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…7778808283…89

Comments

  • #2372
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    He does know. But we have no control over that so you are, again, referred to site feedback rather than this rules thread.

    Think very carefully about your next few posts Dan. If they do not constructively add to the discussion of the rules, do not post them in this thread
    Who said you were responsible for the moderation system itself? I said no such thing.
    How the rules are implemented is not relevant to a discussion on the rules? So we are not permitted to know how the reported posts are dealt with, as in, who chooses which one to action and do they mark them as dealt with or what?
    Can you just say "we know but we will not tell you" if this is the case?


  • #2373
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I was responding to this post:



    Clearly Happyman42 either feels that he deserves special privilege into the decisions of moderators by getting a response from the mod on their reported post, or he simply disagrees with whatever decision was taken and has decided to air that disagreement here rather than in the appropriate forum.

    It also appears that you believe my posts should be treated (for some unexplained reason) more harshly than others in the Cafe.


    You seem to have a very hypocritical view on what is "abuse" between your posts and others tbh. I would also suggest that it's ridiculous to suggest that it is abusive to imply someone is on the dole.

    All I said was I had heard nothing and seen no action. What I didn't say was I 'deserve special privilege' or that 'I disagree with whatever decision' I wasn't aware any decision was made.
    I wish people would stop inferring stuff in my posts that aren't there. <snip>


  • #2374
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    How the rules are implemented is not relevant to a discussion on the rules?
    Reported posts are a site issue, as in each forum is not individual on the way it works.
    So we are not permitted to know how the reported posts are dealt with, as in, who chooses which one to action and do they mark them as dealt with or what?
    No. That's the whole point of what I've been saying. Otherwise the reported posts forum would be public and posters would second guess every decision and demand answers (case in point :rolleyes:)

    Can you just say "we know but we will not tell you" if this is the case?
    broadly speaking, when a post is reported it gets a thread created automatically in the reported posts forum and all mods of that forum get an email (needless to say a lot of emails). Whoever gets there first usually deals with it or comments to let someone know if they can't deal with it. I can't speak for the politics mods, but in LD we often leave a comment to say it has been dealt with, or perhaps discuss if action needs to be taken.

    The politics mods have their own private forum and I'm sure they have a dossier on each of us ;)


  • #2375
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    All I said was I had heard nothing and seen no action. What I didn't say was I 'deserve special privilege' or that 'I disagree with whatever decision' I wasn't aware any decision was made.
    Then obviously there was nothing wrong with the post. Your implication that you should be told what the decision was regarding your reported posts makes the only logical inference that you feel you deserve such special attention.

    <snip>Is today national make johnnyskeleton angry day?


  • #2376
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Who said you were responsible for the moderation system itself? I said no such thing.
    How the rules are implemented is not relevant to a discussion on the rules? So we are not permitted to know how the reported posts are dealt with, as in, who chooses which one to action and do they mark them as dealt with or what?
    Can you just say "we know but we will not tell you" if this is the case?

    As to who chooses to action them, we can all see them and any one of the moderators can make a decision. If I action a post the other moderators might not have done the same thing as me, but if nothing is done then all mods have seen it and decided it doesnt breach the charter.

    As regards not providing examples of where action is taken, that is your choice. But its pretty clear that where no action is being taken it is because the posts dont breach the charter in the view of all the mods, and where action is taken there is a breach of the charter in the view of at least one mod.

    To put the matter to bed, here ia the last infraction that I gave out - clear personal abuse:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94774227&postcount=452

    The majority of the reported posts claiming personal abuse fall far short of this mark. You might not like that this is the type of thing that does attract sanctions or that lesser types of squabbling are not actioned in the Cafe (and they very much are in the other forums), but that is how moderation currently stands.

    If you think that this is biased, set out your stall and we will look into it. Otherwise I will consider this aspect of the rules discussion closed, and any comments on it short of a reasoned supported argument will be considered nothing other than off topic at best, or questioning specific moderation decisions at worst.


  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    As regards not providing examples of where action is taken, that is your choice.
    As I made no such claim I have provided no such examples, which to me seems a pretty straightforward choice to make.


  • #2378
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    As I made no such claim I have provided no such examples, which to me seems a pretty straightforward choice to make.

    Really, take it up with the Cat Mods. They can look at the reported posts and see if the same standard is being applied to both sides.

    It'll help if you can give an example of a few threads where you feel there's been a discrepancy.


  • #2379
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    But its pretty clear that where no action is being taken it is because the posts dont breach the charter in the view of all the mods, and where action is taken there is a breach of the charter in the view of at least one mod.
    Just so we are clear on the process, you are saying here that all mods examine every reported post, or is it that they can potentially examine.


  • #2380
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    As I made no such claim I have provided no such examples, which to me seems a pretty straightforward choice to make.

    Sorry a typing error, I meant to say where no action is taken.


  • #2381
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    nesf wrote: »
    Really, take it up with the Cat Mods. They can look at the reported posts and see if the same standard is being applied to both sides.

    It'll help if you can give an example of a few threads where you feel there's been a discrepancy.
    It's already been said specific posts that were reported cannot be discussed. Look at the Sinn Fein or Sinn Fein Health threads in Politics. See what the level of abuse that is required for auctioning on each side is for yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It's already been said specific posts that were reported cannot be discussed. Look at the Sinn Fein or Sinn Fein Health threads in Politics. See what the level of abuse that is required for auctioning on each side is for yourself.

    You're being a bit loose with the facts here no?

    The SF health thread is in Politics and has been very consistently moderated, including the removal of large chunks of same to the Café, where you are well aware different standards apply.

    It's an apples and oranges comparison at best.


  • #2383
    nesf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,644 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It's already been said specific posts that were reported cannot be discussed. Look at the Sinn Fein or Sinn Fein Health threads in Politics. See what the level of abuse that is required for auctioning on each side is for yourself.

    They cannot be discussed here. You can discuss them and the issue of bias with a CMod via PM. There may be a way to do it publicly, I don't know, I think PM is better for this kind of thing.


  • #2384
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So you don't know how reported posts come up in front of you for attention, or how they are marked as dealt with or anything? How is that possible?

    I'm at a loss as to how you came up with that.

    How RP's are dealt with has come up on the sitewide Feedback thread a few times before, so we aren't really going to do something different as to how the rest of the site operates, and nor should it be expected of volunteer mods.

    I don't think there's a way of twisting the above but I'm sure one will be found.

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



  • #2385
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You're being a bit loose with the facts here no?

    The SF health thread is in Politics and has been very consistently moderated, including the removal of large chunks of same to the Café, where you are well aware different standards apply.

    It's an apples and oranges comparison at best.

    Unactioned posts from this thread (non-exhaustive list) in the apparently more exacting POLITICS:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057393382
    (first one immediately after after a mod warning...)

    #809 jimmycrackcorm
    I just figured out that the shinner plan is to pay consultants the average industrial wage and donate the rest to the cult, sorry, party.


    #1292 BoJack Horseman
    No answer to my question?
    Thought so.
    Another acolyte enters the fray


    #1485 Dog of Tears
    Can there be a facet of democracy more depressing than the notion that there exists people who will argue there's no difference between a 'cap' and a 'levy' and yet their vote will count the same as yours?


  • #2386
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You're being a bit loose with the facts here no?

    The SF health thread is in Politics and has been very consistently moderated, including the removal of large chunks of same to the Café, where you are well aware different standards apply.
    K-9 has corrected this incomplete version of events again below. Thread started in Café, was moved to Politics (despite the standard apparently being far too low even for Café?)


  • #2387
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    There was a load of posts not actioned on the thread dan, basically there were so many it was better to just leave them rather than carding and banning probably every single poster on one night, it was that bad! So if there was bias, everybody got it, therefor nullifying any suggestions of bias!

    I referenced that in my mod warning.

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



  • #2388
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'm at a loss as to how you came up with that.
    I came up with that because after multiple times of asking nobody was willing to tell me what the process for dealing with reported posts was. Apologies for my guessing in the absence of any information being volunteered.


  • #2389
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    There was a load of posts not actioned on the thread dan, basically there were so many it was better to just leave them rather than carding and banning probably every single poster on one night, it was that bad! So if there was bias, everybody got it, therefor nullifying any suggestions of bias!

    I referenced that in my mod warning.

    16-03-2015, 20:14 #809
    jimmycrackcorm
    18-03-2015, 22:15 #1292
    BoJack Horseman
    19-03-2015, 15:32 #1485
    Dog of Tears

    All separate days K-9. Try another excuse.


  • #2390
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Unactioned posts from this thread (non-exhaustive list) in the apparently more exacting POLITICS:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057393382
    (first one immediately after after a mod warning...)

    #809 jimmycrackcorm
    I just figured out that the shinner plan is to pay consultants the average industrial wage and donate the rest to the cult, sorry, party.


    #1292 BoJack Horseman
    No answer to my question?
    Thought so.
    Another acolyte enters the fray


    #1485 Dog of Tears
    Can there be a facet of democracy more depressing than the notion that there exists people who will argue there's no difference between a 'cap' and a 'levy' and yet their vote will count the same as yours?

    The first two were in the cafe.

    I have actioned similar type posts if clearly trying to rile SF posters.

    The last one, well that poster did get a ban IIRC.

    I've a feeling I'm wasting my time pointing out an anti-SF type poster got cards and bans, as that would be an inconvenient truth to entertain.

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



  • #2391
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    K-9 wrote: »
    The first two were in the cafe.

    I have actioned similar type posts if clearly trying to rile SF posters.

    The last one, well that poster did get a ban IIRC.

    I've a feeling I'm wasting my time pointing out an anti-SF type poster got cards and bans, as that would be an inconvenient truth to entertain.
    So all of those posts are acceptable in Café? I find that astonishing.
    You haven't actually pointed out any card or ban though, except "IIRC" for #3, so your final point remains moot.


  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Unactioned posts from this thread (non-exhaustive list) in the apparently more exacting POLITICS:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057393382
    (first one immediately after after a mod warning...)

    #809 jimmycrackcorm
    I just figured out that the shinner plan is to pay consultants the average industrial wage and donate the rest to the cult, sorry, party.


    #1292 BoJack Horseman
    No answer to my question?
    Thought so.
    Another acolyte enters the fray


    #1485 Dog of Tears
    Can there be a facet of democracy more depressing than the notion that there exists people who will argue there's no difference between a 'cap' and a 'levy' and yet their vote will count the same as yours?

    I fail to see how any of those are abuse?


  • #2393
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So all of those posts are acceptable in Café? I find that astonishing.
    You haven't actually pointed out any card or ban though, except "IIRC" for #3, so your final point remains moot.

    There was no card for post no.3 in that list.


  • #2394
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I fail to see how any of those are abuse?
    Do try to keep up. K-9 has already admitted they were.


  • #2395
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do try to keep up.
    We were looking for examples of unpunished personal abuse, and hey presto - one turns up...


  • #2396
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Do try to keep up. K-9 has already admitted they were.

    When?


  • #2397
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    Now that the two politics mods are here perhaps they can explain how this individual gets away with this, even though it was reported,

    My post was as follows,

    'Absolutely.
    As long as we're all treated as equals regarding our opinions.'

    The reply from this little warrior was as follows,

    "Unfortunately for you, in the real world some people's opinions are worth more than others. Society is more likely to listen to an individual educated and practised in a field than some intellectually stunted nobody who has an "opinion" on things."


    Now, the little fella blowing his own trumpet is one thing, but the rest of the post is a direct personal insult aimed at myself.

    Reported, but no sanction.


  • #2398
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    It's already been said specific posts that were reported cannot be discussed. Look at the Sinn Fein or Sinn Fein Health threads in Politics. See what the level of abuse that is required for auctioning on each side is for yourself.

    These are, as far as I’m aware, all the posts which have been actioned in those two threads in the last week:

    Sinn Fein Thread (in the Cafe) Warnings/Infractions:

    1. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94753116
    2. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94728548
    3. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94723271
    4. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94700851
    5. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94694153

    Sinn Fein Health Thread (in Main forum) Warnings/Infractions

    1. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94747330
    2. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94730287
    3. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94728476
    4. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94729324
    5. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94729233
    6. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94728950

    I can’t be categorical about comments where action wasn’t taken but here are some examples (please don’t question their selection on thread, you were asked to provide examples and you didn’t. It’s not too late for you to select your own examples rather than attacking mine. If you do accuse me of picking a biased sample or something along those lines you will be banned. ):

    Sinn Fein Thread (in the Cafe) No Warnings/Infractions:

    1. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94776795#post94776795
    2. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94768523#post94768523
    3. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94764614#post94764614
    4. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94766531#post94766531
    5. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94757579#post94757579

    Sinn Fein Health Thread (in Main forum) No Warnings/Infractions:
    1. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94741612#post94741612
    2. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94738973#post94738973
    3. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94738925#post94738925
    4. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94738219#post94738219
    5. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94738236#post94738236

    I think the biggest distinction to be drawn is between the Cafe thread and the Main forum thread. The level of tolerance in the Cafe is much greater as regards the actioned posts. Likewise, as regards the unactioned samples, it is clear that there is much greater tolerance in the Cafe than there is in the Main forum. What was allowed in the Cafe usually resulted in a card in the Main forum.

    It is also very difficult, for me anyway, to know which “side” is which and who is on which side. When looking at someone who makes a comment that is clear personal abuse, I don’t stop to think whether the poster is a pro-SF, anti-SF or neutral poster. That simply does not enter my mind. I might be more inclined to give a card where someone is a repeat offender, but to be honest I think even greater leniency has been given to those regular rule breachers than they necessarily deserve.

    Now, what this analysis doesn’t show is how many posters make pro or anti SF comments. I suspect that what is happening on these threads could be something along the following lines:

    1. Poster A Criticism of SF
    2. Poster B Criticism of SF
    3. Poster C Defence of SF
    4. Poster A Criticism of SF
    5. Poster B Criticism of SF
    6. Poster C comment about anti- SF posters generally (blueshirts, government stooges etc)
    7. Poster A comment about pro- SF posters generally (shinnerbots etc)
    8. Poster B comment about pro- SF posters generally (shinnerbots etc)
    9. Poster C Criticism of the posters attacking SF

    If that escalation happens, Poster C will be warned or infracted whereas the others will not. It is a clear rule that commenting adversely on a group of people with an imputed politicial view will be treated more tolerantly than specific personal abuse. Yet Poster C will feel aggrieved for two reasons:

    1. They feel that they are responding to the general criticism;
    2. They will also feel that because they were outnumbered on the thread and they were the only one that was sanctioned by a mod, that they are being subjected to biased moderation.

    In respect of the first reason, yes, that is unfortunately the case, but they have done so by making a specific personal attack on another poster which is very different. As a debate gets heated, posters escalate their posts. While this is unfortunate, it can happen in political debates. But no matter how offensive someone else’s views seem to you, do not respond to it by personally attacking the poster instead of the post.

    In respect of the second reason, while that may be the perception, it is far from the reality. While the context of a thread is important to see what has been said so far, believe me I don’t care what side of the pro- anti- Sinn Fein debate you are on, all I do when I put on my moderator hat is look for breaches of the charter and take appropriate action.

    Finally, coming back to the post that was referred to before, which happens to be set out at no.5 above for the Cafe Thread / No warning examples, having looked at this in the context of the thread, it seems to be on the banter side of things. It could be considered a negative comment, but when one poster made a playful comment about how he had things to do such as lodging money in the bank, it was a playful comment made in response. That is how I view it, and to be fair if I was to action that for being off topic or abusive then I probably would also have to action the post it was made in response to.

    The Cafe charter is here:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056298011

    The specific section dealing with it is here:
    Humour, friendly banter, cartoons, pictures, videos, smiley faces, and other forms of free expression are encouraged. Posters may aimlessly chat with each other, and wander off-topic just like they might do with friends while chatting in a Café or pub.

    Discussions that emphasize higher standards and rigourous content should be conducted in one of the other 7 Politics forums.

    And just in case it hasn’t already been made clear, my post is to deal with the suggestion that those two threads are not moderated fairly. You are entitled to point out specific examples that you think do show bias if you like. However,this not an open invitation to debate the merits of any individual moderation decision (or lack thereof) and if anyone seeks to argue any of the specific decisions, in particular the last one, a ban will ensue

    So all in all, I think there is a clear difference in the severity of comments that moves them from being merely banter into being direct personal insults/abuse. Because the Cafe is a new forum, posters will often be given the benefit of the doubt. But there is very little tolerance to personal insults in the Main forum, and I think you’ll find that the quality in the Sinn Fein Health Services thread has improved dramatically since it was transferred to the main forum.


  • #2399
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Now that the two politics mods are here perhaps they can explain how this individual gets away with this, even though it was reported,

    My post was as follows,

    'Absolutely.
    As long as we're all treated as equals regarding our opinions.'

    The reply from this little warrior was as follows,

    "Unfortunately for you, in the real world some people's opinions are worth more than others. Society is more likely to listen to an individual educated and practised in a field than some intellectually stunted nobody who has an "opinion" on things."


    Now, the little fella blowing his own trumpet is one thing, but the rest of the post is a direct personal insult aimed at myself.

    Reported, but no sanction.
    For like the 10th time that is not an insult against you unless you make it one. It's clearly not directed at you; my point stands that not all opinions are or should be treated equally. Unfortunately you prefer to ignore the question and the point of the post and harp on about your false interpretation of same.

    As for thinly veiled threats, it really shows the level of this nonsense. I'm quivering in my boots :rolleyes:


  • #2400
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Unactioned posts from this thread (non-exhaustive list) in the apparently more exacting POLITICS:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057393382
    (first one immediately after after a mod warning...)

    #809 jimmycrackcorm
    I just figured out that the shinner plan is to pay consultants the average industrial wage and donate the rest to the cult, sorry, party.


    #1292 BoJack Horseman
    No answer to my question?
    Thought so.
    Another acolyte enters the fray


    #1485 Dog of Tears
    Can there be a facet of democracy more depressing than the notion that there exists people who will argue there's no difference between a 'cap' and a 'levy' and yet their vote will count the same as yours?

    I think this leads us quite nicely to the nub of the issue. It's not partial/biased moderation, it's that these comments, while contrary to your views and so in that sense offensive to you, do not amount to person attacks under the charter. You can criticise a party, you can label a group, you can comment about a group, but there comes a point where those comments turn into specific personal abuse. When that point is reached, action will be taken. Prior to that point, no action is taken.

    I hope this clarifies the general position regarding what is or is not personal abuse and satisfies you that there is not biased moderation. But I repeat my warning do not get into the merits of specific moderation decisions


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Now that the two politics mods are here perhaps they can explain how this individual gets away with this, even though it was reported,

    My post was as follows,

    'Absolutely.
    As long as we're all treated as equals regarding our opinions.'

    The reply from this little warrior was as follows,

    "Unfortunately for you, in the real world some people's opinions are worth more than others. Society is more likely to listen to an individual educated and practised in a field than some intellectually stunted nobody who has an "opinion" on things."


    Now, the little fella blowing his own trumpet is one thing, but the rest of the post is a direct personal insult aimed at myself.

    Reported, but no sanction.

    Oh the absolute irony :rolleyes:

    LeeMajors wrote: »
    I know Ireland won the rugby, and very proud of them I am today, just a pity we left the slam in Cardiff.
    As I said, some are probably still bitter after been beaten into second.

    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Some of the comments from the pro's here this morning are really just a joke.

    Typing some sh1te just to get a rise from others seems to be all the pro's have left now.

    I suppose some are just bitter after being beaten into second yesterday    ......:D

    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Even you aren't that gullible. Are you?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement