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.

Options
1…8384858688

Comments

  • Options
    #2612
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    jank wrote: »
    It is not being followed currently in Germany and Austria. Surely you have seen the news?
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11821822/Germany-drops-EU-rules-to-allow-in-Syrian-refugees.html

    I was not arguing the first point but the issue that Dublin II is still law is debatable to say the least. Dublin II is a pan EU rule, which at the moment is a busted flush as countries can suspend it without debate. To say it is still law is pushing it, its like the law in Ireland which states that its illegal to serve someone intoxicated yet, a visit to any pub on an average friday night anywhere in Ireland will tell you that this law is never enforced.

    I'm not going to argue the substance of these points with you on this thread because it is for discussion of the rules. You seem to accept the principle and spirit of the rule as it is applied and you are free to start a new thread as to whether the EU has suspended Dublin II or not and will not be punished for questioning whether it applies or ought to be applied etc. If someone posts with an incorrect interpretation of Dublin II and is in effect trolling, sanctions will apply.

    Mod Note: Now, no more discussion of the substance of the topic in the Rules thread. Please link post #2607 in your OP of the new thread if you decide to open one


  • Options
    #2613
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Threads should not be closed because there is a similar effort in the Politics Café imo.

    I understand when a thread is started with an OP that isn't up to scratch (and this absolutely wasn't!), that it could be closed/deleted etc, but I think that this sets a bad precedent. I would argue that there absolutely is merit in closing/deleting that thread because of a host of other rules, but not because there exists a similar thread elsewhere. Perhaps on the occasions that the lines are blurred, it would be more reasonable to ask a poster to re-do their OP in line with the charter?

    Again a problem of this 'two tier' effort at political debate which is imo going to hurt this forum badly.


  • Options
    #2614
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Since it was started by the same poster I think that was the right thing to do.

    A thread will be kept open if there is a decent discussion happening or the potential for one, there's no hard and fast rule, unfortunately we've had a couple that had little hope of redemption recently.

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



  • Options
    #2615
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I am absolutely not arguing for that thread to remain open, I am arguing that the reason given sets a very bad precedent.

    Just because a thread is open in Café, does not mean the exact same topic should not be open here, as you yourself said;
    K-9 wrote: »
    Well we wouldn't welcome the bot accusations here. If people want to discuss those topics here by all means start some threads. The cafe is for a looser style of discussion so we can divert posters there if there's any bother.

    I think it's logical to suggest that what follows from that is that 'you've already started this in the Café' can't really be a valid reason for closing a thread. The rubbish that was the OP was the reason that the thread was closed (and should have been closed), not the fact that the topic was already in 'discussion' in the Café.


  • Options
    #2616
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Have their been no moderators on-line as regards the café for the last two or so days?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2617
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Nodin wrote: »
    Have their been no moderators on-line as regards the café for the last two or so days?
    It's an entirely separate forum now, so I don't know if the mods here will know. But from what I have seen there seems to have been very little to no moderation for about 2 weeks. TBH moderating the Cafe is not an enviable job ;)


  • Options
    #2618
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Separate forums alright but, since it's been asked, the Cafe is short-staffed at present. Myself and another mod have stepped down and they're currently in the process of appointing some replacements. Normal service should resume shortly.


  • Options
    #2619
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am absolutely not arguing for that thread to remain open, I am arguing that the reason given sets a very bad precedent.

    Just because a thread is open in Café, does not mean the exact same topic should not be open here, as you yourself said;


    I think it's logical to suggest that what follows from that is that 'you've already started this in the Café' can't really be a valid reason for closing a thread. The rubbish that was the OP was the reason that the thread was closed (and should have been closed), not the fact that the topic was already in 'discussion' in the Café.

    It was one reason. I do see your point but with time considerations and pressures, sometimes it isn't possible to give a full explanation.

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



  • Options
    #2620
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Jep Gambardella wrote: »
    Separate forums alright but, since it's been asked, the Cafe is short-staffed at present. Myself and another mod have stepped down and they're currently in the process of appointing some replacements. Normal service should resume shortly.

    Alas they don't have a permanent feedback thread.

    Fair enough, as there's (even excepting the fact that I could be wrong about some) disgraceful stuff going up in there at the moment.


  • Options
    #2621
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It's an entirely separate forum now, so I don't know if the mods here will know. But from what I have seen there seems to have been very little to no moderation for about 2 weeks. TBH moderating the Cafe is not an enviable job ;)

    More noticeable after the last 3 or 4 days. I thought it was maybe just me but theres a few there that are way, way over the line.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2622
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    This isn't the place for cafe discussion though, independent forums and all that.

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



  • Options
    #2623
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    PS. You can pm C-Mods or start a sitewide feedback thread though if you think it is warranted.

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



  • Options
    #2624
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,414 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am absolutely not arguing for that thread to remain open, I am arguing that the reason given sets a very bad precedent.

    Just because a thread is open in Café, does not mean the exact same topic should not be open here, as you yourself said;

    I think it's logical to suggest that what follows from that is that 'you've already started this in the Café' can't really be a valid reason for closing a thread. The rubbish that was the OP was the reason that the thread was closed (and should have been closed), not the fact that the topic was already in 'discussion' in the Café.

    I see where you're coming from, emmet02. The reason that there are multiple threads in the Café on this subject, including one started by the OP was one of the reasons that I closed the thread. The opening post was below the standard of this forum. In addition, we have the EU subforum wherein there is an active thread on the subject of the refugee crisis. The mere fact that a thread has strong similarities to one in the Café alone would be insufficient grounds for closure. Indeed, there is some overlap in the forums such as discussion of Irish Water.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #2625
    Terry5135
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭Terry5135


    Palmach wrote: »
    Don't you just love left wing PC types and their attitude to free speech? I have to say the level of proper robust debate in the cafe has been refreshing.

    I don't really know what 'left wing' has to do with it and I'm not even sure 'PC types' really fits here, but your sentiments are dead on. IMHO, that is. Of course, lol. I very quickly ran into anal moderation here and pretty much gave up on the forum. It does seem, however, that different moderators cover different discussion areas - I have no real idea if this is true, I'm too too rarely around, but it was an impression. Maybe they cover sections and then rotate to other sections, I dunno. I did find in another section that no one started wetting their pants when a certain level of insulting manner went around. I didn't test the language barrier, however.

    I remember getting another warning for discussing the first warning in public, even as I made some generalized remark about mods universally not much caring for public examinations. But after that warning, some mod emailed me a link to the rules and there was nothing there that I could detect against discussing moderation itself.

    So it's always the same question, isn't it. Who moderates the mods?

    Anyway, I'm sorry I missed the [seemingly] unmoderated or lightly moderated robust debate you refer to.

    As for left wingers, there aren't any left wingers in Ireland. There are sentimental neofascists and feelgood neoliberals. America is filled with them too. Everyf'ingbody is right of Richard Nixon. And posturing higher standards than Charles Haughey. Besides, left and right are 19th century terms. Now we have fear and muscle as the two political mainstream beliefs. In every western country.


  • Options
    #2626
    Terry5135
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭Terry5135


    K-9 wrote: »
    This isn't the place for cafe discussion though, independent forums and all that.

    Wha?????


  • Options
    #2627
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Terry5135 wrote: »
    Wha?????

    The politics cafe is a separate, independent forum from here with different mods. As such, there isn't much point raising issues from there, here.

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



  • Options
    #2628
    Terry5135
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭Terry5135


    K-9 wrote: »
    The politics cafe is a separate, independent forum from here with different mods. As such, there isn't much point raising issues from there, here.

    Thanks. I misunderstood. I took it as a descriptive phrase rather than the site of an actual forum.


  • Options
    #2629
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    What about a public services program, articles, a sticky on the subject of statistics and how they are used to manipulate publics opinion. A short concise piece by an expert on statistics explaining what they really mean.

    More and more on boards its been thrown about that one in two are on illness benefited or 76% rise in homelessness there are lots like that, their is another one that tried to imply that over 80% of the population is receiving some sort of benefit form the government( they are careful to not say social welfare benefit in that one but to say benefit, while hoping to frame it as welfare )

    Reading the book thinking fast and slow is really good at explain how statistics can be used to manipulate opinion.

    I know a lot of this is picked up by those who are foaming at the mouth about the long term unemployed and loan parents but you also get it from those trying to frame the debate on homelessness etc as well.

    Its disturbing how often they are quoted with out any real understanding of their meaning.


  • Options
    #2630
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    mariaalice wrote: »
    What about a public services program, articles, a sticky on the subject of statistics and how they are used to manipulate publics opinion. A short concise piece by an expert on statistics explaining what they really mean.

    More and more on boards its been thrown about that one in two are on illness benefited or 76% rise in homelessness there are lots like that, their is another one that tried to imply that over 80% of the population is receiving some sort of benefit form the government( they are careful to not say social welfare benefit in that one but to say benefit, while hoping to frame it as welfare )

    Reading the book thinking fast and slow is really good at explain how statistics can be used to fool people.

    I know a lot of this is picked up by those who are foaming at the mouth about the long term unemployed and loan parents but you also get it from those trying to frame the debate on homelessness etc as well.

    Its disturbing how often they are quoted with out any real understanding of their meaning.

    Mod Note:

    Moved to the discussion on the rules thread.

    If there are any particular pieces on statistics then we can put them in the Useful links/resources thread. I would be concerned however if there were an article dismissing all statistics as misleading then we are getting nowhere as statistics are one of the best ways to support your argument.

    In terms of specific statistics, posters should really be citing the source of the stats before posting. If it is an official CSO statistic then there will be a brief report stating the methodology etc which can then be dissected and argued.


  • Options
    #2631
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Mod Note:

    Moved to the discussion on the rules thread.

    If there are any particular pieces on statistics then we can put them in the Useful links/resources thread. I would be concerned however if there were an article dismissing all statistics as misleading then we are getting nowhere as statistics are one of the best ways to support your argument.

    In terms of specific statistics, posters should really be citing the source of the stats before posting. If it is an official CSO statistic then there will be a brief report stating the methodology etc which can then be dissected and argued.

    True, but that's not what happening I have come across one post on boards saying that one in two people are on benefits in Ireland, so now its jumped from one in two is on illness benefit to one in two is on benefits implying that its social welfare, I have points out in few threads that benefits include child benefits and pensions but you get sick of saying that, sometimes its just stupidity, sometime its trying to frame the debate in a cetin way.

    Using statistic's must work in shaping political debate or advisors and lobbyists would not use statistics.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2632
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,478 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    mariaalice wrote: »
    True, but that's not what happening I have come across one post on boards saying that one in two people are on benefits in Ireland, so now its jumped from one in two is on illness benefit to one in two is on benefits implying that its social welfare, I have points out in few threads that benefits include child benefits and pensions but you get sick of saying that, sometimes its just stupidity, sometime its trying to frame the debate in a cetin way.

    Using statistic's must work in shaping political debate or advisors and lobbyists would not use statistics.

    If someone is continually making vague assertions without backing it up then changing the goalposts when they are found out that sounds like trolling. Maybe report those posters and we can look into them at that stage.

    I had a look at the 2 million people on medical cards issue and was surprised to see that there were nearly 2 million medical cards issued. However, I couldn't find any more specific criticisms of these stats. So it isn't always easy to contradict the official figures.


  • Options
    #2633
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    I wonder how many people get this, say one person eats cornflake for breakfast and then two people eat cornflakes for breakfast of course its a 100% increase in people eating cornflakes for breakfast, it will be presented as 100% rise in people eating cornflakes for breakfast all of which is correct but it is presented that way because it sounds better to say 100% rise that saying two people are now eating cornflakes for breakfast.

    Maybe I am wrong and should have faith in people and that most people can seei through bull###t.


  • Options
    #2634
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I had a look at the 2 million people on medical cards issue and was surprised to see that there were nearly 2 million medical cards issued. However, I couldn't find any more specific criticisms of these stats. So it isn't always easy to contradict the official figures.

    Every kid under 6 getting a free GP visit card? 420k ish (assuming they all apply)

    Just to start with. Also, if my family qualify under the income threshold do we count as one card or four cards? It's really easy to believe the 2 million number if it's the latter.


  • Options
    #2635
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    K-9 wrote: »
    The politics cafe is a separate, independent forum from here with different mods. As such, there isn't much point raising issues from there, here.


    In defence of any who have, there is no similar thread to here over there.


  • Options
    #2636
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    If someone is continually making vague assertions without backing it up then changing the goalposts when they are found out that sounds like trolling. Maybe report those posters and we can look into them at that stage.

    I had a look at the 2 million people on medical cards issue and was surprised to see that there were nearly 2 million medical cards issued. However, I couldn't find any more specific criticisms of these stats. So it isn't always easy to contradict the official figures.

    The official figures can be quite easy to find. From the Department of Health:

    http://health.gov.ie/blog/publications/health-in-ireland-key-trends-2014/


    "By the end of 2013, 40% of the population had a medical card compared with 28% in 2004."

    From the CSO website:

    http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/pme/populationandmigrationestimatesapril2013/

    "The combined effect of natural increase and negative net migration resulted in an overall small increase in the population of 7,700 bringing the population estimate to 4.59 million in April 2013"


    4.59 *0.4 gives 1.836 medical card holders, and since then there has been the extension to under-6s and the relaxation in other categories, meaning we probably have gone over the 2 million mark.


  • Options
    #2637
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I wonder how many people get this, say one person eats cornflake for breakfast and then two people eat cornflakes for breakfast of course its a 100% increase in people eating cornflakes for breakfast, it will be presented as 100% rise in people eating cornflakes for breakfast all of which is correct but it is presented that way because it sounds better to say 100% rise that saying two people are now eating cornflakes for breakfast.

    Maybe I am wrong and should have faith in people and that most people can seei through bull###t.


    Depends on how many people we are sampling. If only a few people are tested then a 100% increase is significant, whereas if we test thousands of people the increase is probably insignificant.

    Journalists looking for a headline in data get a lot of blame here.

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



  • Options
    #2638
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    K-9 wrote: »
    Journalists looking for a headline in data get a lot of blame here.

    Relative vs absolute risk increase etc are the worst offenders for this. "This increases your risk by 400%" sounds a lot saucier than "You would now have a 0.04% chance up from 0.01%."


  • Options
    #2639
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,157 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Hardly an original thought, but it irks me when a thread on the polling / seats / battlegrounds / projected outcomes of a forthcoming election devolves into a debate about the policies / ideologies of the parties contesting a forthcoming election. They are separate topics in my mind.

    I've probably noticed this more in the ugly duckling adjoining forum to be fair.


  • Options
    #2640
    Thelomen Toblackai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭Thelomen Toblackai


    Question: What's the difference now between politics cafe and politics ? There seems to be a similar mix of content and similar brand of posting.

    Is it just personal preference where you want to post stuff and talk about it ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2641
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,414 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Politics (General) and its associated subforums are intended for serious debate and as such are subject to tighter moderation. By contrast, the Café is a more relaxed environment with room for banter, humour and the like. I'd suggest you read the fora's respective charters for more information.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement