A discussion on the rules.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK then, here's an example:

Your posts are like those of an idiot or moron.
Therefore you are an idiotic moron.
Purely descriptive you see.
Now that's done, I don't have to address your arguments (which I couldn't anyway) because obviously you're only an idiotic moron.

No ad hominem there. Oh no.

I think this says it all. I'll just wait for the mods to deal with you.

PS: Yep barristers are well known for being idiotic morons.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You have been a member since 2005 - I'm surprised you've never been pointed to the site-wide rules:

Kinda ironic that you liked

Sand wrote: »

Quick query - At what point does a poster refusing to accept mod directions, ignoring explanations and rationales, being disingenuous and basically soap boxing become disruptive?

While pointing out the rule

Don't back seat moderate

Imagine a game of soccer where one player kept running up to the ref and saying "you should have warned that guy" "that was offside" "time is up on this game". Annoying, yes? Sitting back as a user and consistently directing the moderator like a minion is going to get you kicked off the pitch. The correct way to bring something to our attention is to report the post.

But do not abuse this feature. Report posts which clearly break the rules not just posts you don’t agree with or from people you don’t like. That’s just being a dick.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It really doesn't, and in my experience only people who want to excuse double standards ever say this. Something is either ok or it isn't.

Villain wrote: »

Kinda ironic that you liked


While pointing out the rule

IMHO in the context of a discussion on the rules there is a big difference between Sand's question and a complaint that a certain post in a sub-forum with different rules was not actioned in a way that a certain poster wanted.

This is not a bitch about mod decisions thread. Particularly where a different charter applies to the post in question.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't agree. I have yet to see the term be used against anyone that isn't towing the party line very obviously

You didn't look too hard, I have been labelled it several times in the past despite the fact I have never voted for SF in a Dail election

Sand wrote: »

I know this thread was opened many years ago, and things change but from the very start it was noted that it wasn't for "Can we ban this word that irritates me" type posts.





It's not possible to back seat moderate in a rules discussion thread. It exists for the purpose of discussing the rules and how they are applied. By its original concept it doesn't exist for "ban this word" requests.

Despite that, a number of "ban this word" type requests have been made. They were rejected. The reasons were explained. Many times. Those explanations have been ignored. Disingenuous claims were made. Those were pointed out. Many times. Those corrections have been ignored. Instead of being a rules discussion, the last few pages seem to be the continuation of various arguments, score settling and grudges from general politics threads.

It's the exact same pattern as the "SF/IRA" request, and "SF/IRA" is *still* not banned despite page after page after page of it.

Backseat modding is backseat modding Sand.

Sand wrote: »

That's a great post. Well argued.

You always did have an issue with the obvious facts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Any chance someone could summarize exactly what's going on in here?

I'm a bit lost myself!

Personally I feel that some evidence of bias is obvious enough. I perhaps wouldn't reckon it's on the scale that Dan perceives it to be, but there's no doubt in my own mind that it's more taboo to smear non-establishment politicians and their supporters than the reverse.

I'm not sure if I'm picking you up correctly, but I'd say establishment parties and members get smeared more because they are the ones making the unpopular decisions.

Case in point, I was infracted a few weeks ago for posting (and not even in a derogatory manner I must add) that I had always assumed Godge was a supporter of FG and was surprised to see him state that he wasn't.
Now if that counts as "too personal", then in my view any poster who calls someone a "shinnerbot" or anything remotely along those lines and is not infracted, is being shown undue leniency or else I was being shown undue harshness by having my own post infracted.

We may have a problem in differentiating between the cafe and the normal forum.

Being anti-censorship I'd prefer if no one was infracted for these things, but to be honest the only thing that pisses me off more than debates being stifled is the application of double standards.

Or it could just be the cafe has lighter moderation.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I sent a PM about my own infraction and got no reply. Posting about it publicly is arguably the only option left after that. Why are they so terrified of public criticism anyway? :rolleyes:

Errr, we've a thread here to discuss the rules. Sometimes pm's get missed, personal stuff and all that.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's fair enough. I'm talking more about the fact that many posts are never red carded at all even though I'm certain they would be had they come from the other side of the debate. I reported one example a day or two ago (specifically stated in my report that I was doing so purely to point out the double standard rather than calling for anyone to be banned) and heard nothing back. The post in question was accusing the anti-IW side of behaving like four year olds and made numerous references to "mummy" "daddy" and other such condescending garbage - the poster in question has been far, far more trollish than Dan from where I'm sitting.

Again I usually wouldn't actually complain and to be fair most who've been around for a while will know I rarely do give out about moderation or report people etc, I've always thought Politics is pretty ok as far as moderation goes, but I can't be the only one who's noticed the application of double standards getting a bit out of hand here over the last few months?