance and stupidity that is far far more insulting than calling him a liar.

    It's either those explanations or that his position is so flexible and detached from reality that he can believe that abortion is murder and that he never claimed that at the same time. At this point, then there is no functional distinction between it and deliberate deceit.

    If you have another explanation for it robindch, we'd all like to see it. Cause end certainly isn't going to provide one.
    But you can bet that when this blows over he'll be right back accusing us of lying and ignoring points.


  • #1236
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    King Mob wrote: »
    No clarification of his true position.
    That's common with religious posters, many of whom seem to have spent little time figuring out their beliefs on different topics, or trying to stitch them together into a coherent whole. So nothing out of the ordinary there.

    Anyway, as above, soapboxing is a cardable offence so perhaps somebody could report a few instances of that? Your friendly moderators don't read every word of every post - especially of posters who excite less and tedium more.

    thanks!


  • Advertisement
  • #1237
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,727 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    robindch wrote: »
    That's common with religious posters, many of whom seem to have spent little time figuring out their beliefs on different topics, or trying to stitch them together into a coherent whole. So nothing out of the ordinary there.
    It's not so common that they would clearly, directly and repeatedly state their position, then later say that they in fact never said that was their position.

    The fact is it's pretty obvious that there's lying going on.
    If theres a better explanation for it, I'd like to know.

    Maybe end of the road should stop doing what he's repeatedly accused us of and directly address this discrepancy in his position.
    Or failing that, maybe stop whining when he thinks someone is sticking their head in the sand.
    Or failing that, don't claim that his side never misrepresented (/lied about/ what ever label is acceptable) something, as that is evidently not true. And especially not true in his case. Doing otherwise would unarguably be a lie.


  • #1238
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    robindch wrote: »
    That's common with religious posters, many of whom seem to have spent little time figuring out their beliefs on different topics, or trying to stitch them together into a coherent whole. So nothing out of the ordinary there.

    Anyway, as above, soapboxing is a cardable offence so perhaps somebody could report a few instances of that? Your friendly moderators don't read every word of every post - especially of posters who excite less and tedium more.

    thanks!

    Thing is, end of the road has previously stated that they are not religious.

    Personally I don't believe this one bit, bit apparently they don't lie so it must be true. Just like they never claimed abortion is murder of any kind.

    Fake news and all that, maybe they are secretly trump? :pac:


  • #1239
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    Posters in A+A can post as they wish within the forum rules - and so far, nobody's recently complained within the boundaries of the written forum rules regarding anybody else's posting style in this thread.




    I'm sorry bit this is just absolute nonsense. Are you saying that you are not aware of his posts? that you are powerless to act unless a post is reported to you? since when has this been the rule?


  • #1240
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Well, I wouldn't call them liars, just in denial :)

    Different entirely from someone stating they never said X when posts where they said X are easily found.

    My point there wasn't that a-la-carte catholics are liars, just that in this forum many have made the point that people should use the appropriate label for their actions and beliefs. If it goes for a-la-carte catholics, who should self-label as christian/deist/atheist or whatever is accurate regardless of that makes them happy, then it should equally go for someone who is lying, regardless of wether that makes them happy.


  • #1241
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #1242
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,789 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    robindch wrote: »
    Nope, there's no paradox at all. A person can accurately admit that they are a liar if they say that they have knowingly mislead somebody in respect of something. It seems a little unfair to me to extend, in the general case anyway, the idea that a deceit in one domain implies general deceit everywhere.

    Yes, but you can't know if they are accurately admitting that they are lying without knowledge of what's in their head (which is impossible). They could be lying about how they lied. How many politicians have said something, had it put to them they said that very thing and then try to weasel out of it by claiming they were taken out of context?
    It's not that if someone lies once they will absolutely always lie, it's that if we are never supposed to label them "liar" without full knowledge of their mind, then we can never label them "honest" either.
    robindch wrote: »
    Depends on the breadth of the domain(s) in which they practice their lies, and whether one trusts that the self-confessed liar won't be knowingly misleading elsewhere - for example, a man having an affair might lie to his significant other about everything related to that affair, but be truthful to everybody else about everything else. Is that man a liar? With respect to the affair, yes, but generally? I'd have said not, though I'm sure his SO - on finding out - might disagree.

    As I said above, if we shouldn't use "liar" because of a lack of perfect knowledge of their mind, then we can't use "honest" either.
    Purely in terms of forums like boards, if a person is willing to blatantly lie in one subject, it is hard to believe they wouldn't lie in any other. It's harder to believe they wont continue to lie in the same subject. Which makes constructive discussion essentially impossible.
    robindch wrote: »
    Soapboxing certainly is against the forum rules, however no forum poster has yet complained about it, so you will understand that your friendly moderators cannot action a report which has not been made.

    People have, however, reported posts as "lies", but as I've pointed out here - quite adequately, thank you - this claim can never be found to be true, as your friendly moderators do not have full read-access to the intentions of the complained-about poster and I'm assuming - reasonably, I hope, - that end_of_the_road is not going to announce that he/she was fully aware that his/her posts were misleading when he/she posted them.

    Couldn't someone replace "lies" in your last paragraph with "soapboxing" and make the same point though? "I'm not soapboxing, it's that no-one else has made a counter that requires more than hand waving away". You can't know that they don't believe that in their head.


  • #1243
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Isn't trolling also against the rules of the forums? Yet isn't.... like lying..... trolling also a presumption to know the mind and intention of the person being infracted for it? After all trolling is defined as things like DELIBERATELY posting emotional or inflammatory messages in order to incite an emotional (usually angry) response from the targets. How can we infract anyone for trolling when to do so ALSO means we have to know their mind and intentions?

    It would seem to me that what is being proposed here would not only remove many words like "liar" and "honest" from the lexicon of words we can meaningfully use, but it would make quite a lot of moderator action untenable under many of the rules.

    What certainly does make constructive discussion impossible is not just the lying however. A user who ignores openly (and later claims to have replied to posts that were demonstrably not replied to) posts and points and comments directed at them........ waits some days........ and then jumps in to reply to posts and comments directed at someone else.......... is precluding constructive discussion from the outset by not actually engaging in any.

    Rather than constructive discussion, what the user is creating is a form of guerrilla warfare discourse where they refuse to engage upfront, but occasionally pop up out of the swamp to take pot shots before disappearing again and running away. And to compound this the "pot shots" appear to mainly consist of claims to having had rebutted arguments before that they do not appear to have actually rebutted. And then running away when asked to either A) link to where they actually did that or B) present the arguments anew.

    I am all ears to have it explained to me how constructive discussion is to be attained therefore with someone who A) Claims to have said things no one can find them having said B) Claims NOT to have said things people can post multiple examples of them having said C) runs away from any attempt to discuss anything with them D) Jumps in to take, and then retreat from, pot shots at discussions others people are having.


  • #1244
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,953 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    robindch wrote: »
    Soapboxing certainly is against the forum rules, however no forum poster has yet complained about it, so you will understand that your friendly moderators cannot action a report which has not been made.

    Surely moderators can act on their own initiative. The traffic in this forum is not so high that obvious breaches of the rules can go overlooked. In any case I'm not going to un-ignore a poster simply to report their posts...

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • #1245
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Surely moderators can act on their own initiative.
    Yes, moderators can certainly take action to try to restore any decline in the standard of discussion - as I did above.


  • #1246
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,573 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, moderators can certainly take action to try to restore any decline in the standard of discussion - as I did above.


    So you decided to do that by censuring the people calling out the lies rather than the lies themselves? You somehow dont see any issue with a poster repeatedly lying, sorry "misrepresenting", on a thread. This just gets worse. You need to start digging up.


  • #1247
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1248
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Isn't trolling also against the rules of the forums? Yet isn't.... like lying..... trolling also a presumption to know the mind and intention of the person being infracted for it?
    A good point and the same rule generally applies. Historically, the line I've stuck to is that regular posters should avoid making accusations of trollery against other posters, but a moderator can say that certain posts are tantamount to trolling, or declare some post equivalent to trolling for the purposes of admin action, and take whatever action is deemed necessary to deal with it (eg, see here, here and here).
    ....... wrote: »
    You gave an instruction that people were not to call out lying, rather than address the issues the poster is causing.
    The original note is here and does not instruct anybody to do anything. On the contrary, it points out that use of the word "lie" implies a knowledge of a poster's intentions which no other poster could have and cannot therefore be sustained. The post also provides a different word which can be used in much the same situations while keeping the temperature down. FWIW, history suggests that once people start introducing accusations of dishonesty to a discussion, the discussion usually goes off the rails quite quickly.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I am all ears to have it explained to me how constructive discussion is to be attained therefore with someone who A) Claims to have said things no one can find them having said B) Claims NOT to have said things people can post multiple examples of them having said C) runs away from any attempt to discuss anything with them D) Jumps in to take, and then retreat from, pot shots at discussions others people are having.
    Typically here in A+A, the mods don't micromanage debates - that means that if somebody makes some evidential claim which they then fail to backup, it's up to the person actively engaged in the discussion to point that out and to hold them to it.

    The mods have on rare occasions - and in response to a carefully reported post (involving a link to a claim by poster A, a link to a subsequent request for evidence by poster B, a link to some subsequent avoiding tactics by poster A) - taken to task posters who are reluctant or unable to provide evidence for some claim they've made. Mods don't do this with every post and every poster without a report as the mod would be left micromanaging discussions and that's not what this forum is for, nor what the mods want to do. However, if somebody can make a proper report in the suggested format, then yes, it'll be actioned within the terms of the forum charter. There are other reasons why moderators avoid micromanaging discussions which relate to the use and the abuse of the dispute resolution procedure.

    As an aside, it might be useful to add something to the charter in relation to this kind of behaviour as troll-like behaviour certainly has taken place over the years from a number of posters and, IMHO, it's not covered adequately in the existing charter.


  • #1249
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #1250
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Well you can "say" it but according to you you can not SAY it. As in you have no way, without knowing the mind of any user, to indict them of trolling for the same reasons you declare no one here can call someone out for lying.

    I however do not think language works that way in demanding 100% accuracy and knowledge. If it walks, looks and quacks like a duck then I will call it a duck.

    This 100% knowledge requirement before using a label is as unworkable as it is ridiculous. I can not call anyone or anything by any label as I do not have 100% knowledge, and never can, that the label fits. I can not call a liar a liar, a man a man, a dog a dog, a car a car, a lake a lake or anything else as I have not 100% knowledge that the label is accurate at any time. And I am certainly not likely to ask a person for a peek into their underwear, or their blood work, to ascertain if they are genetically or genitalia-ly one sex or the other before I point at someone and say "him/her over there".

    Hell the "liar" in question can not even be called by his username really as we have no idea it is even the same person every time. It could in fact be 30 different people that are logging in in shift work under the one user name. A situation which would certainly be congruent with the user never seeming to remember what they said, did not say, or is in the process of talking to at any given time.

    Nah I never require 100% knowledge before using a label in any other situation. I do not think therefore I am likely to require it of myself in one random situation. Language, as I said, simply does not work that way. Nor, thankfully, should it.

    FWIW though, history suggests that once people start introducing dishonesty to a discussion, the discussion usually goes off the rails quite quickly. :)

    But if the current situation and conversation is highlighting to you possible reforms and improvements to the charter, then I can certainly feel that the point of my original post above has been achieved.


  • #1251
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    It'll be addressed when somebody goes to the bother of pulling up a few posts which clearly indicate the problem - my post from a short while ago says what needs to happen. So far, people have made allegations, but haven't backed any of them up with links to posts which clearly demonstrate the issue.

    Alternatively, if nobody's going to go to the bother of pulling together some posts which clearly show the issue, then I'll certainly read back through the thread and see what can be done to connect the claims with the posts, but past history suggests that this might not be done quickly.

    The forum's help would certainly be appreciated.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement