A discussion on the rules.

FreudianSlippers · 23-03-2015 12:19AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

+1

Look back on this very thread from a few years ago and we were both against the blanket banning of words. I didn't post in this forum for at least a year after that discussion.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 12:36AM

Jawgap wrote: »

Some can post intending to be insulting and fail miserably - the recipient gets a vote on whether they feel insulted.

EDIT: imo, there are very few words / phrases that are objectively insulting

So you think the anti-SF crowd use the word "acolyte" (which nobody else here seems to use for anything at all) because they've looked up the thesaurus and just want to expand their vocabulary?
The "feeling insulted" approach is worthless for moderation. If someone isn't bothered by being called X, Y and Z four letter words etc then it can't be actioned apparently. This also means nobody else would be allowed report a post unless the abuse was directed at them. Also nonsensical.

RecordStraight · 23-03-2015 12:43AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you think the anti-SF crowd use the word "acolyte" (which nobody else here seems to use for anything at all) because they've looked up the thesaurus and just want to expand their vocabulary?

Perhaps you can suggest a word that you are happy with to describe supporters of a party that will tolerate absolutely no criticism of that party, and defend its every word and deed?

Permabear · 23-03-2015 12:46AM

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 12:51AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It is clearly used pejoritively. And no, I didn't excuse the one pro-SF use of the that you managed to find. Assuming I would says more about you than me.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 12:54AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

Perhaps you can suggest a word that you are happy with to describe supporters of a party that will tolerate absolutely no criticism of that party, and defend its every word and deed?

I don't have to, because whatever word that would be would be abusive. You knew that, right?

RecordStraight · 23-03-2015 01:01AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't have to, because whatever word that would be would be abusive. You knew that, right?

So you are telling me there is no non-abusive word that can be used to describe how you and others post in support of Sinn Fein?

Does that not make you ask yourself any questions at all?

Even for a moment?

Permabear · 23-03-2015 01:10AM

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton · 23-03-2015 01:15AM

I think it would be a good idea if we all agree to leave it there for tonight and have a fresh look tomorrow if needs be.

PB, Dan doesnt have to answer that question if he doesnt want to. In fact, for the sake of all, lets for the time being keep it a grey area

Jawgap · 23-03-2015 06:03AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you think the anti-SF crowd use the word "acolyte" (which nobody else here seems to use for anything at all) because they've looked up the thesaurus and just want to expand their vocabulary?
The "feeling insulted" approach is worthless for moderation. If someone isn't bothered by being called X, Y and Z four letter words etc then it can't be actioned apparently. This also means nobody else would be allowed report a post unless the abuse was directed at them. Also nonsensical.

I can't speak to the intention of someone when they post.

I don't doubt that some people have posted what were intended to be insults but went sailing over the head of the recipient. More often than not, I'd say - from my perspective - most 'insults' are laughably put together.

If you feel insulted report it. I think the mods have explained their processes very well. All they can do is 'referee' - I may feel I have been egregiously and cynically 'fouled' they make take the view I ran into an outstretched leg!

Either way, thems the rules.

Plus it's only an internet discussion forum.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 08:30AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it would be a good idea if we all agree to leave it there for tonight and have a fresh look tomorrow if needs be.

PB, Dan doesnt have to answer that question if he doesnt want to. In fact, for the sake of all, lets for the time being keep it a grey area

Well this is quite simple. -bots exist for every party. Smearbots also exist who are 100% guaranteed to oppose SF and their policies (even historical ones it seems). If we want to have every post here full of -bot and acolyte to describe every opponent then so be it.
But I notice Permabear himself, probably accidentally, admitted it was a pejorative term in his question, which kind of answers itself then.
I could as easily ask:
1. Do idiots exist?
2. Do idiots exist but not at boards.ie?
3. Do idiots exist at boards.ie but should be protected from pejorative labelling?
So we can therefore call anybody an idiot if we think it's accurate, pejorative or not.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 08:42AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

So you are telling me there is no non-abusive word that can be used to describe how you and others post in support of Sinn Fein?

Does that not make you ask yourself any questions at all?

Even for a moment?

There's a word gaining traction to describe people like you and your guaranteed automatic attacks on everyhing Sinn Fein. That's evidence enough it is acceptable by your rule.

Jawgap · 23-03-2015 09:06AM

'Pejorativeness' again is subjective.

I could use a word intending it to be in the pejorative, but it may not be interpreted as such.

Equally, I could use a word that I think is accurate shorthand for describing someone, but is interpreted by that person as a pejorative expression.

That's why there's 'umpires' - a poster mightn't agree with their interpretation either when the report something or they issue a sanction, but that's the system.

FreudianSlippers · 23-03-2015 10:36AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you think the anti-SF crowd use the word "acolyte" (which nobody else here seems to use for anything at all) because they've looked up the thesaurus and just want to expand their vocabulary?

Reported for personally insulting me with the insinuation that I had to look up the word "acolyte".

This is what Dan_Solo and those who are incapable of accepting any criticism are looking for! :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 10:47AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Reported for personally insulting me with the insinuation that I had to look up the word "acolyte".

This is what Dan_Solo and those who are incapable of accepting any criticism are looking for! :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I really couldn't care less, honestly. You don't seem to know what is abusive, considering my post earlier in this thread in which I discussed the difference between the "opinion" of an expert and an idiot and asked you a question was deemed by yourself to be "abusive".

This leaves me with the only conclusion that you have been abusive to yourself by either failing to comprehend my post or self-assigning yourself to a category as described.

Well, as an example, to use your methods:
Some people are intelligent and some people are idiots. I can only assume from your post you are self assigning to to one of the categories described.

Permabear · 23-03-2015 11:18AM

This post has been deleted.

Godge · 23-03-2015 11:32AM

This has been a very interesting exchange of views for the last few days that I have generally refrained from comment. It is interesting that it is those who support Sinn Fein who are calling for rigid rules on what words are and aren't allowed on these boards.

To my mind, context is everything. No matter the issue, whatever the debate, there is no right or wrong. There is always a time and a place when a particular answer could be right.

The use of words such as "scumbags", "retarded" or "shinnerbot" in my mind can be right in certain contexts but are also wrong in a lot of contexts. Blanket bans are not appropriate.

You can extend this analogy to other issues. SF supporters (I hestitate to call them acolytes:)) insist that a united Ireland is the only solution for this island. The rest of us view a united Ireland as one possibility of a range of solutions and one that is dependent on a number of things - shared culture in the North, unionist consent, financial issues etc. and that other solutions including the status quo are also eminently possible. It seems that this inability to see the world in terms other than black or white extends beyond things such as a united Ireland to other things such as the use of language.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 11:38AM

Godge wrote: »

You can extend this analogy to other issues. SF supporters (I hestitate to call them acolytes:)) insist that a united Ireland is the only solution for this island.

Actually I don't. As I've said many times before I have no interest at all in 32 county republicanism. Again, your automatic assumptions say more about you than me and are exactly the type of "bot" posting style mentioned above as being of low quality.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 11:39AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But they are careful to put it in inverted commas. This is not an endorsement of the phrase at all as you are claiming.

Permabear · 23-03-2015 11:46AM

This post has been deleted.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 11:48AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What you said was:

Curiously, though, even An Phoblacht does not appear to have a huge issue with it, speaking positively, even admiringly of its online "shinnerbot" activists:

This is speaking positively of their activity, not of the term others use to describe them. There is a huge difference that you are attempting to fudge here.

Permabear · 23-03-2015 11:50AM

This post has been deleted.

Godge · 23-03-2015 11:51AM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Actually I don't. As I've said many times before I have no interest at all in 32 county republicanism. Again, your automatic assumptions say more about you than me and are exactly the type of "bot" posting style mentioned above as being of low quality.

I am not getting into a discussion on this as it would be off-topic. I was commenting on the tendency of SF supporters to see the world in black and white terms which is something I was noticing coming through on this discussion, I could have used other examples.

What I will say is that you challenged the applicability of the particular example to yourself, but you didn't challenge the essential point I made of the black and white view of the world.

FreudianSlippers · 23-03-2015 12:51PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well, as an example, to use your methods:
Some people are intelligent and some people are idiots. I can only assume from your post you are self assigning to to one of the categories described.

Firstly, I am astounded that my initial point is still miles over your head.
Secondly, your comparison makes no sense.

K-9 · 23-03-2015 01:29PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What you said was:
This is speaking positively of their activity, not of the term others use to describe them. There is a huge difference that you are attempting to fudge here.

Which is all a bit irrelevant, the point is they exist, same as Israeli and Russian deflectors pop out of the woodwork from time to time.

Eugene Norman · 23-03-2015 02:57PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am no fan of Sinn Fein but the term is clearly offensive. I think there is a libertarian-bot cabal on here, all inclined to the same ideas, misunderstandings, illogical posts, and in-group thanks whoring but I wouldn't suggest we tag them all as LibBots.

Dan_Solo · 23-03-2015 03:28PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I am no fan of Sinn Fein but the term is clearly offensive. I think there is a libertarian-bot cabal on here, all inclined to the same ideas, misunderstandings, illogical posts, and in-group thanks whoring but I wouldn't suggest we tag them all as LibBots.

Well any -bot usage is as close to a straight up admission that you can't argue the point. There are pretty much zero cases where "you are an X" can be used as a substitute for debate, which is the only purpose -bot serves. Who cares if they exist or not? Someone is admitting themself they need to resort to an ad hominem by using it.

FreudianSlippers · 23-03-2015 03:47PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

I am no fan of Sinn Fein but the term is clearly offensive. I think there is a libertarian-bot cabal on here, all inclined to the same ideas, misunderstandings, illogical posts, and in-group thanks whoring but I wouldn't suggest we tag them all as LibBots.

Aside from the fact that you've taken to an arena where us "LibBots" cannot challenge you on your wildly silly dig at us for "misunderstandings [and] illogical posts" (and I submit that it's no difficult task to ascertain to whom you are referring), can we call an end to this constant obsession with the SF acolytes of discussing who "thanked" posts.

It's wildly immature and totally irrelevant to anything - on top of that, I was under the impression that this is still the Politics forum and that type of personal/group dig and mentioning who "thanked" posts as if it is at all relevant was against the rules?

FreudianSlippers · 23-03-2015 03:52PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well any -bot usage is as close to a straight up admission that you can't argue the point. There are pretty much zero cases where "you are an X" can be used as a substitute for debate, which is the only purpose -bot serves. Who cares if they exist or not? Someone is admitting themself they need to resort to an ad hominem by using it.

Look Dan, if there was any point to argue we wouldn't be calling that person a "shinnerbot" - unfortunately, there is no debating with shinnerbots because they constantly regurgitate the same talking points and refuse to engage in substantive debate.

Not once has any shinnerbot here engaged in positive and adult debate on a topic to do with SF or Northern Ireland. We had one such poster attempt to do so in a thread, received "thanks" from many people including LibBots, and was promptly ignored and pushed to the side by the shinnerbots on the thread. As a result the substantive debate got lost in the mess and AFAIK that person has not posted again (presumably ashamed of the carry on of those shinnerbots here who blindly support everything SF says or does, but "aren't members").

Permabear · 23-03-2015 04:09PM

This post has been deleted.

A discussion on the rules.

Comments