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…2728303233…89

Comments

  • #872
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Can we do something about the amount of rhetoric and spin terms that are flying around here recently? "Eurocrats" and "Euro Project" spring to mind, but there are more.


  • #873
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Can we do something about the amount of rhetoric and spin terms that are flying around here recently? "Eurocrats" and "Euro Project" spring to mind, but there are more.

    We're sort of in "let a thousand flowers bloom" mode for the referendum, but they'll be ruthlessly chopped down come Friday.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #874
    beeftotheheels
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,675 ✭✭✭beeftotheheels


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    We're sort of in "let a thousand flowers bloom" mode for the referendum, but they'll be ruthlessly chopped down come Friday.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    These fellas have no blossoms

    http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/organicweeds/weed_information/weed.php?id=10

    SBK Brushwood killer is yer only man.


  • #875
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    beeftotheheels wrote: »
    These fellas have no blossoms

    http://www.gardenorganic.org.uk/organicweeds/weed_information/weed.php?id=10

    SBK Brushwood killer is yer only man.

    Weedkiller works all right, but where's the fun in it?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #876
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    consistency is the best approach, though admittedly that it also the fairest and least fun ...


  • Advertisement
  • #877
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Warnings because posters don't like a description?

    Laminations wrote: »
    Figures like these don't matter to militant republicans. They claim they represent the minority against an 'oppressive' majority. They don't seem to think they require a mandate ever. And instead of getting off their working class, chavvy funeral attending, balaclava-clad fat arses and trying to make their home (Northern Ireland) a better place, they choose to wave guns around and read hate speeches and blame the Brits for everything, the same Brits that are paying their dole.

    I was making a substantive point about dissidents with a colourful description of their hypocrisy.

    Trolling, inflammatory and unsavoury language? How would one better describe militant republicans (aka dissident terrorists)? Based on the photo from the 'shots fired at republican funeral thread' I think its an apt description. Fat men wearing balaclavas and waving guns around over a flag-covered coffin on the street isn't exactly the height of class when it comes to funerals. Pandering to the easily offended likely non-militant republicans who dissociate themselves on everything dissident but the insults.


  • #878
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Totally agree with that. An attack on militant republicans is not an attack on a poster. If one poster happens to be a militant republican, tough. It would be different were it:" you, as a militant republican are" or " I would expect no less from..."

    Same with libertarians, calling them greedy, or other pertinent attacks, should be acceptable. In debates here - or public debates - the Catholic Church can be called hypocrites, and it's followers sheep regardless of whether a Catholic is posting in the thread, there are clear double standards.


  • #879
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,029 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    We could do with the 'anti-Semitic/ism' slur being given more attention by moderators to see if it's applicable or not.

    If a poster called another a 'racist', a 'xenophobe' or a 'sexist' without basis they'd be pulled up on it fairly quick yet the anti-Semitism slur seems to escape the usual moderator rigour.

    I mean, either the person is anti-Jew or not, no?


  • #880
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    We could do with the 'anti-Semitic/ism' slur being given more attention by moderators to see if it's applicable or not.

    If a poster called another a 'racist', a 'xenophobe' or a 'sexist' without basis they'd be pulled up on it fairly quick yet the anti-Semitism slur seems to escape the usual moderator rigour.

    I mean, either the person is anti-Jew or not, no?

    From what I can tell, people are quick to report racist/xenophobic/sexist labels. This isn't really the case with claims that others are anti-Semitic, AFAIK.


  • #881
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I've raised this before here and will raise it again. The scumbag rule is ridiculous. Shouldn't it be read in some context? Blanket banning of a word is lazy, pure and simple.

    I understand the rationale for banning it when referring to other posters or specific people/groups. However, when it is used to describe a contemptible or objectionable group of people in a city (i.e. ACTUAL FÚCKING SCUMBAGS) it is ridiculous to be handing out infractions of this.


    Are you actually kidding with this now?


  • Advertisement
  • #882
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I've raised this before here and will raise it again. The scumbag rule is ridiculous. Shouldn't it be read in some context? Blanket banning of a word is lazy, pure and simple.

    I understand the rationale for banning it when referring to other posters or specific people/groups. However, when it is used to describe a contemptible or objectionable group of people in a city (i.e. ACTUAL FÚCKING SCUMBAGS) it is ridiculous to be handing out infractions of this.


    Are you actually kidding with this now?

    No, we're not kidding. It's banned, along with certain other terms - such as "beards" for union officials - because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion bar displaying the poster's prejudices, and because it is seriously overused.

    There is no group of people who are formally known as 'scumbags' - no, not even inner city dwellers. Therefore, all your use of the word indicates is that you dislike some group of people, and can't be bothered to think of another term of abuse for them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #883
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Indiscriminately banning a word without context is lazy moderation. Scumbags is a word in the dictionary; it is used to describe contemptible people - there are scumbags in Dublin city centre and certain parts of the city have been left to the control of these people. There is a big difference between calling someone a scumbag and describing the social group of contemptible people committing theft, burglary, random violence and general contemptible behaviour as "scumbags".

    If you really cannot see the difference context makes then there is no point having a conversation. "Beards" is clearly banned in CONTEXT - not blanket banned so that the mere mention of the word is met with infraction. I was clearly not calling any specific person or group scumbags, nor was I implying that they were the only problem with parts of the inner city... it also wasn't a slight on the city. It was a mere fact that there are people in the world who are scumbags and they know it themselves.

    What this forum needs is moderators that can do their job and distinguish the posts which are intended to incite disruption and moderate those, whilst having the ability to ascertain that there are certain times where it is acceptable to use a word.


  • #884
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Indiscriminately banning a word without context is lazy moderation. Scumbags is a word in the dictionary; it is used to describe contemptible people - there are scumbags in Dublin city centre and certain parts of the city have been left to the control of these people. There is a big difference between calling someone a scumbag and describing the social group of contemptible people committing theft, burglary, random violence and general contemptible behaviour as "scumbags".

    If you really cannot see the difference context makes then there is no point having a conversation. "Beards" is clearly banned in CONTEXT - not blanket banned so that the mere mention of the word is met with infraction. I was clearly not calling any specific person or group scumbags, nor was I implying that they were the only problem with parts of the inner city... it also wasn't a slight on the city. It was a mere fact that there are people in the world who are scumbags and they know it themselves.

    What this forum needs is moderators that can do their job and distinguish the posts which are intended to incite disruption and moderate those, whilst having the ability to ascertain that there are certain times where it is acceptable to use a word.

    I'm terribly sorry we don't meet your high standards! However, we do in fact consider the context. I can see from your later post that you believe the word 'scumbags' is justified on the basis of the merit of the post you wrote it in:
    Freudian Slippers wrote:
    The single biggest problem in Dublin / Ireland in general is that there has historically been little to no urban regeneration in periods of prosperity since the 1930s. Urban sprawal and suburbanisation has been promoted allowing the city to be overtaken scumbags, drug dealers and slumlords.

    The docklands is simply a lesson in shoddy craftsmanship, thinking that the idiot buyer will pay anything for nothing and an abject failure to address the problems of surrounding areas.

    To be blunt, nothing in the post merits special treatment of your use of the word scumbags in it. If someone were foolish enough, for example, to try to improve the city by dealing with 'scumbags' on the basis of your post, they would be faced with the problem that it indicates no more than "people FreudianSlippers thinks are scumbags", which produces an infinite recursion only solvable by bringing you round with them and asking you to point out who you feel falls into the category. Presumably that would make you very busy, because you appear to believe that the city has been "overtaken" by them - or possibly that's an unsupportable over-generalisation of little worth.

    I wouldn't normally comment on a post in such a way, but your argument was that the post justified the use of the term, whereas my view is that your use of the term in that post is part of what justifies our banning of it - it's a useless derogatory epithet applied to large classes of people who don't necessarily have much in common bar someone's lazy application of the term to them. You have a socioeconomic policy point in the post - your use of 'scumbags' adds absolutely nothing to that point, and instead makes it seem more like a Liveline rant.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #885
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I'm terribly sorry we don't meet your high standards! However, we do in fact consider the context. I can see from your later post that you believe the word 'scumbags' is justified on the basis of the merit of the post you wrote it in:
    I would have hoped that high standards would have been expected from the beginning to be honest. I don't think it's a lot to ask.
    If someone were foolish enough, for example, to try to improve the city by dealing with 'scumbags' on the basis of your post, they would be faced with the problem that it indicates no more than "people FreudianSlippers thinks are scumbags",
    By definition, people committing theft, burglary, random violence and general contemptible behaviour are "scumbags" - you would disagree with this? There are whole areas of the city where this behaviour is a way of life, perhaps you are sheltered from this fact - however, that does not negate the reality that it is a fact.
    which produces an infinite recursion only solvable by bringing you round with them and asking you to point out who you feel falls into the category.
    Over application of nonsense logic doesn't make it a good point. There are plenty of laws which allow discretion as to their application that do not require the drafter of same to adjudicate on each matter.

    Perhaps one is oft engaged in theft and does not believe it to be contemptible behaviour; perhaps that makes one even more of a scumbag?
    Presumably that would make you very busy, because you appear to believe that the city has been "overtaken" by them - or possibly that's an unsupportable over-generalisation of little worth.
    You would disagree that crime in the city has increased then I presume? Burglary was up 40% last year as was violent crime and assault. Anyone on the streets of North City Dublin can tell you that it is being completely overrun with nefarious individuals - aggressive begging, public fighting (especially on O'Connell Street), phone and handbag theft.

    More than that, there is a manifest infrastructure problem in Dublin city. Parts of the city have been left to completely rot with no proper social services, little to no Garda presence and little upkeep. This, as in all cities, is when the "scumbags" move in - the people who use the poor conditions to take advantage of the area and the surrounding areas for their own amusement/gain.
    I wouldn't normally comment on a post in such a way, but your argument was that the post justified the use of the term, whereas my view is that your use of the term in that post is part of what justifies our banning of it - it's a useless derogatory epithet applied to large classes of people who don't necessarily have much in common bar someone's lazy application of the term to them.
    Thieves, burglars, thugs and drug dealers are scumbags. I fail to see how anyone could disagree with that generalisation.

    What you fail (or refuse) to acknowledge is that the ban is in place to prevent groups of social classes being deemed "scumbags" simply for wearing pyjamas all day, living in social housing or being a bit rough around the edges; that is simply not what I was referring to.
    You have a socioeconomic policy point in the post - your use of 'scumbags' adds absolutely nothing to that point, and instead makes it seem more like a Liveline rant.
    So... it fits in nicely with the majority of the posts that seem to be worthy of this politics forum as of late.

    Bemused,
    FS


  • #886
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    You would disagree that crime in the city has increased then I presume? Burglary was up 40% last year as was violent crime and assault. Anyone on the streets of North City Dublin can tell you that it is being completely overrun with nefarious individuals - aggressive begging, public fighting (especially on O'Connell Street), phone and handbag theft.

    More than that, there is a manifest infrastructure problem in Dublin city. Parts of the city have been left to completely rot with no proper social services, little to no Garda presence and little upkeep. This, as in all cities, is when the "scumbags" move in - the people who use the poor conditions to take advantage of the area and the surrounding areas for their own amusement/gain.

    Do put the straw man back when you're finished with it. I already said you had a socioeconomic point, and I have no issue with the substantive point of your post except that it could have been put perfectly well without the Liveline addition of "scumbags".
    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    Thieves, burglars, thugs and drug dealers are scumbags. I fail to see how anyone could disagree with that generalisation.

    What you fail (or refuse) to acknowledge is that the ban is in place to prevent groups of social classes being deemed "scumbags" simply for wearing pyjamas all day, living in social housing or being a bit rough around the edges; that is simply not what I was referring to.

    Er, no it's not. And I should know, given I instituted it. I don't care who's actually being referred to as 'scumbags', and there is absolutely no socioeconomic intent behind the ban (when originally instituted it was mostly the IRA and/or Sinn Fein). It's there simply to help reduce the Livelineliness of the forum by cutting out a particularly overused generalisation.

    It's not a covert rule or some kind of hidden 'gotcha', it's explicit in the Charter, and it's constantly under review. If you really feel your post would have been impossible without it - and frankly I don't see how that can be - it might have made more sense to try to get the rules changed first.

    I appreciate you want to use the term, but you don't need to use it, so you haven't got much of an argument here. And if you're arguing that the forum is too Liveliney, with the clear implication that's a bad thing, I'm not sure why you're arguing for something that would increase it - particularly after arguing above for the banning of other terms.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #887
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Do put the straw man back when you're finished with it. I already said you had a socioeconomic point, and I have no issue with the substantive point of your post except that it could have been put perfectly well without the Liveline addition of "scumbags".
    Ah the ol' resort to calling it a "strawman" when countered with facts. The rise of "scumbaggery" in Dublin City is enormous in my personal opinion. That opinion is based on living in the city for a significant portion of my life and viewing first-hand the issues. I have also coupled that with the CSO statistics on crime increase.

    If it is a strawman to call thieves and violent criminals scumbags then I must accede this point.

    Er, no it's not. And I should know, given I instituted it. I don't care who's actually being referred to as 'scumbags', and there is absolutely no socioeconomic intent behind the ban (when originally instituted it was mostly the IRA and/or Sinn Fein). It's there simply to help reduce the Livelineliness of the forum by cutting out a particularly overused generalisation

    It's not a covert rule or some kind of hidden 'gotcha', it's explicit in the Charter, and it's constantly under review. If you really feel your post would have been impossible without it - and frankly I don't see how that can be - it might have made more sense to try to get the rules changed first.

    I appreciate you want to use the term, but you don't need to use it, so you haven't got much of an argument here. And if you're arguing that the forum is too Liveliney, with the clear implication that's a bad thing, I'm not sure why you're arguing for something that would increase it - particularly after arguing above for the banning of other terms.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw
    See, that's exactly my point. Words should not be blanket-banned but rather the intent behind the use of the word should be considered. You and I both know that I was not using the word in a way that was attempting to make the post more "Liveliney". I have made solid contributions to this forum for some amount of time and I used a banned word by mistake with zero malice or intent to single out a group or class of people by using it.

    It is the intent of the use of the word that is important; not the use of the word itself. If a poster said that they were called a scumbag would they get an infraction for using the word?
    Clearly, in situations where the word is used as I used it, automatically issuing an infraction is ridiculous.

    Furthermore, I don't recall arguing for the banning of any terms - I believe I have stated that the use of terms to refer to groups should be controlled, not banned. I fully agree that calling people scumbags should be banned when it is paired with intent.

    I realise that it is clear in the charter as well (I don't consult the charter prior to every post I make :eek:) but it managed to slip my mind, as the politics forum charter on boards is not paramount in my every thought! That is why I'm posting here - words should not be blanket-banned; rather the intent and use of the word should be moderated. That's why we're all here isn't it? Sure it may make your job easier to not have to put any thought into moderation (not you personally; I actually happen to think you are one of the best and fairest moderators on boards... well lol most of the time). but the very point of moderation is to consider the post and its contents in context and consider whether it was intentionally poor. Or am I missing something here?
    To add to that, perhaps indeed my post was below the threshold when viewed in entirety - it's not necessarily about that specific post. It's again raising the issue of words being banned simply for their use and without considering the context. I understand that you feel the use of the word didn't add to my post, fair enough. But it certainly didn't detract from the point I was making! That is what the banning of words should be about: don't say "SF are scumbags" etc., not about oooh he said the forbidden word!


  • #888
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Is there no replacement for scumbag, possible, FS?


  • #889
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    Is there no replacement for scumbag, possible, FS?
    That's not my point. I used the word without thinking - I'm happy to use an alternative word in the future. My point is that words should not be blanket banned and infractions issued without consideration of the context in which the words are used and the intent of the poster. I'd genuinely prefer not to be sitebanned because I accidentally used the word "scumbags" in a harmless way in one post.


  • #890
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    At the most it would be an infraction, and specific to this forum which is moderated more harshly than AH, for instance. So

    1) use the word - get a warning.
    2) Continue = infraction or forum ban.

    Sitebans are rare for long term posters.


  • #891
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    At the most it would be an infraction, and specific to this forum which is moderated more harshly than AH, for instance. So

    1) use the word - get a warning.
    2) Continue = infraction or forum ban.
    Completely agree.
    Sitebans are rare for long term posters.
    :D I was exaggerating (slightly) - I'm not the most popular poster and certainly the least liked moderator on this site.


  • Advertisement
  • #892
    Cognitive Cascade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭Cognitive Cascade


    Are there any rules in place to deal with the usual suspects who turn relevant threads into train wrecks and trench warfare?


  • #893
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Ah the ol' resort to calling it a "strawman" when countered with facts. The rise of "scumbaggery" in Dublin City is enormous in my personal opinion. That opinion is based on living in the city for a significant portion of my life and viewing first-hand the issues. I have also coupled that with the CSO statistics on crime increase.

    If it is a strawman to call thieves and violent criminals scumbags then I must accede this point.

    No, it's a straw man to pretend that because I'm explaining the ban on the use of scumbags in the context of your post I'm therefore somehow objecting to the substantive point in your post.

    To put it another way, you're pretending that because the use of the word 'scumbag' was infracted, I'm somehow claiming there are no criminals in the city centre.

    That is quite clearly a straw man - I am not contending that there are no criminals in the city centre, I am pointing out that the use of 'scumbags' to describe them is lazy and against the forum charter.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    See, that's exactly my point. Words should not be blanket-banned but rather the intent behind the use of the word should be considered. You and I both know that I was not using the word in a way that was attempting to make the post more "Liveliney". I have made solid contributions to this forum for some amount of time and I used a banned word by mistake with zero malice or intent to single out a group or class of people by using it.

    It is the intent of the use of the word that is important; not the use of the word itself. If a poster said that they were called a scumbag would they get an infraction for using the word?

    No, they wouldn't, and exactly that situation has arisen, as has the situation where someone quoted a caller on Liveline or the like using the word.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Clearly, in situations where the word is used as I used it, automatically issuing an infraction is ridiculous.

    No, the way you used it is exactly the kind of use that we infract.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Furthermore, I don't recall arguing for the banning of any terms - I believe I have stated that the use of terms to refer to groups should be controlled, not banned. I fully agree that calling people scumbags should be banned when it is paired with intent.

    I realise that it is clear in the charter as well (I don't consult the charter prior to every post I make :eek:) but it managed to slip my mind, as the politics forum charter on boards is not paramount in my every thought! That is why I'm posting here - words should not be blanket-banned; rather the intent and use of the word should be moderated. That's why we're all here isn't it? Sure it may make your job easier to not have to put any thought into moderation (not you personally; I actually happen to think you are one of the best and fairest moderators on boards... well lol most of the time). but the very point of moderation is to consider the post and its contents in context and consider whether it was intentionally poor. Or am I missing something here?
    To add to that, perhaps indeed my post was below the threshold when viewed in entirety - it's not necessarily about that specific post. It's again raising the issue of words being banned simply for their use and without considering the context. I understand that you feel the use of the word didn't add to my post, fair enough. But it certainly didn't detract from the point I was making! That is what the banning of words should be about: don't say "SF are scumbags" etc., not about oooh he said the forbidden word!

    To be fair, I didn't issue the original infraction, but I would have called it as worth a red, with the option of a yellow if the mod was feeling kindly - but then your response on the thread to the infraction was worth somewhere between a red card and a short ban, so you're coming out slightly ahead in my view.

    I appreciate you don't like what I'm saying here, because it is, after all, somewhat less than complimentary to you - but, yes, the way you used 'scumbags' in your post is exactly the reason we have it in the charter as infractable. We do consider context, we have considered the context here, and your use of the word in context is infractable. There's no point you having a lengthy argument with me about situations where it shouldn't be infracted, because I'm already aware of them, and don't infract under those circumstances - but those have nothing to do with your use of it, which was totally infractable and was infracted.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #894
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    Cognitive Cascade wrote: »
    Are there any rules in place to deal with the usual suspects who turn relevant threads into train wrecks and trench warfare?

    Yes - report the posts, rather than accusing people of trolling on-thread. The mods are well aware of who causes problems in NI threads, and as people continue to rack up warnings and infractions, they will eventually be booted out of the forum.

    Also, if you suspect someone is a re-reg, let us know and we will report it to the admins - they are the ones who sort that out and issue site bans.


  • #895
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cognitive Cascade wrote: »
    Are there any rules in place to deal with the usual suspects who turn relevant threads into train wrecks and trench warfare?

    Yes and no. If a poster derails by trolling or creates trench warfare by flaming, that's easily enough dealt with.

    If, on the other hand, they do it by dogged but genuine bull-headed refusal to see anyone else's point of view, and/or insultingly disregarding everyone's opinion but their own without actually being overtly insulting (and they aren't Scofflaw answering criticism by FS in a feedback thread, obviously), then it's much harder.

    While we'd like, obviously, simply to throw the poster out of the forum at once for the good of everyone else, it's obviously not acceptable that we should do so without any need for evidence or reasoned opinion, or without the poster having the opportunity to defend themselves in front of an independent judge - as such, it's necessary for the mods, faced with such a poster, to start assembling a 'paper trail' of wrecked threads and trench warfare incidents, and to be able to show convincingly that said poster is the cause of these things.

    Posters who act that way will invariably choose to contest their ban in the Dispute Resolution forum, and funnily enough their DRP threads also often turn into train wrecks and trench warfare, with the poster refusing to accept in any way that their behaviour is a problem.

    All of that takes time - and is a process in which posters can assist hugely by reporting the incidents they see, because that forms a very obvious paper trail and evidence that the mods aren't simply being arbitrary.

    The alternative, where I arbitrarily get FreudianSlippers sitebanned for daring to challenge my modlike powers, is obviously not somewhere we want to go, although equally obviously there are going to be people who believe we've been there all along.

    So, yes, it can be done, but it takes time and the assistance of the forum's posters. If you flag them, we can eventually bag them.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #896
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    No, it's a straw man to pretend that because I'm explaining the ban on the use of scumbags in the context of your post I'm therefore somehow objecting to the substantive point in your post.

    To put it another way, you're pretending that because the use of the word 'scumbag' was infracted, I'm somehow claiming there are no criminals in the city centre.

    That is quite clearly a straw man - I am not contending that there are no criminals in the city centre, I am pointing out that the use of 'scumbags' to describe them is lazy and against the forum charter.
    I was actually posting the original comment you referred to as strawman regarding your notion that the use of the word "overtaken" was "possibly [...] an unsupportable over-generalisation of little worth."

    If the waters have been muddied and wires crossed; apologies.
    No, they wouldn't, and exactly that situation has arisen, as has the situation where someone quoted a caller on Liveline or the like using the word.
    That's fine, now can you acknowledge the fact that I have indicated that the use was accidental and that we are all aware that I did not use the word with malice or intent to break the charter or cause controversy?
    No, the way you used it is exactly the kind of use that we infract.
    Seems harsh tbh.
    To be fair, I didn't issue the original infraction, but I would have called it as worth a red, with the option of a yellow if the mod was feeling kindly - but then your response on the thread to the infraction was worth somewhere between a red card and a short ban, so you're coming out slightly ahead in my view.

    I appreciate you don't like what I'm saying here, because it is, after all, somewhat less than complimentary to you - but, yes, the way you used 'scumbags' in your post is exactly the reason we have it in the charter as infractable. We do consider context, we have considered the context here, and your use of the word in context is infractable. There's no point you having a lengthy argument with me about situations where it shouldn't be infracted, because I'm already aware of them, and don't infract under those circumstances - but those have nothing to do with your use of it, which was totally infractable and was infracted.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw
    Accepted. Let's move on.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If, on the other hand, they do it by dogged but genuine bull-headed refusal to see anyone else's point of view, and/or insultingly disregarding everyone's opinion but their own without actually being overtly insulting (and they aren't Scofflaw answering criticism by FS in a feedback thread, obviously), then it's much harder.

    While we'd like, obviously, simply to throw the poster out of the forum at once for the good of everyone else, it's obviously not acceptable that we should do so without any need for evidence or reasoned opinion, or without the poster having the opportunity to defend themselves in front of an independent judge - as such, it's necessary for the mods, faced with such a poster, to start assembling a 'paper trail' of wrecked threads and trench warfare incidents, and to be able to show convincingly that said poster is the cause of these things.

    Posters who act that way will invariably choose to contest their ban in the Dispute Resolution forum, and funnily enough their DRP threads also often turn into train wrecks and trench warfare, with the poster refusing to accept in any way that their behaviour is a problem.

    All of that takes time - and is a process in which posters can assist hugely by reporting the incidents they see, because that forms a very obvious paper trail and evidence that the mods aren't simply being arbitrary.

    The alternative, where I arbitrarily get FreudianSlippers sitebanned for daring to challenge my modlike powers, is obviously not somewhere we want to go, although equally obviously there are going to be people who believe we've been there all along.
    I don't get what you mean by this insofar as it seems to be directed at me. I think that my contribution to this forum is good. If you feel otherwise, feel free to PM me and we can discuss my continued presence here.


  • #897
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I was actually posting the original comment you referred to as strawman regarding your notion that the use of the word "overtaken" was "possibly [...] an unsupportable over-generalisation of little worth."

    If the waters have been muddied and wires crossed; apologies.


    That's fine, now can you acknowledge the fact that I have indicated that the use was accidental and that we are all aware that I did not use the word with malice or intent to break the charter or cause controversy?


    Seems harsh tbh.


    Accepted. Let's move on.

    Thank you. I don't ascribe any malice or deliberate intent to flout the rules to you, and accept entirely that you genuinely thought your use of the term was acceptable in content.
    I don't get what you mean by this insofar as it seems to be directed at me. I think that my contribution to this forum is good. If you feel otherwise, feel free to PM me and we can discuss my continued presence here.

    Actually, it's directed at me, not you, because it would be easy to caricature my responses to you here as "dogged but genuine bull-headed refusal to see anyone else's point of view, and/or insultingly disregarding everyone's opinion but their own without actually being overtly insulting". I am, in fact, taking the mick out of myself.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #898
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Thank you. I don't ascribe any malice or deliberate intent to flout the rules to you, and accept entirely that you genuinely thought your use of the term was acceptable in content.

    It's not that. The long and short of it was that I wasn't thinking when I used the word - it was more of an "oh yeah, forgot about that" moment when the infraction came through. I just feel that in those circumstances where it is clearly not intentional that there should be consideration of the post rather than a blanket "these are the rules" type infraction. Not just for myself either.


  • #899
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It's not that. The long and short of it was that I wasn't thinking when I used the word - it was more of an "oh yeah, forgot about that" moment when the infraction came through. I just feel that in those circumstances where it is clearly not intentional that there should be consideration of the post rather than a blanket "these are the rules" type infraction. Not just for myself either.

    In this case, though, you were infracted for it before, last year, which was - perhaps unkindly - taken into account.

    We really do try to consider all circumstances, but we cannot actually tell what goes on in posters' heads - and in some (other!) cases, of course, we can't even begin to guess.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #900
    Hayte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    Solution:

    filter "scumbag" to "fine upstanding gentleperson".

    Thus:
    Ah the ol' resort to calling it a "strawman" when countered with facts. The rise of "scumbaggery" in Dublin City is enormous in my personal opinion. That opinion is based on living in the city for a significant portion of my life and viewing first-hand the issues. I have also coupled that with the CSO statistics on crime increase.

    If it is a strawman to call thieves and violent criminals scumbags then I must accede this point.

    Becomes:
    Ah the ol' resort to calling it a "strawman" when countered with facts. The rise of "fine upstanding gentlepersonery" in Dublin City is enormous in my personal opinion. That opinion is based on living in the city for a significant portion of my life and viewing first-hand the issues. I have also coupled that with the CSO statistics on crime increase.

    If it is a strawman to call thieves and violent criminals fine upstanding gentlepersons then I must accede this point.

    FreudianSlippers gets to vent his need to call people fine upstanding gentlepersons, I get to forget you ever instituted a word filter and can revel in the hilarious new and unintended implications of FreudianSlippers' posts. Politics newbies get to wonder at the remarkable level of respect this guy has for his fellow man and everyone wins like Charlie Sheen.


  • Advertisement
  • #901
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,322 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    As a side note, I have to agree with FreudianSlippers above on his point about use of the word "scumbags" and I find this quote/response particularly entertaining:
    Scofflaw wrote:
    I'm terribly sorry we don't meet your high standards!

    ... but it brings me neatly to my main point.

    Now I know that this forum and it's sub-fora has a rather high-minded, inflated opinion of itself and the moderation reflects that when warnings and even bans are handed out to those who don't meet the "high standards" of the place, but let's be clear on this - this is an Internet Discussion Forum.. not the conference room of the Law Society or whatever you'd like it to be.

    I agree that pointless sniping, bitching or the like has no place in a forum like this, but this heavy-handed, "superior" attitude on what qualifies as an "acceptable standard" is frankly laughable.

    For example, as you may/may not know, I have a big issue with the attacks that go on on this forum against those who are unemployed by those who think that because they are still working, this somehow entitles them to belittle, condescend and insult those that aren't - the latest trend is the belief that working seems to entitle you to define how "your" taxes are spent and you get to tell others what they can/can't do with the pittance they get (the fact that the vast vast majority of those people who are unemployed are people who contributed to "the system" for years and as such they are only getting back a small fraction of what they've paid in seems to be conveniently ignored however).

    Speaking of ignored - are these self-righteous keyboard economists pulled up for their trolling (because a lot of the time that's all it is) - no!
    Instead, in a recent thread on handing back your children's allowance, *I* start getting PMs from your mods telling me I've been "infracted" (twice no less!) for questioning the acceptance of the mods of this behaviour and using the term "scumbags" in the context of decent people being treated as same!

    Now don't get me wrong, I certainly didn't lose any sleep over an anonymous "warning" from 2 mods on an Internet Forum whose only response to these points was to pass the buck to this thread, but I do find it very bemusing given - again - the supposed (and apparently arbitrary) high standards that we are all expected to adhere to.

    Unfortunately however I have a real life and responsibilities away from the oh-so-serious confines of the Politics/Irish Economy fora so I haven't had a chance to raise this until now, but I would be most interested in hearing how certain posters continually posting in the aforementioned manner without reprisal fits in with the "high standards" of the place.

    No doubt of course I'll get another "infraction" for this post too, or maybe a banning, but - as I mentioned in that thread - the one consolation I suppose is that thankfully nothing that is posted here will actually influence policy because then we would have real problems!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement