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…3233353738…89

Comments

  • #1022
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Jesus K-9, practising for your new job as a TD?

    If you don't have a good answer say you already answered it and move the discussion along until everyone forgets you have nothing useful to say works better off of the Internet.

    Apologies for getting frustrated, I already had said I'd answered it a couple of times.

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



  • #1023
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    K-9 wrote: »
    No, no, I do get your point but I don't think you are getting the mods. There are very rare cases were it might not be actioned but usually it will get carded or an on thread warning.

    Well it was more that you repeatedly directed me to AH or some other 'more appropriate' forum as if I was requesting a more lax set of rules of moderation. Scofflaw has cleared up why the ban was necessary, because the word became an over-used meme. I still disagree with a 'banned word list' as it will just increase in length and is not a sustainable solution to moderating posters behaviour.

    Lax enforcement of the general rules led to the insertion of 'scum' or 'scumbag' in posts on the forum with gay abandon in situations where it was inappropriate or added nothing. This should have been nipped in the bud but wasn't and got to a point where the word was the bane of many threads, and it impoverished posting standards generally. So I can see why a ban was necessary under these conditions. I don't necessarily see why a ban is still necessary however.

    BUT my main point is that banning words will not stop the proliferation of a throwaway phrase in the future, or at least in order to do so, the banned words list has to keep getting longer - so it isn't a logical sustainable approach in the long run. A better approach is simply enforcing the rules on posting standards - which aren't limited to civility in a post, but also substance of a post i.e. you don't have to be uncivil to get a warning or infraction. This approach requires no 'prohibited words list' and does not require the diluting of standards here, which I had interpreted as what you were implying I wanted.

    Although it may look like pages of niggling about a rule that most posters take no issue with, my point is intended to be a constructive comment about maintaining general rules which can allow for moderator discretion in light of specific contexts.


  • #1024
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Well it was more that you repeatedly directed me to AH or some other 'more appropriate' forum as if I was requesting a more lax set of rules of moderation. Scofflaw has cleared up why the ban was necessary, because the word became an over-used meme. I still disagree with a 'banned word list' as it will just increase in length and is not a sustainable solution to moderating posters behaviour.

    Lax enforcement of the general rules led to the insertion of 'scum' or 'scumbag' in posts on the forum with gay abandon in situations where it was inappropriate or added nothing. This should have been nipped in the bud but wasn't and got to a point where the word was the bane of many threads, and it impoverished posting standards generally. So I can see why a ban was necessary under these conditions. I don't necessarily see why a ban is still necessary however.

    BUT my main point is that banning words will not stop the proliferation of a throwaway phrase in the future, or at least in order to do so, the banned words list has to keep getting longer - so it isn't a logical sustainable approach in the long run. A better approach is simply enforcing the rules on posting standards - which aren't limited to civility in a post, but also substance of a post i.e. you don't have to be uncivil to get a warning or infraction. This approach requires no 'prohibited words list' and does not require the diluting of standards here, which I had interpreted as what you were implying I wanted.

    Although it may look like pages of niggling about a rule that most posters take no issue with, my point is intended to be a constructive comment about maintaining general rules which can allow for moderator discretion in light of specific contexts.

    I accept the point about the inflexibility of word lists - as a programmer, I couldn't do otherwise - but I would say that the ban having been instituted on the basis of popularity automatically implies that a word will be leaving the banned list once its popularity is over. In the case of 'scumbag', I feel that it's still too strong a meme to be allowed out of the penalty box just yet. Give it another year or so.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1025
    Laminations
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I accept the point about the inflexibility of word lists - as a programmer, I couldn't do otherwise - but I would say that the ban having been instituted on the basis of popularity automatically implies that a word will be leaving the banned list once its popularity is over. In the case of 'scumbag', I feel that it's still too strong a meme to be allowed out of the penalty box just yet. Give it another year or so.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Ok that's understandable. But as a general approach going forward implementing forum rules rather that waiting for a word to gain meme status would be more appropriate yes. Not letting things get out of hand would avoid the need for a banned word list - or at least the need to add new words to it


  • #1026
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Ok that's understandable. But as a general approach going forward implementing forum rules rather that waiting for a word to gain meme status would be more appropriate yes. Not letting things get out of hand would avoid the need for a banned word list - or at least the need to add new words to it

    Well, next time the country plunges into its deepest ever recession, takes a punt worth three times its GDP on dodgy banks, falls into the arms of the IMF as a result, suffers a collapse of a sitting government and the electoral dismemberment of its traditional majority party, while struggling to retain its membership of a joint currency apparently on the verge of implosion in a continent beset by squabbling powers, I'll obviously have to work harder to ensure that high standards of civility are maintained.

    OK, that's slightly sarky, but I hope you take my point.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    I'm always curious as to the disproportionately high number of Sinn Fein/Northern Ireland/IRA type threads in here. I have literally never heard anyone discussing any of these topics in real life (apart from a direct reaction to an item on the news).

    Now, I'm from Cork so which is geographicallyas far from Ulster as one can be on this island. Maybe most people down here just don't care about these issues or perhaps it's just the people that I know. Maybe other people are passing me on the street every day having heated discussions about whether SF will hold a referendum on reunification before 2020 or if the IRA's 'cause' justified their actions.

    Are there other people out there who love discussing these topics or are most of these threads started by Nationalists living in Northern Ireland?


  • #1028
    gaffer91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭gaffer91


    Any chance we could have a separate forum for NI related threads? They're seriously clogging up the first page recently.


  • #1029
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Why can't I start a thread with a poll in it in this forum?


  • #1030
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Brussels Sprout wrote: »
    Why can't I start a thread with a poll in it in this forum?

    In brief, because they invariably get stacked. The poll facility has been disabled since the year dot, and to be honest I'm not even sure where the switch is or who has it now.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1031
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,849 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    In brief, because they invariably get stacked.

    Fair enough. I can see your point. Over on politics.ie they have a "who would you vote for in a general election held today" thread and Sinn Fein are clear in 1st place by 15 percentage points!


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Following on from the feedback thread: I don't fully understand where the line between policy/theory is drawn for the forum; I have a better idea from the feedback thread, but I don't know how to tell when my posts might be going too much into theory enough, to get a warning.

    Is just explaining things in your own words, when it becomes relevant to a thread (i.e. when challenged about part of your argument), without linking to or mentioning specific theories, good enough?

    Does this (taken from the feedback thread) go too much into theory?
    One of the primary ways inflation is caused, is (simplified) the demand for a good exceeding the supply of that good; if demand for a good drops below its supply, you can use money creation to buy up goods and increase demand, with little or no inflationary penalty.

    When an economic downturn happens, demand for labour, goods, and industry in general, falls well short of supply; this is often caused by excessive private debt, sucking up demand.

    Enormous amounts of created money can be pumped into private debt, into consumers hands, and into combining idle labour and idle industry, before demand meets supply again (you need to individually consider demand/supply for each of labour, specific industry, and specific goods); this allows an enormous amount of room, before created money will cause inflation.
    Pretty much all of my MMT arguments hinge on that, so if I mention any MMT-based policies and get challenged, I'd need to be able to post that to defend my arguments.


  • #1033
    HHobo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭HHobo


    Don't know where else to make this comment but here seems relevant.

    The mods on here are ludicrous at times. At times!

    I saw one mod threatening a ban on someone because he was using a "hasty generalisation" in an opinion thread. While no fan of logically fallacies, they don't really apply to someones perception of the world and indeed even where they to, so what. If you start policing every opinion discussion as though it were a rigourous logical debate, you might as well save some time and shut down the whole site :)

    Given the above it seems likely that this particular mod just didn't like the opinion they were seeing. Very poor moderation.

    I just saw a thread closed becasue according to the moderator "After hours doesn't care". Bizarre.

    There are a few mods on here who could do with dialing it back a notch.


  • #1034
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    One of the biggest problems with the Irish economy sub-forum is threads about other issues that descend into public/private sector arguments. For example, only today, a thread was started entitled "What recession?" about whether the retail experience mirrored the perceived slump the economy as in and by the 22nd post we had a mod (albeit one from another forum) asking the OP "So, you're not going to tell us you're in the public sector!". This post was the third in a series driving at the same agenda that the background of the poster determined their views. An unacceptably low level of debate yet the post has got five thanks to date.

    I have a suggestion to make. Could the mods enforce a rule whereby the first person to introduce public/private sector issues into an unrelated thread get a ban? If it had applied in the aforementioned thread, the sniping wouldn't have happened.


  • #1035
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Godge wrote: »
    One of the biggest problems with the Irish economy sub-forum is threads about other issues that descend into public/private sector arguments. For example, only today, a thread was started entitled "What recession?" about whether the retail experience mirrored the perceived slump the economy as in and by the 22nd post we had a mod (albeit one from another forum) asking the OP "So, you're not going to tell us you're in the public sector!". This post was the third in a series driving at the same agenda that the background of the poster determined their views. An unacceptably low level of debate yet the post has got five thanks to date.

    I have a suggestion to make. Could the mods enforce a rule whereby the first person to introduce public/private sector issues into an unrelated thread get a ban? If it had applied in the aforementioned thread, the sniping wouldn't have happened.

    As far as I'm aware I've acted on any off topic posts like that which have been reported, usually with an on thread warning but again if somebody is a repeat offender, put a note in the reported post. We can't catch everything especially at this time of year.

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



  • #1036
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    HHobo wrote: »
    Don't know where else to make this comment but here seems relevant.

    The mods on here are ludicrous at times. At times!

    I saw one mod threatening a ban on someone because he was using a "hasty generalisation" in an opinion thread. While no fan of logically fallacies, they don't really apply to someones perception of the world and indeed even where they to, so what. If you start policing every opinion discussion as though it were a rigourous logical debate, you might as well save some time and shut down the whole site :)

    Given the above it seems likely that this particular mod just didn't like the opinion they were seeing. Very poor moderation.

    I just saw a thread closed becasue according to the moderator "After hours doesn't care". Bizarre.

    There are a few mods on here who could do with dialing it back a notch.

    I take it this a more general sitewide issue rather than a politics board one?

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



  • #1037
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I've been warned for soapboxing over discussing my economic views, but it is a similar situation to what has occurred in the past, where warning me for posting my economic views basically allows other posters to continue with their own entirely false economic views, with only my own countering views being suppressed.

    There are dozens upon dozens of posters regularly promoting austerity narrative nonsense, and I am the only poster backing my particular set of views, which describe how the austerity narrative is false, and which describe the available solutions which don't involve austerity (not to say there aren't other anti-austerity posters - I just don't think I've seen others who describe a complete framework of solutions that counters the austerity and deficit-scaremongering narrative).

    I should not be penalized, just because my views tend to get mobbed by right-wing posters - this allows those right-wing posters promoting austerity to go by uncontested, and it suppresses my own views - it is not possible to strike a balance between the two with moderation as far as I can see, considering the vast number of posters constantly posting the false austerity narrative.


    Economic views promoting austerity, or neoclassical economics (or basically any other branch of economics), should have no greater precedent than my own economic views.

    Also, every thread about politics that touches on economics (i.e. every thread where it is valid for a poster to start going on about deficit-cutting, public sector cuts, solutions to the crisis in Ireland/elsewhere etc. etc.), is relevant to my views, because my views have wide ranging effects on all of politics whenever deficits, public debt, and whatnot are discussed.


    In the past, moderators have not given my views a fair look either, usually just point-blank refusing to, even though the macroeconomic theories they seem to use, are falsified by 'endogenous money', which is easy enough to verify.

    Also, last time the line drawn by mods over what is acceptable to discuss, was really not made very clear at all, and seemed to be taken as antagonistic when I was confused about or debated over that - it would be good if it were made as clear as possible, as (even though I'm vocal about these topics :p) I'm not intentionally creating an issue for mods.


    Also - the warning in the thread I was posting in, seems to be partly to do with me pointing out that a question, is not a yes/no question:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85882458&postcount=80

    I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out - the UK could easily choose policies that result in either a yes (maintaining or rolling-over national debt) or a no (paying down national debt) answer, and I don't know which policies the UK will choose, so it's not as simple as a yes/no?


  • #1038
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    First, thanks for taking this to the appropriate thread for discussion!
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I've been warned for soapboxing over discussing my economic views, but it is a similar situation to what has occurred in the past, where warning me for posting my economic views basically allows other posters to continue with their own entirely false economic views, with only my own countering views being suppressed.

    There are dozens upon dozens of posters regularly promoting austerity narrative nonsense, and I am the only poster backing my particular set of views, which describe how the austerity narrative is false, and which describe the available solutions which don't involve austerity (not to say there aren't other anti-austerity posters - I just don't think I've seen others who describe a complete framework of solutions that counters the austerity and deficit-scaremongering narrative).

    I should not be penalized, just because my views tend to get mobbed by right-wing posters - this allows those right-wing posters promoting austerity to go by uncontested, and it suppresses my own views - it is not possible to strike a balance between the two with moderation as far as I can see, considering the vast number of posters constantly posting the false austerity narrative.


    Economic views promoting austerity, or neoclassical economics (or basically any other branch of economics), should have no greater precedent than my own economic views.

    Also, every thread about politics that touches on economics (i.e. every thread where it is valid for a poster to start going on about deficit-cutting, public sector cuts, solutions to the crisis in Ireland/elsewhere etc. etc.), is relevant to my views, because my views have wide ranging effects on all of politics whenever deficits, public debt, and whatnot are discussed.

    OK, well, let's start here. I appreciate that you're the only person carrying your particular torch, and, as I said in my warning on the thread, you have every right (obviously) to your particular economic view, and I have no intention of stating that you don't, and no wish to prevent you airing it - within reason.

    The "within reason" bit is important, though, because a forum is not simply a passive channel through which you can transmit your views - it's also a community of posters. That means the moderators cannot in good faith allow one or other poster to dominate discussions, no matter how strongly they hold their views, how widely applicable those views are, or how many other people are (according to the poster) wrong.

    To put that another way, this is a discussion forum, not an arena. By asking you to moderate your tendency to address each and every example of other posters being wrong, I'm not handicapping you in a fight which you need to win - I am asking you not to monopolise discussions which other people may also be interested in. If you view it as me suppressing your "side of the argument", you're viewing it wrong, because the forum is not simply a place for one particular argument.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    In the past, moderators have not given my views a fair look either, usually just point-blank refusing to, even though the macroeconomic theories they seem to use, are falsified by 'endogenous money', which is easy enough to verify.

    That's a call for moderators to subscribe to your particular viewpoint, which is, or rather should be, self-evidently wrong.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Also, last time the line drawn by mods over what is acceptable to discuss, was really not made very clear at all, and seemed to be taken as antagonistic when I was confused about or debated over that - it would be good if it were made as clear as possible, as (even though I'm vocal about these topics :p) I'm not intentionally creating an issue for mods.

    I appreciate that fully, but nevertheless, it's creating an issue because of your sheer doggedness in rebutting any and all who are wrong.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Also - the warning in the thread I was posting in, seems to be partly to do with me pointing out that a question, is not a yes/no question:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85882458&postcount=80

    I don't see what is wrong with pointing that out - the UK could easily choose policies that result in either a yes (maintaining or rolling-over national debt) or a no (paying down national debt) answer, and I don't know which policies the UK will choose, so it's not as simple as a yes/no?

    It's irrelevant which the UK chooses, because that wasn't the question - the question was whether they habitually do so (they do), with the implication that an argument you were making, which hinged on the idea of them not doing so, was a poor argument.

    Which brings me to my second point, and the one which provoked my warning to you, which is that in your battle to bring others to economic enlightenment, you tend to soapbox rather than discuss - that is, to stonewall and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts rather than openly and honestly addressing them. I use "tend" deliberately there, since you're by no means the worst, and it's a flaw rather than your modus operandi, something that I think happens in the heat of argument rather than willingly.

    Nevertheless, when combined with your willingness to engage with absolutely everyone who is wrong, it's an issue.

    When I open the Economics forum, and find that an appreciable proportion of the threads I open consist of a couple of pages of general discussion involving several posters, and then several pages of KyussBishop versus certain others, I see that as a problem. It's not good for the forum, I'm afraid, because it looks like it's driving other posters out of discussions, bar those who want to go head to head with you. Certainly I find it off-putting as a poster, because it means that I can either (a) make a post which has nothing to do with your dogfight with rightwing posters, which will get lost in the multiple posts of the dogfight; (b) engage in the dogfight myself; or (c) not bother to post. Generally, I find I choose (c), and it's hardly because I'm a shrinking violet unwilling to stand up for my personal views.

    So all that's actually being asked of you is to moderate your level of engagement on this forum. Put down the megaphone occasionally, and let other people speak. If you can't, then you'll have to have it moderated for you, I'm afraid, because this is not the "KyussBisop's Alternative Economics Forum".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1039
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The "within reason" bit is important, though, because a forum is not simply a passive channel through which you can transmit your views - it's also a community of posters. That means the moderators cannot in good faith allow one or other poster to dominate discussions, no matter how strongly they hold their views, how widely applicable those views are, or how many other people are (according to the poster) wrong.

    To put that another way, this is a discussion forum, not an arena. By asking you to moderate your tendency to address each and every example of other posters being wrong, I'm not handicapping you in a fight which you need to win - I am asking you not to monopolise discussions which other people may also be interested in. If you view it as me suppressing your "side of the argument", you're viewing it wrong, because the forum is not simply a place for one particular argument.
    That's fair enough and I agree with that, but this is what happens with the austerity narrative? (except it's not one poster, but many, leading to it being more acceptable)
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's a call for moderators to subscribe to your particular viewpoint, which is, or rather should be, self-evidently wrong.
    Well, It's more pointing out that mainstream macroeconomic views are wrong empirically at this stage (which can be shown by central bank policymaking within the banking system), and will eventually be discarded; in case they may be treated as 'correct' or given precedence in discussion (not saying they are given precedence, just pointing that out on the off-chance).
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I appreciate that fully, but nevertheless, it's creating an issue because of your sheer doggedness in rebutting any and all who are wrong.
    That's fair enough, but again, this is the same with the austerity narrative in every thread? (just many posters instead of one)
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    It's irrelevant which the UK chooses, because that wasn't the question - the question was whether they habitually do so (they do), with the implication that an argument you were making, which hinged on the idea of them not doing so, was a poor argument.
    Isn't that tied to how they manage public debt though? Even when they do (increasing/renewing public debt), my argument still stood, because there is a limit to how much in bonds they will give out, so banks can't endlessly put money into UK bonds.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which brings me to my second point, and the one which provoked my warning to you, which is that in your battle to bring others to economic enlightenment, you tend to soapbox rather than discuss - that is, to stonewall and refuse to acknowledge inconvenient facts rather than openly and honestly addressing them. I use "tend" deliberately there, since you're by no means the worst, and it's a flaw rather than your modus operandi, something that I think happens in the heat of argument rather than willingly.
    Okey, well I certainly don't intentionally do this, or be conscious of it - be curious to see places where I've done this, just to know.

    The only recent thing I can think of which may appear like this (but which had a good reason), is in Political Theory where posters were trying to ignore my macroeconomic arguments and deflect into nitpicking questions on the Job Guarantee, which I refused to answer until macroeconomic differences were hashed out (due to JG discussions always becoming a debate over macroeconomics).
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Nevertheless, when combined with your willingness to engage with absolutely everyone who is wrong, it's an issue.
    Fair enough, though I keep coming back to the austerity narrative posters doing the same :) (just more acceptably due to numbers)
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    When I open the Economics forum, and find that an appreciable proportion of the threads I open consist of a couple of pages of general discussion involving several posters, and then several pages of KyussBishop versus certain others, I see that as a problem. It's not good for the forum, I'm afraid, because it looks like it's driving other posters out of discussions, bar those who want to go head to head with you. Certainly I find it off-putting as a poster, because it means that I can either (a) make a post which has nothing to do with your dogfight with rightwing posters, which will get lost in the multiple posts of the dogfight; (b) engage in the dogfight myself; or (c) not bother to post. Generally, I find I choose (c), and it's hardly because I'm a shrinking violet unwilling to stand up for my personal views.
    Okey well I can understand that, as it does tend to take over threads and I don't intentionally want to be derailing them and driving away discussion like that - the problem is the vast number of austerity narrative posters will always dominate discussion uncontested, which drives away posters for other reasons (I've seen plenty of posters over time express this sentiment), and also leads to people accepting the 'there is no alternative' line of arguments.

    I doubt there's anything that can be done about that effect from those posters mind, it just kind of becomes an echo chamber of that kind of (what I would call) propaganda (since it's mostly not logic based, and often is just the same rickety moral/emotional arguments over and over).
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    So all that's actually being asked of you is to moderate your level of engagement on this forum. Put down the megaphone occasionally, and let other people speak. If you can't, then you'll have to have it moderated for you, I'm afraid, because this is not the "KyussBisop's Alternative Economics Forum".
    Heh, fair enough - I've been posting a lot more lately on the topic than I normally would as well I think, which adds to that - though I do think, as discussed above, it creates a kind of imbalance in the narrative that ends up dominating the forum - I'm not sure there's much that can be done about that mind.

    I do think it is important to contest though (in general, not in any one particular place), because the sheer prevalence of that narrative pretty much everywhere, is extremely successful in making people think there are no alternatives.


  • #1040
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    mogrady14 wrote: »
    KyussBishop does make some valid points that are relevant to the subject of water meters so is it fair to ban him?
    For Instance he is right about huge amount of water leaks losing 40-50% of total water.

    Frankly, that's up to the forum community at this stage, as outlined in the post. If people want to continue to engage with Kyuss, then he's an asset to the forum - if they only engage because they can't stop themselves but would prefer not to do so, then he's not.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #1041
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    It effectively is a banned topic altogether to be honest, so I would prefer it not to be implied like it is ok to talk about sometimes, just 'not too much' because the rule is completely arbitrary, leaving me with no idea of where the line is drawn, and you to apply it anytime you like without me knowing when something is 'too much' - just come out and say it is a banned topic, as at least then we can get to discussing that and its implications on the forum.

    I mean how am I supposed to ever mention it at all, when I don't know if I'm constantly tight-roping a ban? How is that not meant to cause a chilling effect that makes me completely unable to mention the topic, anywhere, ever?
    There can't be such inconsistency in rules - if it is not well defined, it's just aggravation for both of us.

    The vast majority of my posts in that thread directly relate to the water meters, and when it is said the only ways to fund water infrastructure improvements are through taxes/debt, it is pretty valid to point out the alternative, and am I then supposed to leave it undefended when the usual sneering comes out? (with the posts moving so fast in the thread at the time, it's also pretty easy for a small mention of something to balloon into wider posts as I reply to someone)


    You also didn't reply to any of the countering concerns in my second post above, pointing out the double standard regarding austerity narrative, and how that is left to dominate every discussion - similar situation, except legitimized because it is done by multiple posters.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    It effectively is a banned topic altogether to be honest, so I would prefer it not to be implied like it is ok to talk about sometimes, just 'not too much' because the rule is completely arbitrary, leaving me with no idea of where the line is drawn, and you to apply it anytime you like without me knowing when something is 'too much' - just come out and say it is a banned topic, as at least then we can get to discussing that and its implications on the forum.

    I mean how am I supposed to ever mention it at all, when I don't know if I'm constantly tight-roping a ban? How is that not meant to cause a chilling effect that makes me completely unable to mention the topic, anywhere, ever?
    There can't be such inconsistency in rules - if it is not well defined, it's just aggravation for both of us.

    The vast majority of my posts in that thread directly relate to the water meters, and when it is said the only ways to fund water infrastructure improvements are through taxes/debt, it is pretty valid to point out the alternative, and am I then supposed to leave it undefended when the usual sneering comes out? (with the posts moving so fast in the thread at the time, it's also pretty easy for a small mention of something to balloon into wider posts as I reply to someone)

    Yes, hence my post on the water charges thread. Kyuss, there is no intrinsic problem with your espousal of your theory. The problem, as I've already said, comes because you defend that theory doggedly and on every conceivable occasion - as well as some occasions which people frankly find inconceivable.

    I do, as I said, take your point that your engagement only happens, in a sense, because people engage with you - and the reason there's no hard and fast rule here is because it really is up to the other posters whether your somewhat monomaniacal posting is a problem preventing discussion or an opportunity for discussion.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    You also didn't reply to any of the countering concerns in my second post above, pointing out the double standard regarding austerity narrative, and how that is left to dominate every discussion - similar situation, except legitimized because it is done by multiple posters.

    I did - I said yes, that's exactly right. It is legitimised because it's done by multiple posters. There are a camp of posters who buy into the austerity narrative, and there are a camp of posters who oppose that narrative - and both of those are fine. You are not the only poster opposing the "austerity narrative", the weight of opposing the austerity narrative does not rest solely on your shoulders, and you should give it a break.

    I don't want to ban someone from a politico-economic forum for their persistent defence of a particular politco-economic position, and I will only do so if that persistent defence represents a problem for the other posters.

    Regrettably, we lack a formal mechanism for determining that (digital potshards would be good), and the messages I'm getting are currently conflicting - you generate a lot of reports, but people also engage. If people are happy to engage with you, they really ought not to be reporting you, and if they're reporting you, they ought not to be engaging with you. Currently, they're doing both, which means I have a nagging sensation that you're causing a problem, but the equally strong impression that it would be wrong to ban you.

    So it's really up to the forum community to determine this one - PM me, vote with your feet, whatever.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #1043
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Yes, hence my post on the water charges thread. Kyuss, there is no intrinsic problem with your espousal of your theory. The problem, as I've already said, comes because you defend that theory doggedly and on every conceivable occasion - as well as some occasions which people frankly find inconceivable.

    I do, as I said, take your point that your engagement only happens, in a sense, because people engage with you - and the reason there's no hard and fast rule here is because it really is up to the other posters whether your somewhat monomaniacal posting is a problem preventing discussion or an opportunity for discussion.
    If it takes two (or typically a lot more - I'm usually one poster vs many) to derail, why am only I getting censure and heavy implication of an impending ban, if the topic is a valid one for discussion?
    I should not be penalized because other posters take regular extreme exception, to the points I raise - that is effectively punishing me for mentioning a topic (and/or forcing me not to defend it), ever, even when it is valid to make a brief point on it.

    I am perfectly happy to just air my points of view briefly "that we are limited to policies x, y, is not true, we have this policy z (job guarantee, EU debt, money creation, etc.) as well", and then just leave it at that and not post further.
    As you say though, it is up to other posters whether to pick at that, and I defend my points of view when challenged, and they defend theirs.


    That is actually what happened in that thread, but your warning makes the implication, that I was already going to receive a ban but was let off because others responded:
    Can you show that post which (absent a reply, before the wider debate started) would have gotten me a ban?

    I've looked back and don't think such a post exists - which makes me pretty certain the rule is so arbitrary, that it will definitely lead to a ban, unless I completely censor myself.
    I think this really needs to be cleared up, because this is not just a "sorry you feel that way" type of problem, it is real - you do see that this leads to complete censoring of the topic? It's like I can mention it, but I can get arbitrarily banned at any moment for doing so.

    Avoiding that seems to be avoiding the real problem: The type of argument the topic attracts.
    That is usually a variety of sneering, repeatedly asserting the same false arguments I've already debunked endlessly, and just ignoring every counterargument I present, among more - that's not my issue, that is other posters issue.


  • #1044
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Separating this bit into a second post, as it raises some issues warranting discussion on their own merit:
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I did - I said yes, that's exactly right. It is legitimised because it's done by multiple posters. There are a camp of posters who buy into the austerity narrative, and there are a camp of posters who oppose that narrative - and both of those are fine. You are not the only poster opposing the "austerity narrative", the weight of opposing the austerity narrative does not rest solely on your shoulders, and you should give it a break.

    I don't want to ban someone from a politico-economic forum for their persistent defence of a particular politco-economic position, and I will only do so if that persistent defence represents a problem for the other posters.
    This makes it incredibly easy to dominate/control all political discourse in the forum, by numbers alone - isn't that a very big problem? (especially seeing as it is a heavily shilled topic online, and that there is no way to determine who the shills are)

    I think it's a large problem, when consensus-based views start to drive a forum like that - it's exactly unpopular topics like MMT, that trigger a lot of an unconstructive/strong reaction, that are some of the more critically important political topics that need discussion.

    It effectively allows people to slur a topic, or just use gutter-level arguments against it, to drive it off the forum - the range of poor argument against my posts on the topic, is pretty consistent and unchanging, so is easy to spot there.
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Regrettably, we lack a formal mechanism for determining that (digital potshards would be good), and the messages I'm getting are currently conflicting - you generate a lot of reports, but people also engage. If people are happy to engage with you, they really ought not to be reporting you, and if they're reporting you, they ought not to be engaging with you. Currently, they're doing both, which means I have a nagging sensation that you're causing a problem, but the equally strong impression that it would be wrong to ban you.

    So it's really up to the forum community to determine this one - PM me, vote with your feet, whatever.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    To be quite honest, that sounds a lot like people trying to suppress a topic from discussion 100%, because they want it shut down completely due to ideological differences (that is exactly what every discussion on that topic feels like), and who are only willing to do that in an underhanded way instead of openly stating it.

    We both know there are shills online with a modus operandi explicitly for trying to shut down debate like this, using whatever gutter-level tactics they can (though I'd say a fair few posters are just doggedly ideological rather than shills) - they won't win a debate against me, so in those debates they throw mud instead of valid argument, and when that doesn't work they try to remove me from discussion, which means instead of coming to this thread to have an open discussion about any 'issues' (where they will have to defend themselves), they rely on reports instead.


    That they are still arguing with me, particularly using gutter-level arguments a lot of the time, explicitly shows they want to shut down what I am saying, and are not concerned about the quality of debate (as it is usually they who start with sneering and repeated fallacious assertions which they know are false - extremely poor level of argument).

    I would imagine most of these are the same posters, pushing the austerity narrative - it is extremely clear to me, that they want this to be the only valid topic of discussion for certain threads on this forum, which is why they react so vehemently to the alternatives I post.


  • #1045
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I am perfectly happy to just air my points of view briefly "that we are limited to policies x, y, is not true, we have this policy z (job guarantee, EU debt, money creation, etc.) as well", and then just leave it at that and not post further.
    As you say though, it is up to other posters whether to pick at that, and I defend my points of view when challenged, and they defend theirs.
    That's not a line of argument that works for me.

    In a recent example, I'm arguing that we need to introduce water metering to curb demand for a scarce resource. You counter that we don't need water metering, because we just need to vastly increase the supply so that people can use all the water they want. I point out that increasing the supply isn't something we can easily afford to do, and you reply that we could easily afford to do it if we subscribed to your economic theories.

    Now, that's a conversational impasse. I can't continue to argue my perspective without providing you with a soap box, so my only other option is to stop discussing the topic with you, which means that you've hand-waved my entire argument out of the discussion with what many of us believe to be fantasy economics. There's no point discussing any other aspect of the topic with you, because without engaging with the fundamental premise of your argument, there's no basis for a conversation.

    That's my problem with your pet economic theory: it's becoming a deus ex machina to avoid having to discuss the actual economic realities we're facing, and it's utterly tiresome to have topic after topic diverted into the quagmire of a completely theoretical economic discussion.


  • #1046
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    We both know there are shills online with a modus operandi explicitly for trying to shut down debate like this, using whatever gutter-level tactics they can (though I'd say a fair few posters are just doggedly ideological rather than shills) - they won't win a debate against me, so in those debates they throw mud instead of valid argument, and when that doesn't work they try to remove me from discussion, which means instead of coming to this thread to have an open discussion about any 'issues' (where they will have to defend themselves), they rely on reports instead.

    That they are still arguing with me, particularly using gutter-level arguments a lot of the time, explicitly shows they want to shut down what I am saying, and are not concerned about the quality of debate (as it is usually they who start with sneering and repeated fallacious assertions which they know are false - extremely poor level of argument).

    I would imagine most of these are the same posters, pushing the austerity narrative - it is extremely clear to me, that they want this to be the only valid topic of discussion for certain threads on this forum, which is why they react so vehemently to the alternatives I post.

    Calling people shills is a particularly poor debating tactic, since you've no supporting evidence whatsoever to back this up.

    To be honest, for those who've butted heads with, it's hard to win. They can either engage with you and see a thread dragged off topic with walls of text on your own economic theory. They can ignore your MMT arguments and just stick to the topic at hand then be told that they aren't engaging. Or they can be dismissive and then be told that they're employing gutter level arguments.

    A case in point is the water charges thread. It has nothing to do with MMT, yet still you managed to drag it into it. Posters who don't subscribe to your views are left either having to try to ignore that aspect of your posts or having to engage with something that's fairly off-topic.

    On an issue such as water charges, can it not be possible to leave MMT at the door, i.e. accept that whatever your views on the desirability of it, nobody is going to start printing money to fund water projects, so the discussion should be predicated on the way things are done at the moment, not the way you think they should be done.


  • #1047
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Now, that's a conversational impasse. I can't continue to argue my perspective without providing you with a soap box, so my only other option is to stop discussing the topic with you, which means that you've hand-waved my entire argument out of the discussion with what many of us believe to be fantasy economics. There's no point discussing any other aspect of the topic with you, because without engaging with the fundamental premise of your argument, there's no basis for a conversation.
    Agreed. Essentially you can be discussing anything, such as water supplies, the Euro, Sterling or the price of widgets, and inevitably the entire discussion is dragged permanently off-topic onto a soapbox designed to evangelize pet economic theories.

    Even if one were willing to go down that rabbit hole, the original thread is spoiled as the ensuing debate on these theories would end up dominating the discussion. You really are then faced with just dropping out of said discussion, as one really cannot afford the time to debate here for the next week, full-time, on a topic one didn't sign onto in the first place.


  • #1048
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If it takes two (or typically a lot more - I'm usually one poster vs many) to derail, why am only I getting censure and heavy implication of an impending ban, if the topic is a valid one for discussion?
    I should not be penalized because other posters take regular extreme exception, to the points I raise - that is effectively punishing me for mentioning a topic (and/or forcing me not to defend it), ever, even when it is valid to make a brief point on it.

    I am perfectly happy to just air my points of view briefly "that we are limited to policies x, y, is not true, we have this policy z (job guarantee, EU debt, money creation, etc.) as well", and then just leave it at that and not post further.
    As you say though, it is up to other posters whether to pick at that, and I defend my points of view when challenged, and they defend theirs.


    That is actually what happened in that thread, but your warning makes the implication, that I was already going to receive a ban but was let off because others responded:
    Can you show that post which (absent a reply, before the wider debate started) would have gotten me a ban?

    There is no individual post, but I can show whole threads which have - as per my previous warning to you on this thread - turned into "Kyuss versus others on topics only tangentially related to the OP". The water charges thread is the latest.
    KyussBishop wrote: »
    I've looked back and don't think such a post exists - which makes me pretty certain the rule is so arbitrary, that it will definitely lead to a ban, unless I completely censor myself.
    I think this really needs to be cleared up, because this is not just a "sorry you feel that way" type of problem, it is real - you do see that this leads to complete censoring of the topic? It's like I can mention it, but I can get arbitrarily banned at any moment for doing so.

    Avoiding that seems to be avoiding the real problem: The type of argument the topic attracts.
    That is usually a variety of sneering, repeatedly asserting the same false arguments I've already debunked endlessly, and just ignoring every counterargument I present, among more - that's not my issue, that is other posters issue.

    Unfortunately, your posts here are demonstrating at least a couple of the problems at issue. You've become a brick wall, as evangelists often do, your style of argument has increasingly become dismissive, evasive, larded with ad hominems, and based on the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you (including the mods) wants to suppress your truth - so the only real question is whether people are enjoying bashing their heads against that brick wall or not.

    I don't want to ban you, but if you insist on treating the forum as your personal soapbox, then I'm going to. You've shown no willingness to change your style, so it really ought to be a permaban straight off.

    If anyone wishes to speak up in Kyuss' defence, please do so.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #1049
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The beauty of Boards.ie is that differing opinions can be discussed. God knows I've been accused of being a Government shill often enough! Opening a topic and seeing reams of replies and analysis in one post is just a big turnoff. We've all got to accept that others are entitled to their opinions. If we all thought alike, it'd be a very dull, boring existence.


  • #1050
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The beauty of Boards.ie is that differing opinions can be discussed. God knows I've been accused of being a Government shill often enough! Opening a topic and seeing reams of replies and analysis in one post is just a big turnoff. We've all got to accept that others are entitled to their opinions. If we all thought alike, it'd be a very dull, boring existence.

    There's no problem - quite the opposite - with Kyuss espousing a particular politico-economic position. The problem is that he turns every thread into a thread about his politico-economic opinion.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's not a line of argument that works for me.

    In a recent example, I'm arguing that we need to introduce water metering to curb demand for a scarce resource. You counter that we don't need water metering, because we just need to vastly increase the supply so that people can use all the water they want. I point out that increasing the supply isn't something we can easily afford to do, and you reply that we could easily afford to do it if we subscribed to your economic theories.

    Now, that's a conversational impasse. I can't continue to argue my perspective without providing you with a soap box, so my only other option is to stop discussing the topic with you, which means that you've hand-waved my entire argument out of the discussion with what many of us believe to be fantasy economics. There's no point discussing any other aspect of the topic with you, because without engaging with the fundamental premise of your argument, there's no basis for a conversation.

    That's my problem with your pet economic theory: it's becoming a deus ex machina to avoid having to discuss the actual economic realities we're facing, and it's utterly tiresome to have topic after topic diverted into the quagmire of a completely theoretical economic discussion.
    Rewriting my post to try and make this more succinct:
    Economics is not a belief system, theory has to respect facts, and (while you get to pick your own opinions) you don't get to pick your own facts.
    Your 'economic realities' are based on theory that is factually false, and it is piss easy to show how false it is. (I have done it many times)

    What then, do you use as a base for discussing economics on the forum? There is no mutually acceptable set of economic views out there.
    When you make discussion of economics settle around consensus views, which are contrary to very easily verifiable facts (which is what people are trying to do here), you get the idiocy of people mistaking theory as reality.


    Show me one school of economic thought, you consider as representative of 'reality'?

    People here don't seem to understand that economics as an entire field of study, is in a vast need of change, and that you can't avoid theory, when every political discussion brings up different views based upon different schools of economic thought.

    You can't exclude one school over another, or punish a poster for posting their views (usually just pointing out alternative policies and factual errors) which then get shouted down regularly, by ideological opponents throwing mud (which kind of ignores the problem of the extremely poor quality of arguments used to muddy debate against that poster).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement