A discussion on the rules.

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.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The warning is because it's pretty clearly a poke at specific other posters - and a lot of the discussion has been about exactly such distinctions.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well, it wasn't tbh. It's just that this particular ambiguity - the composition of the kangaroo court, is the most current/definitive instance of why the term SF/IRA moniker is sometimes the most appropriate one.

alastair wrote: »

Well, it wasn't tbh. It's just that this particular ambiguity - the composition of the kangaroo court, is the most current/definitive instance of why the term SF/IRA moniker is sometimes the most appropriate one.

And had your post not contained a definite jibe at other posters, that would stand as a good argument. But the yellow card is for - as discussed on this thread - pointing the reference at other forum posters.

Happyman42 wrote:

You need to have proof that there was a 'kangaroo court' at the time to be accurate here. We do have proof (from Maria Cahill herself) that SF was not solely a party that was associated with the IRA at the time and that it had high ranking active members who 'where always against violence for politcal ends.' So whatever else you claim for your moniker, 'accurate' isn't one of them.

No....just, no. Drop it. This thread isn't about the details of the Mairia Cahill case, and the claim that SF contained "high ranking active members who 'were always against violence for political ends'" does not serve to separate them from the IRA, partly because it carries the very clear implication that it also contained 'high ranking active members' who weren't against violence for political ends.

Anyway, that's really enough chewing the bones of this discussion. "SF/IRA" is not a term we're going to penalise the use of in any blanket way.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

And had your post not contained a definite jibe at other posters, that would stand as a good argument. But the yellow card is for - as discussed on this thread - pointing the reference at other forum posters.

What is the nature of this 'definite jibe', and where did you believe the post was directed at any specific forum member? There's nothing to suggest either.

gladrags wrote: »

K-9 Called my posts "drivel" this morning on another thread.

The poster I was responding to,has been using provocative inferences,and jibes,not only about other individuals,but re the subject matter.Insulting and derogatory language,for a long time.

?

I don't know, maybe you think the posts I quoted from you and the other poster were fine? Really, "he started it" and "he said, then she said" isn't an excuse to fire back in the same manner, Scofflaw put it well yesterday:

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.

We can't catch everything which is why reported posts are a big help, nothing was reported in that thread for over a week. Feel free to report any posts that you think crosses a line.

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have always understood there was a process to be followed if you get a ban or infraction. Discussing it on the thread you where infracted/banned on, I thought was a no-no.

Scofflaw is best responding to that then as he dealt with it, I'm lost with the point you are trying to make anyway!

If a post is drivel ( nonsense) isn't it preferable for a mod to point that out?

That's like saying that a mod shouldn't be able to deal with racist posts if they didn't equally deal with all trolling posts - maybe they'll get around to it, maybe the post wasn't reported, maybe they have different views than you, maybe different priorities on what to remove. I could keep going.

I got a yellow card yesterday, but you don't see me going to point out the posts that are as bad if not worse. Deal with it and move on, it's only a silly website

gladrags wrote: »

While I understand the difficulty with moderating so many posts, I do not aspire to the he or she started it rhetoric.

Overall I responded in a dignified way, in spite of consistent provocation, from this particular poster. I tried to get back to the topic, on several occasions, and challenge this poster with what I believe were very reasonable arguments.

There are remarks in this thread, that are far beyond the "he said, she said",which, particularly regarding the living relatives of the 1916 signatories, appear to be OK by you, to me they are unacceptable, for obvious reasons

Jumping in with words like "drivel", does not exactly discourage others to act in a dignified way.

Does it?

We will then have a scenario of "well if the moderator can use derogatory language, so can I".

Ok, apologies then. Really, if you'd reported some posts we could have had a look at the thread and maybe nipped it in the bud earlier.

I accept you did try and keep it civil and on topic, but you did "rise to the bait" in the end. I quoted a few of your posts in the warning and there may well have been more I could have highlighted.

Tbh I thought I was soft enough, but you don't seem to see any problem at all, so there you are.

Can we just ban anything that might irritate or bother people?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

FreudianSlippers
Moderator
No, not a mod at boards, oh no.

You've been a member for 4 years now and have nearly 6k posts. Are you that disingenuous in all your dealing on here that you are now going to pretend that you have been blissfully unaware this entire time that moderators are only moderators in the forum they moderate?

:rolleyes:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Did you bother to read that at all?
Scofflaw himself said such people exist, much as do pedophiles and idiots. He did not say it was OK to call people things just because they exist somewhere.
Maybe that's how you run your categories though, which wouldn't surprise me.

If you take it that by lumping you in with the other posters who mindlessly and repetitively defend SF on all subjects, whilst avoiding any meritorious conversation about their policy I am somehow personally attacking you, doesn't that mean that it is inherently bad to be associated with SF?

Scofflaw wrote: »

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? [...] 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.

Hence my point - shouldn't you wait for the moderators to do their jobs (and I'm using that term almost ironically as we're obviously volunteers) and determine whether they, subjectively, believe that you are clearly one of "the people who are always found on social media posting only the party line".

No, instead, you feel the need to actually go on the offensive and attack me personally in the most visible way you can think of.