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.

1373840424389

Comments

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


    Villain wrote: »
    Maybe not now but have a look back to Bertie's time on the forum, it was rather sickening to be honest!

    Eh, welcome to politics? I mean, if you came on here expecting no FG or Labour apologists you'd be damn naive with them in Government, you'd be even more naive if you didn't expect plenty of people having a go at both Government parties. Excluding any "party plants" you'd expect plenty of pro-FF posters about during a FF Government, just as you'd expect them nearly all of them to fade into the woodwork during a recession partially brought about by FF policy...


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


    I took him to mean that it wasn't ordinary posters being biased towards FF, but the site's admins telling moderators to favour FF, which is bizarre.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Yes I meant mods and how anyone could argue that they weren't biased towards FF back around 2007 is beyond me, have a read back before you start laughing, but as mentioned that is getting off topic. The reason I raised was what was said publicly by mods and what was said privately back then was different.

    I was looking for that to change, Scofflaw replied and how it works which is vastly different to what happened here in the past but I can only accept that it has changed now.


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


    I was a mod here in 2007. I was never - never - instructed by anyone to protect Bertie or FF, and I'm getting pretty tired of the insinuations to the contrary.


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


    I've been around a lot longer than 2007 and never noticed anything like that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I was a mod here in 2007. I was never - never - instructed by anyone to protect Bertie or FF, and I'm getting pretty tired of the insinuations to the contrary.
    Really? So you just agreed that between yourselves then? A fellow mod has confirmed you were follow instructions on Bertie.

    I mean I was banned for having a link to an externally hosted site in my sig because it offered an opinion on Bertie that was 100% supported by Tribunal transcripts!


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


    Villain wrote: »
    Really? So you just agreed that between yourselves then? A fellow mod has confirmed you were follow instructions on Bertie.

    I mean I was banned for having a link to an externally hosted site in my sig because it offered an opinion on Bertie that was 100% supported by Tribunal transcripts!

    We can't ask who this ex mod is as I wouldn't expect you to name him/her, so we only really have your word that this happened. Other mods at the time have categorically said there wasn't a pro-FF bias.

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



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


    Villain wrote: »
    Really? So you just agreed that between yourselves then? A fellow mod has confirmed you were follow instructions on Bertie.
    You're getting dangerously close to calling me a liar.

    As is the case with all mods on this site, the Politics mod team at the time were under instructions to protect the site from the possibility of legal action. You can interpret that as "protecting FF" if that suits whatever axe you're determined to grind to the nub, but to suggest that the mod team in 2007 had a pro-FF bias is so ridiculous it's insulting.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    K-9 wrote: »
    We can't ask who this ex mod is as I wouldn't expect you to name him/her, so we only really have your word that this happened. Other mods at the time have categorically said there wasn't a pro-FF bias.
    You see it's not just the mod's word I have, that just confirmed what I already knew, there was no justification as to why the mods took the stance they did on Bertie and its all there in the old threads for anyone to see.

    Look its done now and the past is the past I just wanted to highlight it to make sure it doesn't happen again the future.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You're getting dangerously close to calling me a liar.

    As is the case with all mods on this site, the Politics mod team at the time were under instructions to protect the site from the possibility of legal action. You can interpret that as "protecting FF" if that suits whatever axe you're determined to grind to the nub, but to suggest that the mod team in 2007 had a pro-FF bias is so ridiculous it's insulting.

    An externally hosted page did not need to be blocked to protect the site so that argument doesn't wash.


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


    Villain wrote: »
    You see it's not just the mod's word I have, that just confirmed what I already knew, there was no justification as to why the mods took the stance they did on Bertie and its all there in the old threads for anyone to see.

    Look its done now and the past is the past I just wanted to highlight it to make sure it doesn't happen again the future.

    Unfortunately I doubt that will be the end of it, it's over 6 years ago and this isn't the first time you've brought it up in the intervening period, so I've no reason to think you wont drag it up again. I've no reason whatsoever to doubt oscar or scofflaw on this.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    K-9 wrote: »
    Unfortunately I doubt that will be the end of it, it's over 6 years ago and this isn't the first time you've brought it up in the intervening period, so I've no reason to think you wont drag it up again. I've no reason whatsoever to doubt oscar or scofflaw on this.

    I brought it up when the Mahon Tribunal findings were released which supported exactly what I said at the time but that wasn't a surprise as anyone who read the transcripts at the time could see the evidence.

    The reason I have brought it up again now is I received confirmation that at least some mods were following instructions on how to deal with posts on Bertie.


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


    Villain wrote:
    An externally hosted page did not need to be blocked to protect the site so that argument doesn't wash.

    I'm afraid you're wrong. Repetition of defamation, allowing repetition of defamation, linking to defamation, all can be used to pull someone into a libel case. Allowing you to link to a defamatory source in your sig would be legally equivalent to repetition of any defamatory material contained in the link, and certainly could be used in court to attach boards.ie to a libel suit.
    Villain wrote: »
    I brought it up when the Mahon Tribunal findings were released which supported exactly what I said at the time but that wasn't a surprise as anyone who read the transcripts at the time could see the evidence.

    The reason I have brought it up again now is I received confirmation that at least some mods were following instructions on how to deal with posts on Bertie.

    I think this is now something you should take up in Feedback. It's not relevant to the current forum, you refuse to say who your source is, or who you're accusing, the issue seems to be that you wanted to be allowed to make or link to defamatory claims and weren't, something that strikes you as fishy because you have an incorrect view of the law on that point - and the matter is at least 6 years old! I'm not willing to see any more of this thread, which has a quite specific purpose, taken up with historical axe-grinding.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,840 ✭✭✭Dav


    Villain wrote: »
    The reason I have brought it up again now is I received confirmation that at least some mods were following instructions on how to deal with posts on Bertie.

    From whom?

    Feel free to PM me to discuss this, lets not drag this particular thread any further off topic.

    You've made a substantial claim that this company has acted in order to pursue some sort of political agenda. I'm telling you right now that we have never done that and to allege any different is something I won't let go un-answered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 hotfoot


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Er, see the earlier set of responses to your earlier posting of this point, to which you already replied?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I am still in the dark on this ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I cant abide FF. I mean I dont much care for any politicians but I particularly dislike FF's brand of old-ireland cute-hoorism.


    I would love if FF tried to pressure us into taking things down. I would scan that letter faster than you can imagine and stick it straight on the site.


    I've also told (and ALWAYS told) the mods that if ever the HQ came and started to try and interfere with the site for reasons OTHER than legal, they are to strike. Down tools and withdraw their labour. And they would, not just the politics mods but most of the rest too. (They can be a bolshie bunch :p).

    So, exactly what are you claiming happened Mr Mitty?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    DeVore wrote: »
    I cant abide FF. I mean I dont much care for any politicians but I particularly dislike FF's brand of old-ireland cute-hoorism.


    I would love if FF tried to pressure us into taking things down. I would scan that letter faster than you can imagine and stick it straight on the site.


    I've also told (and ALWAYS told) the mods that if ever the HQ came and started to try and interfere with the site for reasons OTHER than legal, they are to strike. Down tools and withdraw their labour. And they would, not just the politics mods but most of the rest too. (They can be a bolshie bunch :p).

    So, exactly what are you claiming happened Mr Mitty?
    Mr Mitty? :D

    There was special treatment for the Tribunal and Bertie in particular, once those rules were introduced I linked to an external blog in my sig which had my thoughts on Bertie, this was also not allowed.

    If you want to refresh your memory see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055148331

    Recently a former mod of politics said the mods were following instructions on Bertie which is why I raised it again and requested that any such instructions in future should be made public.


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


    Let me repeat myself from six years ago:
    You can have an opinion on it but calling Bertie a liar isn't having an opinion, it's a claim that the testimony that he gave was untrue and that he knew this at the time. That isn't simply an opinion, it's a very serious claim and unless you can provide evidence backing it up I cannot see why you should be allowed to make that claim here where you are not the one who will be held legally responsible for it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Which mod?

    What instructions?

    Who gave those instructions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    I provided evidence, the very same evidence that the Tribunal used for its findings and they said exactly what I said.


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


    Villain wrote: »
    I provided evidence, the very same evidence that the Tribunal used for its findings and they said exactly what I said.

    The mods can't be clairvoyants though, the tribunal hadn't issued its findings at that stage if I'm correct. Boards gets criticised for erring on the side of caution as regards legal stuff, one high profile example during my time modding AH, that doesn't mean mods got/get politically leaned on.

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    DeVore wrote: »
    Which mod?

    What instructions?

    Who gave those instructions?

    I'm not going to name the mod and I don't know what the instructions were or who gave them, I only know that how matter was dealt with here and it was different to how other discussions on other Politicians were handled.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    This is fiction and make believe.

    I'm out.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,062 ✭✭✭Tramps Like Us


    If you can't call Bertie a liar surely it should apply to everyone, even if they are not typically litigious


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,732 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    DeVore wrote: »
    This is fiction and make believe.

    I'm out.

    Really you don't think Bertie and the Tribunal were handled differently than say threads on Gerry Adams?

    The mod that told me is no friend of mine now and certainly wasn't back then, why would he say it if it wasn't true?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Villain wrote: »
    Really you don't think Bertie and the Tribunal were handled differently than say threads on Gerry Adams?

    The mod that told me is no friend of mine now and certainly wasn't back then, why would he say it if it wasn't true?

    Did it occur to you that the mod may have been saying that they had been instructed to potentially libellous claims in a certain way....?


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


    Villain wrote: »
    The mod that told me is no friend of mine now and certainly wasn't back then, why would he say it if it wasn't true?

    Maybe he's wrong in his perception of how it was handled? Seeing as you wont name him/her, and they aren't aware of this thread or not willing to defend that opinion, there isn't much else to say.

    Rounding up, we've 3 mods at the time, 2 Admins and the founder of the site all saying you are wrong. You are claiming 1 ex mod is telling the truth so therefor the above are lying. Obviously you've held this view of what happened for a long time now, so the word, honesty and integrity of those 6 people isn't enough for you to reconsider your position, so I doubt anything will ever be enough.

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



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


    Nodin wrote: »
    Did it occur to you that the mod may have been saying that they had been instructed to potentially libellous claims in a certain way....?

    More the distinction between "Scofflaw was lying about not being a closet FF supporter on this forum" and "Scofflaw was lying in court today when he said he wasn't a FF supporter" is lost on him.


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


    OK, we've heard from Dav, we've heard from DeVore, and we've heard from people who were Politics mods at the time. Villain is quite clearly going to present no more evidence than he has done so far, which is basically none, and the discussion has covered all the constructive ground it's ever going to (about 1mm), and people who care can make up their minds on what's been presented.

    This discussion is now over. I don't particularly want to have to infract a load of mods, ex-mods, and Admins, but frankly if this discussion continues, that's what's going to happen. Since I literally can't infract or ban DeVore or Dav, their further posts will just be deleted - but if I could, I would. And, to be honest, if I could have done, I already would have done. Take it to PM.

    last warning,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8 hotfoot


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Ah, sorry - "signal to noise ratio" has a colloquial meaning similar to the technical meaning. "Signal" is meaningful communication, "noise" is non-meaningful.

    So "signal" might be posts worth reading for the general reader, while "noise" is everything else - off-topic, insults, chit-chat, trolling, spam, and general rubbish.

    Of, say, 100 Youtube comments on a given video, maybe 20-25% are about the video, of which a far smaller percentage actually contribute anything to the reader's understanding of the video. The other 75-80% of the comments are accusations of ******ry, offers to earn $$$ from home, arguments about someone's accusation of ******ry, etc etc.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Point taken many instructional videos are very amature and not helpful.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement