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

A discussion on the rules.

1…2627293132…89

Comments

  • #842
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Nothing really new in the first part of your post.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I don't know, you seem to be taking the suggestion that both sides are to blame extremely personally.

    I believe both sides are to blame, maybe not equally, but a rap tally is only going to tell us so much. You say the anti-libertarian posters get sanctioned far more, fair point, but that definitely doesn't back up your point that a lack of modding is a problem. It points to not enough modding to your liking and as you seem to see little problem with the pro-libertarian posters, I assume that means not enough modding of anti-libertarian posters.
    Honestly, I don't think you've thought your position through. You appear to be parroting "Us vs. Them" as an all-purpose retort to everything, because it's something you saw another mod say.

    No, you just aren't receptive to another point of view on it. I'm not parroting anything thank you, I've used the phrase on other fora plenty of times, especialy soccer! I'm commenting on how I see it and yes, that feedback turned into an "us vs. them" debate is very telling. Mods have to try and find the balance between both.

    Anyway, some positive feedback and ideas would be good from now on, I think we have your views by now permabear, unless you've some practical solutions?

    Personally I think the 3 red cards = a ban is too lenient for the political theory section.
    No, sorry. I can post the full breakdown if you're interested.

    I've no reason to doubt you so I don't see the need.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #843
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #844
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    But I do think that a significant part of the problem is that neither side is willing to engage with the points that the other side raised. Dismissing a poster as a "neo-con monster" or some other such nonsense for focusing on economic arguments is just as problematic as dismissing another poster as "Pollyanna-ish" for raising the social implications of libertarian/free market economic policy.
    I always think that a useful rule of thumb is that if you know what someone is going to think about every new topic based on what their ideology decrees, then there should be alarm bells going off.

    I'm not limiting this to libertarians, and of course you get to know posters' well reasoned opinions over time. I'm not including the latter at all.

    The problem is when someone climbs up their ideological flagpole, clings tenaciously to it, and tries to communicate with everyone else from that position. When their opinions are questioned, they consult their flag to find out which way it blows. You could literally type that person's responses for them before they even arrive on the scene.

    Anyone can go and read up on ideology. But if someone's opinion is coming pre-packaged off a conveyor belt, I think that's of very limited value; I'm not sure if mods can possibly do anything about that, it's probably something that a poster just needs to learn not to engage with.


  • #845
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    K-9 wrote: »
    Personally I think the 3 red cards = a ban is too lenient for the political theory section.

    In my opinion if your posting in a manner where your gonna be carded for it then you should also be booted from the thread. You dont have to be banned from the forum for the mods to keep you out of a single thread.

    Somewhere like political theory where a high posting standard should be required a yellow or red should result in you exiting the discussion.


  • #846
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #847
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    First of all, I don't think that the "opposed to libertarianism" thing really has much merit, and I think that's part of the problem. Interested but skeptical, more like.

    If you'd adhered to #1, #2, #3, #5, #6 and especially #7 yourself, with the appropriate change of direction, we probably wouldn't even be here, particularly in terms of acknowledging reasoned criticisms. Above all else, that's what got people's backs up, in my view.

    On #3, everyone's sources are open to question, in terms of bias, methodology, etc. This is how it goes - you hardly think we'll have a situation where you post one from the Economist, someone else the Guardian, someone else An Phoblacht and takes that as conclusive evidence?



    #8 If someone makes a criticism you see as being totally flimsy, or a point that you see as being wafer thin, ask them to explain it, or refute it in such a way as to invite clarification, or further discussion, rather than immediately jumping in to dismiss it with with "you're out of your depth", "ill-informed", "tripe", etc. You never know, you might learn something.

    #9 If it's clear that someone isn't going to be budged on something, no matter how much evidence is presented, or how thoroughly their argument has been shredded ... in your opinion ... then, instead of flogging a dead horse or ragequitting, be prepared to take the Dudely route, "fck it, let's go bowling".

    #10 Man up / woman up. A certain amount of edge will inevitably come in to any heated political discussion, but so long as people are actually concentrating on the discussion, and any barbs relate to the topic under discussion, rather than being designed to put the other poster down, then try not to be too thin-skinned about it. Within reason, obviously.

    #11 If someone asks to be corrected on a statement, or asks you a direct question seeking clarification on your position, do them the courtesy of acknowledging it, even if you don't have an answer.

    #12 Embrace criticism. It's a good way to learn more and test the limits of your worldview. The forum isn't a lecture theatre, there are no sacred cows.

    All of which boils down to:

    #13 Remember that, in Political Theory, there is no correct answer, only opinions. Very subjective opinions.

    #14 Respect the fact that people have their own experiences, reasons and evidence behind their views. They're not out to get you, and the fact that you've thought your ideas through and are fully convinced does not imply that that yours are obviously the most "rational" or that all opinions will eventually converge on yours.


  • #848
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    In that case, you specifically asked me for examples of deregulation that were harmful, which is how the 2008 financial crisis was brought up. The wider topic of economics was a central part of the thread too.


    The root faults of Libertarianism (in my eyes) lie within the economics, and so many Libertarian arguments and policies are built upon the faults in the root economics, that I don't see how you can avoid the topic at all for most Libertarian discussions.

    Since so many Libertarian arguments/policies are based upon the core economic theory, if you want to discredit those arguments/policies, it is unavoidable that you must bring discussion of the core economic theory into the thread.

    There are no two ways about that; if you ban discussion of the economics in a thread, people can always hold on to their arguments which are based on the economics, even if those arguments are (arguably) fundamentally flawed.


    Summarizing, as I said several times, most, nearly all of the faults with Libertarian views lie in the core economics; it is never a separate discussion it is always core to any discussion on Libertarianism, because you just cannot knock down some Libertarian arguments without delving into the economics.
    Permabear wrote:
    In particular, when posters are being out-debated, they should not willfully drag threads off-topic in order to create a distraction
    It should be noted, that this is precisely what happens with the "Us vs Them" type arguments.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I agree such dismissal isn't helpful, and I would expand it to cases of dismissal which take someones argument, and paint it as part of a particular ideology/'ism', and then dismiss it based on that.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    So long as it's well-sourced it's fine in my opinion.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I agree with that, with one caveat: If it can be shown that people hold onto argumemnts which can be shown comprehensively as based on a belief rather than logic, it's a fair criticism to compare it to religion.

    However, that does not mean it is ok to dismiss peoples arguments or posts like this; if they are making a reasoned effort to have an honest (and opened minded) debate with you, it is not fair to make this criticism, and especially not fair to use that criticism to dismiss their arguments.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I agree that wholesale labeling of Libertarians in this way is unhelpful and a generalization, what I disagree with though, is that if it can be objectively shown that specific policies will lead to outcomes that can be described in the above ways, and those supporting that maintain their support in the face of overwhelming evidence or refuse to elaborate on their arguments supporting that, criticism becomes justifiable.

    That said though, I agree that sometimes people can be too quick to judge like that, and that is unhelpful; people need to be given a good open-minded chance to put forward and explain their point of view.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    Agreed. While it's not fair to make this assumption about peoples views or intent, it is fair to point out this stuff as the potential end-consequences of particular policies.

    Usually, I do this as pointing to the end result of policies, not putting that as anyones desired outcome.
    Permabear wrote:
    This post had been deleted.
    I've never argued complete domination, or that any monopoly will happen, I have posited it as a problem, that it might happen (plenty of past evidence backing that), and asked how Libertarian policies would prevent or deal with this if it does happen.

    There is plenty of past evidence of monopoly (and that without state involvement), so it is fair to then put the burden of proof on supporters of deregulation to shown how this would not happen.

    So basically, this goes both ways; if you promote free market principles, you have to back them up with evidence, not theory alone, and positing realistic unsolved problems to be explained is a valid argument.
    benway wrote:
    First of all, I don't think that the "opposed to libertarianism" thing really has much merit, and I think that's part of the problem. Interested but skeptical, more like.
    Ya indeed, doing away with the dichotomy of Libertarian vs Anti-Libertarian, and meeting half-way where we can open-mindedly discuss each others arguments/points would be great.

    I'm open to persuasion on stuff, and there's a lot about Libertarianism that seems quite interesting (particularly, Libertarian Socialism looks like a more interesting, yet very incomplete model, vs capitalist versions), but I will bat quite a lot of hard problems and arguments that I would be looking to solutions for; this does not mean I'm set in my ways, there are a lot of tough questions I'm genuinely looking for answers/solution on.


  • #849
    benway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭benway


    Repeating some in-thread comments here, in case anyone has something to add:

    Just speaking for myself here, but I think a certain amount of trench warfare is actually useful and certainly inevitable, when talking about these kinds of things - I think there's a danger that over-zealous modding will lead to a stage where it'll be virtually impossible to put a dissenting opinion on a thread for fear of insulting people's sensibilities. It's in the hard questions that you find the strengths and weaknesses of a particular approach.

    Again, I personally think that, so long as people aren't openly insulting each other personally or accusing all adherents of a certain ideology of being authoritarian monsters or baby killers, and so long as there's some verifiable basis in the materials or evidence for a viewpoint, no matter how tenuous, then it should be let slide. People should just remember to respect each other's right to hold a particular viewpoint, even if you don't much respect the viewpoint.

    Also, I know this is heavy stuff and everything, and people feel strongly, but can we lighten up a little about it?

    Just my 2c.


  • #850
    MungBean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,915 ✭✭✭MungBean


    You can see things begin to change with the tone of posts even if they are not doing anything wrong though, a mod reminder to all posters considering the history of those threads and the discussion that was had in here with issues brought up from both sides wasn't what I'd call over zealous.

    Nip it in the bud I say. One warning, then start swinging the boot if nobody wants to listen.


  • #851
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    benway wrote:
    ...
    Ya I'd agree with much of that; to be honest though, I can never really read the tone of my own posts, so I could (at times) be coming across quite combative whilst thinking my delivery is rather stoic :) (anyone should feel free to point that out to me mind)

    Generally, I think the threads will be fine so long as they are free from personal animosity and digs (no matter how subtle); a more interesting discussion if sticking to and engaging with peoples arguments, rather than them personally.


  • Advertisement
  • #852
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    There is a question, of course, on why we have so many Libertarians in Political Theory, there are so few in real life. Most people are centrist, so taking an extreme position - and one which will fall afoul of most people's morality - well, I would suggest a better skin than PB has, for one.

    I notice that when the ideology of Libertarianism is questioned with a specific question which cant be answered comfortably, i.e. would a privatised monopoly airport not have to be bailed out privatising losses, and subsidising profits, that question - surely the most important question - is not answered either and the discussion drives on with other tangential questions and whataboutary attacks on Unions.

    I have asked in the thread about "how libertarianism would work in an Irish context" - how would education work. Its post #108. Prior to that the whole thing was attacks on the existing sector, but attacking A is not the same as justifying B. So I had a list of questions.

    No response as of this posting. The libertarians dance around their philosophy, by attacking "statism". There are problems with the existing system, there always are. Whats never really explained is the libertarian perspective.


  • #853
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    If this forum were representative of the real world, it would be disproportionately libertarian and republican. Yet we know that is not the case. People come here to discuss what they want to discuss, and as long as they do so within the boundaries of the charter, well that is fine.

    As for the libertarian thread in question, I think Dr. G put it better than I could:
    There are some posters who aren't really asking questions such as these to gain understanding or to have a debate. They are really using such questions as cheapo point scoring exercises. We have seen in other threads how Libertarian leaning discussions can work out well, when discussed properly. That will happen in this thread as well, if people have to leave the conversation for that to happen, then so be it.

    I just finished reading one of the threads in question top to bottom, and not only were many of the 'questions' you put to the thread addressed earlier on, but it seemed clear to me that 90% of the posters in that thread were engaging with each other in a (surprisingly) rational and civil way, even when there were clearly profound disagreements. Just because a poster may have addressed an issue in a way that you dislike does not mean that they have not addressed it, and that is a distinction that gets lost far too often in these debates.


  • #854
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    i think it is ironic how those defending libertarian theory deal with other theories, like the occupy movement.

    some people scoff at the fact that there is a difference, but the it would be nice if the 'law' here was applied equally across the board ...


  • #855
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #856
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Right, quit it all of you, I'm sick of this thread being dragged off into another waste of pixels with the same people arguing back and forth and the same people thanking each of the posts. Anymore point scoring and I'll start banning people.


  • #857
    SMASH THE UNIONS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about a mod sets up a sticky where posters declare their conflicts of interest? The idea came to me while reading through this thread and this thread. A similar sticky has successfully been implemented on the Commuting and Transport forum - here. Several posters therein have admitted to being civil servants. Surely they have personal interests to protect and this is a conflict of interests. (spamming boards with their propaganda during work hours no less - so essentially we're paying them to post their drivel).

    When an ordinary member of the public raises a concern about politicians fleecing the system, a handful of people will join the thread spouting strawmen like we "won't be happy until politicians live in caves". Then they will then invariably denounce the other side as whingers. I understand they have their jobs to protect and everybody is entitled to post in any given thread, but let's keep everything above water and state our conflict of interests. Party allegiance and private/public sector emplyment/unemployment should be declared.

    I'll go first: I'm a private sector worker. No political party allegiance and I've never campaigned for a party in my life. Pet hates include the entitlement culture in this country and incompetent gombeens fleecing the gravy train.


  • #858
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    Politics is not for calling the posts of civil servants drivel, and it's not for ad hominems. Whether someone is in the public service or not is irrelevant - their posts will either stand on their own merit or they won't. We have enough problems with personal attacks without that as well.
    If someone does not want to post whether they are in the public/private service they
    are certainly not obliged to and any hounding on that point will be treated as any other personal attack


  • #859
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    Why would conflicts of interest matter? If they are making good points then it shouldn't matter what they do for a living.


  • #860
    SMASH THE UNIONS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    So shilling is allowed? That's good to know.

    There were cases during the last general election where Sinn Fein were sending out mass texts to their party membership to rig online polls and spam their message on online fora. I remember participating in a thread on it on Politics.ie. Huge numbers of newly registered spambots came out in defense of SF. I'm sure the same happened on Boards.ie. I personally find this disingenuous. It would be nice if posters were a bit more honest about their agenda.


  • #861
    Silas Salmon Buckle
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Silas Salmon Buckle


    If you have a problem with posts then by all means report them. Spammers and shills across boards.ie are not allowed. This does not mean individual posters can be demanded to give personal information on the threads by other posters.
    "I think there was a problem on another website so maybe there might be one here" is not justification to change this


  • Advertisement
  • #862
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    It's nonsense anyway. I work in the private sector and believe TDs are underpaid, if anything. I also believe I would have more money were I in a private sector union, were unions as strong as they were.


  • #863
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,767 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    ... but let's keep everything above water and state our conflict of interests. Party allegiance and private/public sector emplyment/unemployment should be declared.
    This proposal is very problematic. Where does this "conflict of interest" enquiry stop? This declaration that you are proposing sets a precedent for more declarations in the future. Examples:
    • Would posters have to officially declare their gender before being allowed to discuss the gender quota issues that pertain to elective office?
    • In like manner, if an issue is raised about how education or income or equity ownership or residence or religion or race or ethnicity or national origin or colour or age or ancestry or physical disability or mental disability, etc., may influence someone's political perspective, would posters have to officially declare their potential economic or demographic or medical conflict of interest before being allowed to post?
    • Do you really expect us voluntary mods to enforce this proposal by deleting posts, and issuing warnings, infractions, and bans for those that do not fully disclose their "conflict of interests" before posting on a thread?
    Anonymity has been one of boards.ie values. If someone wishes to voluntarily declare their "conflict of interest" in such a way that it does not violate our charters or Terms of Use, they may. But they should not be forced to surrender their anonymity in order to participate in a discussion on Politics (or any forum on boards.ie).

    **This does not pertain to charter or Terms of Use guidelines that affect spamming, advertising or shilling, etc., which can destroy a discussion forum and have been covered elsewhere.


  • #864
    SMASH THE UNIONS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 210 ✭✭SMASH THE UNIONS


    The way the conflict of interests declaration works in the Commuting and Transport forum is that if you are a bus driver for a private coach company, for example Aircoach, then you must declare it. Other posters can then take this into consideration when reading their pro-Aircoach posts. Otherwise their posts could be seen as free advertising. You should also take their anti-Bus Eireann posts with a pinch of salt as of course they are going to biased against the competition. There is a list of critieria you must declare before you can post in that forum. I'll link to it again - here - so take a look at it if you're curious as to how such a sticky would work.

    Several posters in this politics forum have admitted to being Muslim. Is it wrong that I take this into consideration when reading their vitriol against Israel? I'm not suggesting mods heavily enforce this declaration of interests "rule" (I see it more as a suggested guideline) as I'm against stifling moderation, but it would lead to better communication if posters understood each other's standpoint. Put up a sticky and encourage others to use it, do not strictly enforce it. It should be completely voluntary.

    Just a suggestion. Discard it if you wish.


  • #865
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    While I disagree with the idea, and prefer peoples arguments standing on their own merit, conflicts of interest are good to know sometimes, as it gives you an idea if peoples background and where they're coming from, if there are any hidden agendas etc..

    It's private information though so it's up to people whether they want to disclose, definitely should not be forced to, and it doesn't really do anything other than inform your own personal opinion.
    Arguably, it would make many discussions worse off, as it would lead to personal attacks, people accusing others of hypocrisy, instead of attacking the merit of their arguments instead.

    That said, whilst hypocrisy does not invalidate a persons arguments, it is a valid criticism sometimes; whatever the case, conflicts of interest shouldn't be mandatory to declare.


  • #866
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    Several posters in this politics forum have admitted to being Muslim. Is it wrong that I take this into consideration when reading their vitriol against Israel? I'm not suggesting mods heavily enforce this declaration of interests "rule" (I see it more as a suggested guideline) as I'm against stifling moderation, but it would lead to better communication if posters understood each other's standpoint. Put up a sticky and encourage others to use it, do not strictly enforce it. It should be completely voluntary.
    Err, yes? If people have a vitriolic dislike of the Israeli government (rather than nationality), then it is wrong to assume their religious/ethnic background is the reason for that.

    I'm agnostic and have a pretty heavy dislike of the Israeli government, due to their policies.


  • #867
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #868
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    Not sure if this has been suggested before, but how about a mod sets up a sticky where posters declare their conflicts of interest? The idea came to me while reading through this thread and this thread. A similar sticky has successfully been implemented on the Commuting and Transport forum - here. Several posters therein have admitted to being civil servants. Surely they have personal interests to protect and this is a conflict of interests. (spamming boards with their propaganda during work hours no less - so essentially we're paying them to post their drivel).

    When an ordinary member of the public raises a concern about politicians fleecing the system, a handful of people will join the thread spouting strawmen like we "won't be happy until politicians live in caves". Then they will then invariably denounce the other side as whingers. I understand they have their jobs to protect and everybody is entitled to post in any given thread, but let's keep everything above water and state our conflict of interests. Party allegiance and private/public sector emplyment/unemployment should be declared.

    I'll go first: I'm a private sector worker. No political party allegiance and I've never campaigned for a party in my life. Pet hates include the entitlement culture in this country and incompetent gombeens fleecing the gravy train.

    I think we do have a few posters here who openly admit they are in the public service but tbh I don't see a need for people having to declare what they work at, I'd be uncomfortable at expecting posters to do it. I've seen some just focus on posters as public servants and then dismiss any knowledge and experience they bring on debate on the area and that isn't pleasant reading. If it was to come in, I'd red card references to spending work time on boards as it's just an idiotic comment, private sector workers seem to be immune from that sleight!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #869
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    So shilling is allowed? That's good to know.

    There were cases during the last general election where Sinn Fein were sending out mass texts to their party membership to rig online polls and spam their message on online fora. I remember participating in a thread on it on Politics.ie. Huge numbers of newly registered spambots came out in defense of SF. I'm sure the same happened on Boards.ie. I personally find this disingenuous. It would be nice if posters were a bit more honest about their agenda.

    We operate on a very simple rule, though, which we find largely works. Posters who try to use the forum for "soapboxing" - that is, repeating over and again their particular message without engaging in discussion, or only posting to support others who are posting "the message" - get banned.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #870
    Hayte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    Several posters in this politics forum have admitted to being Muslim. Is it wrong that I take this into consideration when reading their vitriol against Israel?

    Depends. Did you read their post to see if it stands up on its own?

    I try not to deride anyone's posts as vitriol without addressing the stated facts and I find it helps to stick to the facts. I won't use a person's religion, beliefs and employment history against them. If the argument stands up under scrutiny then its a good argument and its worth thinking about the issues raised. If not then whats the point of any of this really?

    If someone is really just shilling and you can see that, not because of who they are or where they are from but what their argument is, then the sensible thing to do is to ignore it. But being Muslim doesn't preclude you from talking about Israeli power politics concerning the occupied Palestinian territories. If anything, it give you a unique perspective other than your own, if you want to hear it.

    This is always a good thing. But if it came down to it, any disagreement can and should be directed towards the argument, its form and the facts used to support it. I don't care who you are or where you are from, if you make sense, you make sense. If your argument is well supported with facts then I can't disagree with you. Thats really all there is to it.

    The maxim in /politics/ is (and I agree it works as long as people remember it): address the post, not the poster.


  • Advertisement
  • #871
    later12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,298 ✭✭✭✭later12


    SMASH THE UNIONS wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting mods heavily enforce this declaration of interests "rule" (I see it more as a suggested guideline) as I'm against stifling moderation, but it would lead to better communication if posters understood each other's standpoint.
    I think it would water down the egalitarian nature of the politics forum.

    An argument, here, ought to be won or lost on the merits of its logical appeal. That is the supreme egalitarian beauty of the internet. Enlarging or diminishing a contribution's 'rank' because of who a poster is, or what he works at, would be a dismayingly regressive step. I think a measure such as you have suggested would only act to establish a pyramid of tiers.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement