A discussion on the rules.

The forward slash is most commonly used to mean "or" or "and/or"; i.e. male/female. I would not take it to mean that the words before and after a synonymous

Godge wrote: »

The term "golden circle" would equally have to be banned especially when it is used in relation to the current Government where there is no evidence at all about the operation of a "golden circle".

What is the natural and ordinary meaning of golden circle, though? There is an old common law rule that defamatory statements have to reach a minimum threshold of seriousness. As far as I am aware, that rule has not been affected by the 2009 Act. According to that rule, insults alone are not sufficiently serious to be defamatory. The term golden circle is nothing more than a vague insult, and does not naturally disclose any wrongdoing or illegality. It is certainly not comparable to an imputation of associating with an illegal terrorist organization.

There are many similar pejorative terms in use about the Catholic Church, Fianna Fail, Alan Shatter, Fine Gael, Pat Rabbitte, etc. that have not been proved in court and that are equally defamatory and should be banned if you are to ban the SF/IRA phrase.

For clarity, I personally would be 100% against banning the SF/IRA phrase. I have used it myself, and I believe it to be completely valid in certain circumstances.

The problem lies with terms like "SF/IRA TDs" (meaning current TDs) or similar terms where individuals are identifiable.

That's because in some circumstances, the term can, using its natural and ordinary meaning, impute an IRA association to TDs who currently reject the legitimacy of republican militancy in modern society. Or, failing that, it may contain an innuendo to the same effect.

I can't mention innuendo without recalling the now-infamous Lord McAlpine tweet by the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons:

‘Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *Innocent face.*’

That was held to be defamatory. Perhaps that goes some way towards demonstrating that the courts tend not to allow themselves to be blindly led by over-analytical, over-literal scrutiny of words which, if you strain them, can be read in a non-defamatory way. Or, for the present discussion, an over-analytical scrutiny of the meaning of forward slashes which, if you really push it, can allow you to find a non-defamatory meaning. I don't think that's a runner.

alastair wrote: »

The Mairia Cahill kangaroo court four are a perfect illustration of why SF/IRA is sometimes the most appropriate term applicable. No-one seems to be sure which particular hat they would least like to be known to have worn in their activities.

This is frankly just trolling. Infracted, and unsurprisingly outraged responses deleted. However, just because someone posts something uncivil/trolling, you don't have to respond with tit-for-tat.

moderately,
Scofflaw

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why's ZanuFF still banned?its a pretty clear example that throwaway terms for political parties can be banned.

Mindless over-usage. For a while every second post was "ZanuFF this...ZanuFF that...". If it had any actual value it would have been left alone, but it's just meaningless garbage.

As a general rule, what gets a term banned is a combination of being derogatory/offensive, politically meaningless, and over-used. "Beards" for union officials is a particularly good example, qualifying on all three counts, whereas something like ZanuFF needed a lot of over-use, because while it's pretty meaningless (FF aren't really all that like Zanu-PF), it's not all that derogatory, although the intention is evidently to be so. "Teabagger" for Tea Party proponents and libertarians is similar offensive, meaningless, and at one point bidding fair to becoming the common term.

SF/IRA is not derogatory- although some people find use of the term irritating/offensive, they find it so because it is politically meaningful, in respect of the long and politically recent association between SF and the IRA.

Yes, again, some posters would like to have that buried/forgotten/not talked about, and put forward the current dormancy of the PIRA as a reason to do so, but that doesn't change the politically very recent association. It's like saying people ought not to associate FF with the Celtic Tiger because that's now in the past. For many people the two organisations are politically synonymous because of their shared history.

Finally, it's not particularly over-used - some posters use it regularly, others don't, and virtually nobody uses it every time they intend reference to one or other organisation specifically.

"Blueshirts" is similar - it's not really derogatory, has a genuine, if purely historical, political association, and is used only by some posters.

In short, if a term tells you absolutely nothing beyond the fact that the posters wishes to express personal disgust without any real allusion to the reason for that disgust, then it fundamentally falls foul of the civility rules. Someone who uses "SF/IRA" may be expressing disgust, but they are expressing it with specific relation to the source of that disgust, which is that they genuinely do associate SF with the IRA. One can argue that they are wrong to associate the two, but not that they have a right to do so - and therefore to express it, since there is nothing derogatory in the term itself.

I think it should also be clear that the only possible way one might find "SF/IRA" derogatory in itself is if one considers the IRA to have been an illegitimate organisation. I think it's equally clear that the majority of those posters objecting to the term do not consider the IRA in that light, which makes their objections a very clear PR exercise which I feel no desire to assist them in.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Where does "shinnerbot" fit into this description of acceptable, suitably civil terminology that isn't being used in discussions specifically as a derogatory term?

It's unacceptable to call another poster a "shinnerbot", for the same reasons as "smear drone" is unacceptable - they're both personally offensive because of their implied mindless following of a party line, and they're both ad hominems for the same reason.

The problem is that something like "the shinnerbots will be all over this one" isn't quite the same thing unless it's clearly intended to mean a particular poster.

More generally, and let me make this clear to you specifically and personally, do not attempt to fight fire with fire. Do not say to yourself, as you appear to do, "aha, well, if they're allowed away with x, I must be allowed away with y, and will say it at every opportunity".

Just because we allow some incivility does not mean we encourage it, and if someone invariably takes anything they consider to be uncivil and uninfracted being said in the direction of them or their preferred political party as license to immediately respond in kind, that person is a problem that needs mod attention.

And no, you don't get to decide off your own bat that there's an imbalance somewhere, because you are in fact far too biased to make any such judgement reliably.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Godge, we are actually discussing the application of rules to cover civil or uncivil posting using HYPOTHETICAL, NOT REAL posts. You clearly cannot tell the difference.
So I can call anybody and everybody what I like so long as I put a specified number of a particular emoticon at the end? You reckon that'll keep the discussion ticking along nicely?

You know, this is exactly the kind of tit-for-tattery I mentioned earlier.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You've skipped the bit where you explained how a deliberately used derogatory term used to describe people you know are involved in the discussion is OK.

No, it's there.

"FGbots will be all over this" isn't trolling but "you are an FGbot" is personal abuse? If it's insulting then to use it in a general term when you KNOW there are people in the discussion it could be directed at, it has to be insulting too.

It should be evident that there are people who post nothing but the party line, whatever party they may be in. It should be equally obvious that such a phenomenon is of interest when discussing political reactions to PR problems. As such, there's always going to be a way of indicating that people have an expectation of hearing the party line from people who always post it.

"Shinnerbot" or "FGbot", or "FFbot" may not be the most elegant way of describing such people, but they exist, and commenting on them is fair comment. Sure, we could force people into long-winded versions like "the people who are always found on social media posting only the party line will be all over this", but what's the point? How would that not have exactly the same effect?

So, no, "could be directed at" isn't sufficient, and you should not always take it so. And when I say "you should not always take it so", I mean you, personally, should not always take it so, as you appear to do.

I'm perfectly happy to look at instances where the use of something like shinnerbots is reported because a poster feels it's being used specifically as an insult/ad hominem aimed at them - but you always feel that's the case, which makes your reports of such instances only a litany of your hair trigger feelings.

Again, don't fight fire with fire. Don't feel you have to do so. Don't feel it's up to you to single-handedly fight every negative comment about SF ever made. Because that way lies a permaban for persistent disruption.

Learn to put up with the fact that other people have negative opinions about SF, and are entitled to both have them, and air them. And learn to tell the difference between the political and the personal.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You've skipped the bit where you explained how a deliberately used derogatory term used to describe people you know are involved in the discussion is OK.
"FGbots will be all over this" isn't trolling but "you are an FGbot" is personal abuse? If it's insulting then to use it in a general term when you KNOW there are people in the discussion it could be directed at, it has to be insulting too.

As pointed out Shinnerbots exist, same as other parties, look at the Israeli and Russian threads and it's even more sinister!

Again, it's balance, we don't want people calling everybody who is Republican shinnerbots or FG shills, but pointing out somebody invariably follows the party line seems fair game to me, it's a political discussion board after all.

Scofflaw wrote:

Just because we allow some incivility does not mean we encourage it, and if someone invariably takes anything they consider to be uncivil and uninfracted being said in the direction of them or their preferred political party as license to immediately respond in kind, that person is a problem that needs mod attention.

Well said that man! It's often a heated forum and that's to be expected but it can get very childish at times, the level of oneupmanship would put even the Dail to shame!

And no, you don't get to decide off your own bat that there's an imbalance somewhere, because you are in fact far too biased to make any such judgement reliably.

We can't babysit posters either.