Feedback Request:

nesf · 22-12-2011 08:55PM

raymon wrote: »

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.

It depends on how the discussion is framed. Is it a discussion about CJH's integrity in asking for this or is it a discussion about the need for austerity? They are two very different things.

raymon · 22-12-2011 09:50PM

nesf wrote: »

It depends on how the discussion is framed. Is it a discussion about CJH's integrity in asking for this or is it a discussion about the need for austerity? They are two very different things.

.
Completely agree .... if a poster is posting off topic they should be warned . If they persist to post off topic then they should be banned .

However if an ad hominem post is relevant , accurate , complete and correctly referenced to source , then it should not get any special treatment

johnnyskeleton · 22-12-2011 10:09PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But nobody is proposing that?

People are simply saying that the mods should draw a line between legitimate criticism and gratuitous ad hominem attacks or abuse.[/Quote]

But where is the dividing line? Particularly since the example used was a person being accused of witchcraft being ad hominem, but as quite rightly pointed out if it is true it is a serious issue to be decided.

nesf · 22-12-2011 10:27PM

raymon wrote: »

.
Completely agree .... if a poster is posting off topic they should be warned . If they persist to post off topic then they should be banned .

However if an ad hominem post is relevant , accurate , complete and correctly referenced to source , then it should not get any special treatment

I don't think you quite understand what's meant by ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if you're using the person's character or actions to discredit what they're saying. So if the argument is about austerity as above it's ad hominem to attack CJH's character, but if the argument is about whether CJH has a right to make such a call given his past it's not ad hominem to attack his character.

Edit: What we want to stop is threads being derailed by ad hominem. Threads about substantive issues like austerity or healthcare reform being derailed by personal attacks on the politicians involved and so on. If someone wants to set up an attack thread on a politician on the other hand then that's a different story.

raymon · 22-12-2011 10:35PM

nesf wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what's meant by ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if you're using the person's character or actions to discredit what they're saying. So if the argument is about austerity as above it's ad hominem to attack CJH's character, but if the argument is about whether CJH has a right to make such a call given his past it's not ad hominem to attack his character.

Edit: What we want to stop is threads being derailed by ad hominem. Threads about substantive issues like austerity or healthcare reform being derailed by personal attacks on the politicians involved and so on. If someone wants to set up an attack thread on a politician on the other hand then that's a different story.

Ad hominem . Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made, or in this case a politician

Not a difficult concept at all

I agree again , off topic posts or derailing should be severely dealt with

Permabear · 22-12-2011 10:42PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 22-12-2011 11:27PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But where is the dividing line? Particularly since the example used was a person being accused of witchcraft being ad hominem, but as quite rightly pointed out if it is true it is a serious issue to be decided.

If you went through all parties membership and candidates you'll find a few nuts!

The fact that she is a bit of a nut has no real bearing on the Tea Party though, much as I do think they attract more than their fair share of nuts! Its not that hard to point to contradictions in their policies, pointing at O'Donnell is rather lazy tbh.

The most important point for a politics feedback thread is it doesn't really add much to the quality of discussion in anyway whatsoever. Posters see others doing it and think its ok to do it on other threads. Not having a go at politics.ie but if political personalities are that important to you, you'll feel at home at p.ie.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2011 02:56AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And if it is sufficent to discredit the speaker e.g. the issues that arose re: Sean Gallagher, surely that is an appropriate matter for discussion?

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2011 03:04AM

K-9 wrote: »

If you went through all parties membership and candidates you'll find a few nuts!

The fact that she is a bit of a nut has no real bearing on the Tea Party though, much as I do think they attract more than their fair share of nuts! Its not that hard to point to contradictions in their policies, pointing at O'Donnell is rather lazy tbh.

Look, it's perfectly simple. This thread is not about the Tea Party. This thread is not about O'Donnell. This thread is about feedback, specifically whether a person should be banned/infracted if they commit what the mods feel is an ad hominem attack on a politican. The issue is whether if something is true about that politician, whether that is an appropriate matter to be discussed in the forum, or whether posters should be banned/infracted for doing so. Simple.

This is the issue. Not the Tea Party. Not some other issue. This is the simple issue.

Now, in that context, it is suggested that such comments on the personal views of politicians or members of a political party have no place in the Politics forum. And it seems that the mods are interested in adopting such a view. But it has long been established that people who run for public office should have their lives scrutinised because there is a public interest in knowing the real views of their politicians.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.

The most important point for a politics feedback thread is it doesn't really add much to the quality of discussion in anyway whatsoever.

Eh? So don't give feedback then.

Posters see others doing it and think its ok to do it on other threads.

Do what exactly, give feedback?

Not having a go at politics.ie but if political personalities are that important to you, you'll feel at home at p.ie.

Again, deflecting from the issue. But if you want to create a forum on boards where questioning the personal motives of politicians is not permitted, you won't get away with it. I'll tell DeV!

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2011 03:10AM

nesf wrote: »

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.

That's not what is being discussed, because off topic posting is already contrary to the charter and so doesn't need any specific feedback. What is being discussed is a rule whereby if a person or party is promoting a particular agenda or viewpoint, that posters should not question their motivation for promoting it.

nesf wrote: »

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.

So if the topic is Fianna Fail's economic policy, people should not be permitted to bring up corruption, poor economic planning, incompetence in public office etc and should be left with a narrow debate on the theory behind what they say their policies are (bearing in mind that what a politician says and what a politician does are two different matters entirely)?

No thanks. Maybe we can have one politics forum where that is the rule and another where people can debate matters of public interest freely?

nesf · 23-12-2011 03:32AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So if the topic is Fianna Fail's economic policy, people should not be permitted to bring up corruption, poor economic planning, incompetence in public office etc and should be left with a narrow debate on the theory behind what they say their policies are (bearing in mind that what a politician says and what a politician does are two different matters entirely)?

Exactly. The merits or lack thereof of a party's policies have nothing to do with that party's past. Now if you wanted to debate whether a party would actually enact those policies or just fudge it, then the party's past is relevant. Those are two separate and different discussions though.

If you want to go on a ra-ra-ra FF are all corrupt bastards rant in every FF thread you can find a different forum to post in. Ditto for people who bring up SF's terrorist past in every thread. There is a time and a place to bring up a party's past and such, e.g. a "should I vote FF?" or a "I'm not voting FF because..." thread.

Dr Galen · 23-12-2011 09:42AM

nesf wrote: »

If you want to go on a ra-ra-ra FF are all corrupt bastards rant in every FF thread you can find a different forum to post in. Ditto for people who bring up SF's terrorist past in every thread.

I think that sums things up pretty well nesf.

Some of the nonsense that went on here during the Election and the Presidential Election was awful rubbish. It's practically become impossible to discuss and debate policies from parties such as SF and even FF without the injection of lots of rant rant grrrrr rant rant stuff. That's not what this forum is for tbh.

You mention parties putting forward a particular view or agenda Johnny and how we as poster should be able to criticise that. Of course we should, but you have to remember that there are people that post here who also have an agenda, and aren't always what they appear to be.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.

That's not what this is about at all. What we do have though is a situation, whereby certain posters do not engage in meaningful debate, and all they bring to the party is personal attack/ad hom. They aren't interested in debating the issues, and consistently try to bring threads back to their agenda. There has to be a line in the sand, otherwise we end up back in ranty ranty grrr grr land. If people think that the politics forum is for the ranty ranty grrr grr then, they are mistaken tbh, as nesf says above.

Permabear · 23-12-2011 12:03PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 23-12-2011 03:09PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Look, it's perfectly simple. This thread is not about the Tea Party. This thread is not about O'Donnell. This thread is about feedback, specifically whether a person should be banned/infracted if they commit what the mods feel is an ad hominem attack on a politican. The issue is whether if something is true about that politician, whether that is an appropriate matter to be discussed in the forum, or whether posters should be banned/infracted for doing so. Simple.

This is the issue. Not the Tea Party. Not some other issue. This is the simple issue.

Now, in that context, it is suggested that such comments on the personal views of politicians or members of a political party have no place in the Politics forum. And it seems that the mods are interested in adopting such a view. But it has long been established that people who run for public office should have their lives scrutinised because there is a public interest in knowing the real views of their politicians.

But if you want to move the forum to a position whereby any questioning of a politician's background is not permitted, then you are stifiling debate. There are simply no two ways about this, no matter how much you try to deflect the issue.

Eh? So don't give feedback then.

Do what exactly, give feedback?

Again, deflecting from the issue. But if you want to create a forum on boards where questioning the personal motives of politicians is not permitted, you won't get away with it. I'll tell DeV!

I'm really at a total loss at how you took that as some attack on the Tea Party or the other stuff in your post.

Its a perfect example of how personal attacks on politicians can ruin threads. Anyway the mods have put it better than I could.

johnnyskeleton · 23-12-2011 09:18PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Discussing the allegations that arose in relation to Gallagher's fundraising activities for Fianna Fáil is not ad hominem, given how Gallagher had carefully tried to position himself as an independent candidate.

However, there are many posters who, as soon as they see the words "Fianna Fáil," head off into what Dr Galen calls "ranty ranty grrr grr land." They make no attempt to discuss the issues rationally, and their posts are filled with juvenile references to "Mehole Martin" and the like. If the forum really is to be a place for "serious and legitimate political discussion" then the mods have to draw a line with regards to this kind of ranting and juvenile mudslinging.[/Quote]

But ranting is already prohibited, as is derailing a thread, trolling and off topic posts. So that which is put forward as the justification for this new rule is already not allowed. The new rule where ad hominem attacks on politicans will be prohibited go far beyond what you are suggesting.

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

nesf · 23-12-2011 10:27PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

If a Labour saint and FF cute hoor both propose identical policies what difference does this make in a discussion about the merits of that policy?

johnnyskeleton · 24-12-2011 04:19PM

nesf wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And to nesf, if you really think that a persons track record has no place in a rational discussion you are very much mistaken.

If a Labour saint and FF cute hoor both propose identical policies what difference does this make in a discussion about the merits of that policy?

You can believe it as genuinely held by the honest person. It makes a world of difference surely?

nesf · 24-12-2011 04:36PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You can believe it as genuinely held by the honest person. It makes a world of difference surely?

See you're talking about something completely different. The argument is about the policy, not whether the person proposing the policy will go through it with it. Those are two separate debates and the first will just be horribly derailed if people keep confusing it with the second.

Feedback Request:

Comments