nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Feedback Request:

nesf

I'm going to leave this open for a few days to gather some opinions to inform the mods on what changes to make.

What I would like you to do is list a few things you'd like to see changed about the Politics forums. Less abuse, more a clampdown on nonsense posts or whatever.

Being concise and easy to read is a bonus. If you could order them in rank of importance that'd be great.

Thanks very much.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RDM_83 again

SupaNova wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What you mean that its not ok too tarnish the many with the actions of the few?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Never got a reply to my questioning of this post (bolded text in particular)

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Never got a reply to my questioning of this post (bolded text in particular)

Bring it up on the thread that's from, not this one.

RDM_83 again

I brought up the post not in a hope for a reply to my question on a separate thread, but rather to illustrate the point Memnoch made in the previous page. If a new poster came across that thread they would clearly feel that attacking fire-and-forget posts is acceptable behavior against groups they disagree with, now this may not be against the rules but IMO it works against the stated aims of the forum to be a place of debate

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Get ye. Bringing personal appearance into it count? Like here?

permabear wrote:

It seems that you don't get to occupy Dame Street unless you have long hair and/or dreadlocks:
sampling of the incoherent rhetoric animating this "protest."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74858701&postcount=87

permabear wrote:

Richard Boyd Barrett's turn to rant now. Too socialist to wear a suit and tie, apparently.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71073402&postcount=20

nesf

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I brought up the post not in a hope for a reply to my question on a separate thread, but rather to illustrate the point Memnoch made in the previous page. If a new poster came across that thread they would clearly feel that attacking fire-and-forget posts is acceptable behavior against groups they disagree with, now this may not be against the rules but IMO it works against the stated aims of the forum to be a place of debate

Sure but report it or deal with it yourself on the thread in question. Bringing it up here can only drag this thread off-topic if Permabear replies.

johnnyskeleton

SupaNova wrote: »

Yes it is, you are attacking the tea party movement not for its aims or principles but because one member dabbles in witchcraft. It would be like someone coming to the conclusion that all professional footballers are despicable because El Hadji Diouf spat at a spectator.

You can attack the Tea Party all you want using strong logical argument against the ideas and principles they stand for, wild ad hominem rants don't cut it.

So ignore what a person actually does and focus instead on the ideas and principles they say they stand for? That kind of logic is how Godwin got to make his very own law.

Gnasher1970

Permaban of all racists.

AhSureTisGrand

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So ignore what a person actually does and focus instead on the ideas and principles they say they stand for? That kind of logic is how Godwin got to make his very own law.

The point is you can't defeat the ideas by focusing on the person

SupaNova

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So ignore what a person actually does and focus instead on the ideas and principles they say they stand for? That kind of logic is how Godwin got to make his very own law.

No if you want to come to the conclusion that all footballers are despicable you would have to base it on something every professional footballer has in common, that is playing football for money. Likewise if you want to come to the conclusion that all tea party members are nuts, you would have to show that what they all commonly stand for is nuts. Showing that one member dabbled in witchcraft therefore Tea Party members are nuts is poor, show the following to be nuts:

Wikepedia:
The Tea Party movement is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

Scofflaw

Memnoch wrote:

It's not an ad hominem if it's true is it?

Truth has nothing to do with ad hominems - an ad hominem can be true or false (in which case it's also a lie).

The basic characterisation is that it's about a personal characteristic that has no relation to the debate at hand. The examples given - "don't listen to x's economic principles, she's a witch" - are obvious, but more subtle examples are more common.

So, let's say you point out that a left-wing politician actually lives a very comfortably middle-class life:

If the debate is about left wing principles - then it's an ad hominem, because whether any particular left-wing politician (or all of them) actually lives by the principles they publicly espouse is irrelevant to a discussion of those principles.

If the debate is about the honesty or sincerity of left-wing politicians, then it's entirely relevant, because the discussion is about the people concerned.

Nor does an ad hominem really have to use a person, as such - you can use a party, a country, or whatever in the same irrelevant way.

cordially,
Scofflaw

RichieC

Nodin wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Get ye. Bringing personal appearance into it count? Like here?

permabear wrote:

It seems that you don't get to occupy Dame Street unless you have long hair and/or dreadlocks:
sampling of the incoherent rhetoric animating this "protest."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74858701&postcount=87

permabear wrote:

Richard Boyd Barrett's turn to rant now. Too socialist to wear a suit and tie, apparently.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71073402&postcount=20[/Quote]

Attacking hippies and the left is fine it seems.

Border-Rat

I am being consistently flamed/followed by an English troll on this site. His sympathising moderator is now sending me messages threatening a ban, on my part. Probably something to do with the moderators repeated incapability to refute my geo-political assertions. In response to being personally flamed, I informed the English troll that his military had indeed suffered strategical failure and sexually abused Iraqi's. Manic Moran, the moderator with an ageneda, threatens via a PM a 'ban' for 'unfounded allegations'. Let me provide my source;

Sexual abuse in Iraq by the hands of British soldiers

nesf

Border-Rat wrote: »

I am being consistently flamed/followed by an English troll on this site. His sympathising moderator is now sending me messages threatening a ban, on my part. Probably something to do with the moderators repeated incapability to refute my geo-political assertions. In response to being personally flamed, I informed the English troll that his military had indeed suffered strategical failure and sexually abused Iraqi's. Manic Moran, the moderator with an ageneda, threatens via a PM a 'ban' for 'unfounded allegations'. Let me provide my source;

Sexual abuse in Iraq by the hands of British soldiers

Then report it and the mods will take a look at it. This thread is not for dealing with individual problems but forum wide problems.

Dr Galen

Border rat

I think you may be confused. Manic Moran is not a mod on this forum.

Border-Rat

Dr Galen wrote: »

Border rat

I think you may be confused. Manic Moran is not a mod on this forum.

Nonetheless he is issuing infractions on the basis of political views.

nesf

Border-Rat wrote: »

Nonetheless he is issuing infractions on the basis of political views.

That was on Military, not Politics and has nothing to do with this forum or this thread.

Border-Rat

nesf wrote: »

That was on Military, not Politics and has nothing to do with this forum or this thread.

Yes, you're right. It was in the British military forum. My mistake.

Dr Galen

Following on from posts that would like to see a soccer forum-like system, maybe another system that they use over there might be of benefit.

What would people think of a system whereby if a poster racks up a certain amount of infractions in a set time period, say 6 infractions in 6 months for example, then an automatic ban is out in place by the Mods.

I know the soccer forum Mods use yellow cards as the marker, and tbh I'd be against this, as it takes away the yellow card as a gentle poke for the poster in question.

Could an auto ban system, based upon numbers of infractions received work here?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RichieC

a fine system as long as the ad homs against the left are policed as well as they are against the libertarians.

I can't see that happening tbf.

johnnyskeleton

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The point is you can't defeat the ideas by focusing on the person

No but politics isn't just about ideas it's about people. And saying you can't criticise a public representative for what they have done is censorship, there are no two ways about it. It would be a bit like saying that the stated ideal of FF is to look after the interests of the ordinary man without looking at what Bertie, Haughey et al have done.

johnnyskeleton

SupaNova wrote: »

No if you want to come to the conclusion that all footballers are despicable you would have to base it on something every professional footballer has in common, that is playing football for money. Likewise if you want to come to the conclusion that all tea party members are nuts, you would have to show that what they all commonly stand for is nuts. Showing that one member dabbled in witchcraft therefore Tea Party members are nuts is poor, show the following to be nuts:

Wikepedia:
The Tea Party movement is an American populist political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian, and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009. It endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.

You are making a completely skewed point. You are trying to say that because criticism of one member of a party does not mean the whole party is wrong (which no one disputes), that there should therefore be no criticism of the personal lives of individual members of the party.

So in effect you want the forum rules set to prevent comments on the behaviour of individual members of a party because it could reflect poorly on that party. But that is precicely the point of a politics forum, no? To see who the public representatives really are?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No but politics isn't just about ideas it's about people. And saying you can't criticise a public representative for what they have done is censorship, there are no two ways about it. It would be a bit like saying that the stated ideal of FF is to look after the interests of the ordinary man without looking at what Bertie, Haughey et al have done.

No. What's being said is that in a discussion about party policy it would be wrong to attack the individual not the policy while in a thread about a particular party member such attacks would be fair game.

i.e. if we had a thread about Willie O'Dea, reasonable criticisms of his person are fine. If we had a thread about FF economic policy then criticising WOD would be off-topic and unwelcome. Similarly we'd draw a line between debating Gerry Adams and debating SF economic policy and so on.

I think this is reasonable.

raymon

On the subject of ad hominems : I disagree that personal criticisms should be banned .

For example ...... if the internet was around when Charlie gave his " tighten our belts " broadcast and if I had information that Charlie was living like a king on corrupt earnings, I feel that it would be appropriate for me to comment and debate ad hominem.

edanto

Firstly, your understanding of ad hominem is wrong.

Personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations won't ever be allowed around here, but before you reply best to read up on what ad hominem is generally understood to mean.

In your example, boards would be on shaky legal ground if it was first to publish such allegations about Charlie/Bertie etc. If you come across that type of evidence, go to someone like storyful or thestory.ie and get them to do a story on it. Then discuss that story here!

raymon

edanto wrote: »

Firstly, your understanding of ad hominem is wrong.

Personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations won't ever be allowed around here, but before you reply best to read up on what ad hominem is generally understood to mean.

In your example, boards would be on shaky legal ground if it was first to publish such allegations about Charlie/Bertie etc. If you come across that type of evidence, go to someone like storyful or thestory.ie and get them to do a story on it. Then discuss that story here!

I understand exactly what ad hominem means , thanks .

I agree that unsubstantiated allegations are wrong and deserve an infraction

I am talking about properly sourced facts .

nesf

raymon wrote: »

I understand exactly what ad hominem means , thanks .

I agree that unsubstantiated allegations are wrong and deserve an infraction

I am talking about properly sourced facts .

Personal attacks are fine in a thread on the person. They're not welcome in more general discussion.

raymon

nesf wrote: »

Personal attacks are fine in a thread on the person. They're not welcome in more general discussion.

I agree , however to go back to the example of CJH ...... if the topic / thread was "Charles Haughey tells us to tighten our belts " I would feel compelled to post something like , "how can he say that when evidence shows that he is living far beyond his own means ".

I believe the previous actions of a politician and track record are an important part of our political landscape and can often provide valuable insight.