A discussion on the rules.

Fair enough, seeing as this thread is a No Discussion on Politics Cafe modding thread, I shouldn't refer to the Cafe like that.

Rather than trying to redirect personal attacks to the Cafe, how about just telling posters that this style of posting is not acceptable, full stop?

Tbh I'm not sure if that is the case in the Cafe, but again that isn't for here as we've nothing to do with the forum, but I take on board your point.

Anyway, we've a new mod added to the team and a suggestion for streamlining has gone to the higher ups, so yep, we do listen now and again!

Our new mod from the Gentlemen's Club will knock some manners into you lot!

Posts re the cafe deleted.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just want to raise something topical here if I can.

At the nadir of the Irish debt crisis around 2010-11, there was a constant cry on this forum for burning unguaranteed senior bondholders in the Irish covered banks. Many people, myself included, would scoff at this impatiently, saying that since depositors are effectively senior unsecured creditors, the obligations rank pari passu, and you can't do one without the other. The point seemed unassailable, and arguments against it were dismissed. They were even dismissed by the Minister for Finance, who entrenched all of our orthodox opinions on this

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2010-10-20.662.0

In the past few days, Paul Gallagher said at the Banking Inquiry that in fact, there was no legal impediment to burning senior, unguaranteed bondholders. I don't understand why not, but he said:

https://inquiries.oireachtas.ie/banking/hearings/paul-gallagher-former-attorney-general/


Just something to bear in mind.

Something that seemed so un-controversial and obvious a few years ago now seems to have come undone. For this reason I think the idea of "obviously false" claims and proposals is one that is easier said than done.

That's a good point but if you're going to draw a line here I do think "generally assumed (by relevant people) to be illegal/legally binding" is a fair one when it's randomers arguing on the internet. Unless you've a good source to back up your point (e.g. as above a former Attorney General) then I don't think arguments that appear to fly in the face of the prevailing legal opinion need to be entertained on here. As it has always been on here, if you're making a factual claim you really need a source for that (even if it's just a claim to theory).

Otherwise you might as well merge the forum with Conspiracy Theories.

I would be less concerned about the laws than about the police. Most laws in most places are not unreasonable. Less likely is a softly softly approach by antsy authorities, especially since the lines tend to blur between enforcing the law and being the law.

I won't point any fingers or even make any specific points about these forums. I'm speaking of principles only. To illustrate the point as a kind of metaphor, Norwegian cops have shot to death two people in the last 10 years; American cops have shot to death more than 500 people already this year.

In most places, it's not about writing laws, it's about training cops and oversight.

If you're about to embark on new rules, please bear one thing in mind - it's a commonly taught maxim to first year law students: Hard cases make bad laws.

Rules should be written for the law abiding, not the lawless. That is generally lost in this era, speaking micro-cosmically or macro-cosmically.

Terry5135 wrote: »

If you're about to embark on new rules, please bear one thing in mind - it's a commonly taught maxim to first year law students: Hard cases make bad laws.

No new rules are proposed AFAIK, just wanting a higher standard, the politics cafe and AH are available too.

Rules should be written for the law abiding, not the lawless. That is generally lost in this era, speaking micro-cosmically or macro-cosmically.

Tbh we don't write rules for the vast majority of posters at all, as they cause little or no bother, something that gets forgotten. It really is only a tiny, though often vociferous, minority that fall foul of the rules. Also if somebody is reasonably civil after a card or ban, that goes a long way to sorting something out.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Then you would never have had a debate about the Irish sovereign debt crisis until it happened. Lots of people predicted a property crash, nobody predicted sovereign calamity.

I would rather focus on credible arguments than credible personalities. Personalities don't have a right to credibility, they are only credible until someone disproves their argument.

I went through some old threads on the necessity to burn depositors equally with other senior creditors, and the authorities offered by myself and others were always credible figures... such as Brian Lenihan and seasoned banking experts.

Given Prof Patrick Honohan's recent comments that maybe the ECB 'didn't really mean' Ireland couldn't burn bondholders in 2011, yet again one of the most expensive unasked questions of the bailout seems to have been, 'why can't we?'

Anyway, tis but one example. Probably better-off in a relevant thread. Just thought I'd mention it in the context of banning 'obviously false' notions.

You'd rather not focus on personalities, then go on to name a few!

Seriously, I don't think something like the above was/is a problem. As long as people are reasonably civil, not soap boxing a point over and over, not manipulating or lying about stuff, there really shouldn't be a problem.

Tbh I'm not sure about your point, nobody foresaw a sovereign collapse (or well very few) so it wouldn't have been an issue at the time.

Anyway, getting back to the original point, there's a hell of a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of it unknowingly peddled by Journalists, and it isn't just confined to politics or economics. We'd a great thread here a while back on exactly that.

I think coming down hard on something like the bail out would be counter productive. We can't mod incorrect popular opinion, that's up to the users to put the info out there, much as many people aren't interested in it, or just seem to forget it!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I would rather focus on credible arguments than credible personalities. Personalities don't have a right to credibility, they are only credible until someone disproves their argument.

I went through some old threads on the necessity to burn depositors equally with other senior creditors, and the authorities offered by myself and others were always credible figures... such as Brian Lenihan and seasoned banking experts.

Given Prof Patrick Honohan's recent comments that maybe the ECB 'didn't really mean' Ireland couldn't burn bondholders in 2011, yet again one of the most expensive unasked questions of the bailout seems to have been, 'why can't we?'

Anyway, tis but one example. Probably better-off in a relevant thread. Just thought I'd mention it in the context of banning 'obviously false' notions.

Credible personalities though are the key form of evidence for an argument, especially in the Irish sense. Its a common complaint of mine that no one ever asks the Irish government to explain or justify its position. Nobody asks a poster that references Brian Lenihan making statements to explain or justify the position - quoting the government press release is enough. Instead deviation from what Brian Lenihan said must be justified by the poster, often to some ridiculous levels: if you disagree with the government position, its often incumbent on you to come up with a fully costed and researched counter proposal.

The natural presumption that the government position/spin is the correct default position leads to some similarly obviously incorrect views being repeated again and again: soft landing and cheapest bailout in the world are obviously discredited now, but they formed a large part of discourse at all levels of debate for many years. The inability to burn bondholders is another - pari passu went on for a while. There was a lot of fear and doom mongering about a Greek CDS deathstar if any bondholder there were burnt. The idea that there was a deal struck in the Eurozone talks in 2012 that would see Ireland receiving retroactive funding for its banks was another. And I'm still, even a short while ago, seeing the legend that Ireland secured a promissory note "deal". Its mildly frustrating to see that myth still being bandied about. The whole Greece case is entirely depressing with the amount of mythology that goes on with that one.

Basically, a lot of these topics are extremely technical and complex. Given how the state hoards information, its very difficult for anyone outside the tent to put together counter proposals or criticise in detail government proposals, especially as amateurs in their spare time. The Irish system of government is deliberately designed for that purpose. This gives an inbuilt advantage to those who rely on "credible personalities" like Brian Lenihan.

Its not going to change.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The Irish Water thread I started was locked for obvious reasons, not faulting the mods at all. The usual back-and-forth wrecked it.

Is it still possible to start a thread on this topic, or related IW topics?

I know there is a (very) active thread on this in the Cafe, but some of us don't like posting in the Cafe, and anyway it isn't part of Politics anymore than AH is.

Testify. There are some salvageable threads in the Cafe, but the "megathreads" aren't. Such "politics" that's in them is more off-topic than on-, and expressing a view contrary to the "received echo chamber" is immediately shouted down with AH-type personal abuse.

There should definitely be a Politics (actual Politics) thread on water. But maybe it would be more manageable to keep them to specific individual issues (like the MCT, as you mention). "Everything related to water" risks it being overrun with "well, I think the HSE is 'related', because it's another Toxic Super-Quango(TM)", and "Blueshirts, Labour Traitors", and so on. Again.