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

Forum feedback

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Is describing the belief system held by some people as "defunct mythology" appropriate and in accordance with the charter?

    When it is done as a mechanism to draw comparison between widely held Christian beliefs and those that were once held by many but now not commonly practised, than yes. I read it as an attempt at a subtle attack on the Christian faith as prohibited in point 1 of the charter, "Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack." While there are limited Hellenic revival groups, I don't believe my comment fails point 3 of the charter as I do not for a moment believe the poster in question subscribes to the beliefs of ancient Greece.

    As per my previous post here, I'm keen to encourage honest and considerate discussion among all posters here. In the context of this forum and its charter, drawing comparisons between Christian beliefs and those of ancient Greece is inconsiderate at best and bordering on uncivil.


  • Options
    #153
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,022 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Ancient Greece? Valhalla is/was Norse. Anyway, question asked and question answered.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #154
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Ancient Greece? Valhalla is/was Norse. Anyway, question asked and question answered.

    My bad, thinking Hades. I dare say there are Norse mythology revivalists out there too. Also Jedis, Pastafarians, etc.. which while respectable belief systems in their own right don't really stack up as fair comparisons to Christianity in a forum such as this. The world religions forum is pretty quiet should anyone want to discuss such things.


  • Options
    #155
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »
    I've done that Smacl, I don't see why you can't just say you think I was being a jerk or something like that instead, and leave it there rather than accusing me of making sectarian comments which is a very serious accusation.

    Following on from some off-line discussions on this I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify precisely what I meant by the term sectarian in this context. I was specifically using the term as per the broader dictionary definition previously provide, i.e. "caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups", as opposed to the more specific usage the term has garnered in the context of Northern Ireland as defined by the PSNI. I had not intended to imply you were guilty of any "hate crime", in this or any other jurisdiction, and my apologies if you construed it as such.

    Note that I would not accuse you of being a jerk as to do so would be an unacceptable and ill defined ad hominem attack. My comments were in relation to a specific paragraph in one of your posts, were not directed at you personally and were explicit in terms of what I considered to be unacceptable.


  • Options
    #156
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Following on from some off-line discussions on this I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify precisely what I meant by the term sectarian in this context. I was specifically using the term as per the broader dictionary definition previously provide, i.e. "caused by or feeling very strong support for the religious or political group that you are a member of, in a way that can cause problems with other groups", as opposed to the more specific usage the term has garnered in the context of Northern Ireland as defined by the PSNI. I had not intended to imply you were guilty of any "hate crime", in this or any other jurisdiction, and my apologies if you construed it as such.

    Note that I would not accuse you of being a jerk as to do so would be an unacceptable and ill defined ad hominem attack. My comments were in relation to a specific paragraph in one of your posts, were not directed at you personally and were explicit in terms of what I considered to be unacceptable.
    Smacl, I am glad we are able to clarify this. On reflection I can understand and see how what I wrote can be construed as inflammatory, certainly unnecessary, and even insulting by people who would not share this viewpoint, even though I had not intended it to be so. This is particularly egregious when what I posted regarding the north had little to do with the topic of the thread. I regret that I displayed poor judgement here and will reflect more in future to ensure that my rhetoric does not run away from me again, to the extent that it obscures my intention, and indeed my point.

    I am glad we have clarified that you were not and are not accusing me of anything criminal, or of having posted hate speech. I hope we can put a line under this now and move forward productively in a friendly manner, while continuing to have interesting discussions on the forum.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    Is there any way of blocking an entire forum?

    I accidentally clicked what I thought was an innocuous enough post on the main page this morning and it brought me to a graphic depiction of a man being murdered in public and vivid descriptions of blood etc.

    It struck me as a perverse and fanciful conversation and would personally rather not have to read about it whatsoever.

    Thank you for any help.


  • Options
    #158
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Was this in the Christianity forum? You are not, perchance, having a swipe at the Crucifixion are you? In which case you are the perverse one. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I would like further information on this.


  • Options
    #159
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    looksee wrote: »
    Was this in the Christianity forum? You are not, perchance, having a swipe at the Crucifixion are you? In which case you are the perverse one. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I would like further information on this.

    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058174793/1/#post116785668

    Assailed by a horrific depiction of violence and torture in the morning just because I clicked "Happy Easter".


  • Options
    #160
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Mod: It was a very brief summation of what could have been what you describe. If you are sufficiently interested in being part of a Happy Easter thread then you must have some idea of what it is all about, and could have saved yourself the anguish. I suggest you go and post elsewhere if you want a 'have lots of chocolate' happy Easter discussion. Perhaps Christianity is not for you, and raising spurious issues in the feedback forum certainly is not.


  • Options
    #161
    TheValeyard
    Registered Users Posts: 12,220 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    shtpEdthePlum wrote: »
    https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058174793/1/#post116785668

    Assailed by a horrific depiction of violence and torture in the morning just because I clicked "Happy Easter".

    This post is nonsense.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    shtpEdthePlum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 556 ✭✭✭shtpEdthePlum


    Can you ban me from being able to see it or something?

    The church ruined a significant portion of my life. I would rather not be reminded of its existence online if at all possible so as to not have to relive those experiences.

    In Irish society it's quite difficult to avoid (big grottos every couple of miles, bells ringing constantly) but surely you could just make a selection that I'm blocked from this area on here.

    I was caught off guard this morning after clicking a thread while half awake. I'd rather not see this forum. As I said any help with this is genuinely appreciated.


  • Options
    #163
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    Mod: I am not aware that there is any way of blocking entire forums, most of us manage by not clicking on threads from forums we do not wish to participate in.

    Why are you so anxious to share Easter wishes if you feel so strongly about Christianity/religion?

    This topic is now closed as you can easily deal with it yourself.

    Other posters, please do not continue this line of discussion here.


  • Options
    #164
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod warning: Less of the condescension please. Given this thread was not tagged as [Christians only] it is open to all posters. In this context it is entirely reasonable for a non-Christian to discuss well understood and documented Christian beliefs without sharing this beliefs once they do so in a civil manner.
    Any response via PM or to the feedback thread only

    Regarding the above, I was not being condescending, it was a genuine question. Nowhere did I say that it was unreasonable for anyone to discuss it. I was asking if the discussion should be held under the pretense that the poster was a christian - i.e. that God is real and has a plan, which the poster alluded to.

    The poster was broaching a discussion of whether the Crucifixion of Jesus was inevitable - which necessitates discussion of the nature of the fall of man, and reference to free-will and God's plan. I am happy to have this discussion, I don't think it unreasonable to clarify the "ground rules" first - if Locksee wishes to discuss it from a Christian perspective, that for the sake of discussion he/she takes as given, as truth, certain things which they do not believe that's grand with me, this could be an interesting discussion and one which I am interested in.

    It's also 'grand' with me if someone turns around and essentially (more politely perhaps) claims that antisemitism has it's roots in a religious belief, and that said religious belief is not true - and that religious conflict is one of the "fruits" of superstition. From such a perspective any discussion about responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, the Son of God is irrelevant. That's a different discussion, albeit one I am not particularly interested in having.

    What I don't want is to spend time and effort discussing the former, only for it to switch to the latter later with some version (more politely I'm sure) of "sure it's not true anyway". I don't think it unreasonable to clarify the basis of the conversation at an early stage, especially with someone who has expressly stated that they do not believe in God, believe it to be nonsense, and in fact damaging. (To be clear, this is a legitimate position and everyone is entitled to their opinion.)

    For those looking to better understand things it is perfectly legitimate to me to say something like "I am not a Christian, but I am interested in "x" please explain it to me and address my questions as if I were a Christian". I have no issue here - but I wanted to clarify things before going down that road. So to reiterate, I was not being condescending - the opposite in fact, I was being respectful of the poster in question, and their stated views by asking on what basis they wished to have the discussion.


  • Options
    #165
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »
    What I don't want is to spend time and effort discussing the former, only for it to switch to the latter later with some version (more politely I'm sure) of "sure it's not true anyway". I don't think it unreasonable to clarify the basis of the conversation at an early stage, especially with someone who has expressly stated that they do not believe in God, believe it to be nonsense, and in fact damaging. (To be clear, this is a legitimate position and everyone is entitled to their opinion.)

    This is unreasonable as it relies on a non-existent future bad faith argument, "sure it's not true anyway", where the poster has no history of making such arguments nor do we have any reason to believe that they may do so in the future. This also borders on backseat moderation. Should anyone make an argument of the form "sure it's not true anyway", the moderating team would deal with it as they have done in the past. When someone posts in breach of the rules, report them. Speculating they might do so in the future without strong supporting evidence constitutes a personal attack.
    For those looking to better understand things it is perfectly legitimate to me to say something like "I am not a Christian, but I am interested in "x" please explain it to me and address my questions as if I were a Christian". I have no issue here - but I wanted to clarify things before going down that road. So to reiterate, I was not being condescending - the opposite in fact, I was being respectful of the poster in question, and their stated views by asking on what basis they wished to have the discussion.

    Given you already pointed out that the poster is an atheist, suggesting they need to state that they are not a Christian is patently superfluous. Likewise that they are discussing Christian beliefs in a Christianity forum indicates interest in the subject matter. That you are clearly aware of these things yet still felt the need to declare them reads as condescending.


  • Options
    #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    This is unreasonable as it relies on a non-existent future bad faith argument, "sure it's not true anyway", where the poster has no history of making such arguments nor do we have any reason to believe that they may do so in the future. This also borders on backseat moderation. Should anyone make an argument of the form "sure it's not true anyway", the moderating team would deal with it as they have done in the past. When someone posts in breach of the rules, report them. Speculating they might do so in the future without strong supporting evidence constitutes a personal attack.
    I would have considered the fact that they do not believe it to be true as suggestive that this fundamental belief may form an intellectual foundation of what they post. I don't see how I could assume it does not without being grossly disrespectful to the individuals beliefs. It seems reasonable to ascertain at this stage before going further what basis they wish to have the discussion on.

    It is not back seat moderation - people can post whatever they want as far as I am concerned. Whether I wish to have a discussion with them is surely up to me. It is you who are stretching this out and over-egging things - I did not accuse the poster in the thread of making bad faith arguments. I asked a question about what basis they wanted to have the discussion on - i.e. within the bounds of Christian theology, which necessitates putting aside stated positions for the purposes of discussion. If the poster responded "yeah answer as if I were a Christian" then that's fine with me and I'm clear on what basis we are having the discussion. If they said otherwise, then that's fine too, but any answer I may give would be different.
    Given you already pointed out that the poster is an atheist, suggesting they need to state that they are not a Christian is patently superfluous. Likewise that they are discussing Christian beliefs in a Christianity forum indicates interest in the subject matter. That you are clearly aware of these things yet still felt the need to declare them reads as condescending.
    I did not say that they need to state that they are an atheist. Nor did I say that they do not have an interest in the topic at hand. Not sure where you are getting that from. (Although on this point the Charter does say that it is important to be honest and clear about your faith (and presumably lack thereof) where this is relevant to answers/discussions).

    What I am asking the poster to clarify (at no stage did I say they have to, or should not post if they do not) is what basis they wish to have the discussion on - the basis of their actual, stated beliefs, or one within the boundaries of my beliefs, whereby they would need to accept as a given certain things they fundamentally do not believe.

    Really, this was a quite straightforward question, I do not understand your objection. If you and I were discussing Christianity face to face and you asked a question I would not insult you by presuming that you are automatically taken as given the truthfulness of a whole myriad of things you have given great thought to and rejected. We would clarify the basis of discussion first and proceed from there. You might well say to me "suppose I were a Christian, how does x work".

    Now it may well be that the basis of discussion is already set by virtue of the particular forum, but I am not clear on this so you might explain this to me... am I to take it that if an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew or whomever) asks a question it should be immediately understood that this question should be answered as if this person were a Christian, with no reference to their actual beliefs and with no attempt to be made to clarify what basis they want to have the discussion? And if the poster subsequently deviates from this pretense (i.e. Christian perspective) by saying they don't believe it to report the post? This would certainly make things clearer, but would seem an unreasonable imposition on non-Christians.

    Or is it the way I worded my question that is the issue (or something like that)? :confused:

    I would appreciate some clarity here, as I do not want to be taking up time (both yours and mine) unnecessarily.


  • Options
    #167
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »
    I am not clear on this so you might explain this to me... am I to take it that if an atheist (or a Muslim, or a Jew or whomever) asks a question it should be immediately understood that this question should be answered as if this person were a Christian, with no reference to their actual beliefs and with no attempt to be made to clarify what basis they want to have the discussion? And if the poster subsequently deviates from this pretense (i.e. Christian perspective) by saying they don't believe it to report the post? This would certainly make things clearer, but would seem an unreasonable imposition on non-Christians.

    Or is it the way I worded my question that is the issue (or something like that)? :confused:

    You should properly respond to any post based solely on its content, not who has made that post nor on your assumptions of how their beliefs or lack thereof might impact on what they have said or their understanding of the subject matter. So for example, while Looksee may no longer be a practising Christian that does not imply they're not as knowledgeable on the subject as anyone else here, having practised for more years than many.

    When someone talks about Christianity who is not a Christian, you can assume it refers to their understanding of Christianity and it teachings. Your repeated suggestion that there is any pretense taking place is both unfounded and uncivil.
    I would appreciate some clarity here, as I do not want to be taking up time (both yours and mine) unnecessarily.

    I hope this clears it up for you.


  • Options
    #168
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    You should properly respond to any post based solely on its content, not who has made that post nor on your assumptions of how their beliefs or lack thereof might impact on what they have said or their understanding of the subject matter. So for example, while Looksee may no longer be a practising Christian that does not imply they're not as knowledgeable on the subject as anyone else here, having practised for more years than many.
    At no stage did I say or imply that anyone was not as knowledgeable as anyone else? One's level of understanding of something does not necessarily bear any relation to whether they believe it is true. But whether they believe it to be true most definitely has a bearing on how people can discuss it, and where to start.
    When someone talks about Christianity who is not a Christian, you can assume it refers to their understanding of Christianity and it teachings. Your repeated suggestion that there is any pretense taking place is both unfounded and uncivil.
    Is their understanding of Christianity (if they are an atheist for example) not that it is untrue? For someone with this understanding I would not expect any discussion or answer starting with the fall of man to satisfy them.

    I did not suggest that there was any pretense, I asked the poster if one should be adopted for the purposes of discussion, this is altogether different and, I would think, quite normal in discussions of this type.
    I hope this clears it up for you.
    So if someone (lets say you seen as we are the ones talking) asks a question about Christianity, lets stick with "Was the Crucifixion of Jesus Inevitable" I should discount my knowledge of your position on the religious question, and take it as default that you are asking this question within the Christian "sphere" (i.e. tacitly accepting for the purposes of discussion that Christ exists, God exists etc.) and answer accordingly?

    Thank you for taking the time to get to the bottom of this. I would say at this point that it appears you have interpreted my question to Locksee as being in some way insulting, it was intended as the opposite, to respect their well thought out and considered position - to precisely not make any assumption about their beliefs but rather to clarify how they wished to proceed. I mean, if I just proceeded and engaged as if they believed a bunch of things that they have said before that they don't, by giving an answer that makes sense within my belief system but not theirs, without first asking if this is how they wanted to proceed, I mean, that would be disrespectful and insulting. I try not to treat users on forums as faceless entities met anew with each post, but rather as the individual human beings they are; whereby over time through discussions we get to know each other and thus have more informed, productive discussions within a community. Perhaps this approach is misadvised, but it always appealed to me, never moreso than during the pandemic.

    It seems despite my sincere efforts, my words have been interpreted - perhaps because of my own failings - in the worst possible light :( My apologies to Locksee if she felt insulted, it was not my intent.


  • Options
    #169
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I would suggest, and argue, that the thread on the restrictions on religious worship should remain open. The ban on religious worship is the number one issue effecting the faithful in Ireland, leaders of the main denominations, and also other religions such as Islam, are commentating heavily about it. We have not hit the end of the road with this yet, evidenced not least by recent developments, with more imminent with upcoming announcements.

    There was also some useful, detailed, productive and developing discussion going on about the various legalities, the SIs etc, which was then delved into by another poster, moving things back to already covered ground. If this should spell the end of the thread, I must remark on the oddness of a thread seemingly being viewed as potentially "derailed" after such back and forth when the poster in question is a moderator, and the moderators posts all being "thanked" by the other moderator who locked the thread. We will see, I remain hopeful it will reopen.

    Something to bear in mind while the moderators are in conclave over this, I know feedback is welcomed so I hope this helps.


  • Options
    #170
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    For the record, I agree with the decision to close the covid thread which was probably more suited to the covid forum than here in the first instance.


  • Options
    #171
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I have deleted a bunch of covid restrictions posts from the church buildings thread. Given the covid thread has been locked, please consider covid related discussion currently off topic for this forum. Boards has an excellent and detailed Covid-19 should you wish to discuss this topic in depth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    I have deleted a bunch of covid restrictions posts from the church buildings thread. Given the covid thread has been locked, please consider covid related discussion currently off topic for this forum. Boards has an excellent and detailed Covid-19 should you wish to discuss this topic in depth.

    That's some champion censorship of discussion of probably the most significant thing to happen to faith communities in Ireland in centuries. I had thought the point of this forum is to discuss things from a Christian point of view, something which is impossible in the forum you suggest.


  • Options
    #173
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    If it had been a discussion that might be a valid point, however it was just repetition of one point of view with any alternate opinion, even Christian opinion, being dismissed as being in some way irrelevant, or with a refusal to engage. It had descended into soapboxing, personal abuse, promotion of illegal activity and rules lawyering.

    Threads are often closed on Boards when a topic has been discussed to no conclusion, this is not unusual. The grouping of topics is also normal practise. Throughout Boards it is accepted that, unless a thread has been specifically marked to the contrary, all and any posters may contribute, provided they post within the Charter.

    There is a specifically Covid related thread here on the topic and in this forum.


  • Options
    #174
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    looksee wrote: »
    If it had been a discussion that might be a valid point, however it was just repetition of one point of view with any alternate opinion, even Christian opinion, being dismissed as being in some way irrelevant, or with a refusal to engage. It had descended into soapboxing, personal abuse, promotion of illegal activity and rules lawyering.

    Threads are often closed on Boards when a topic has been discussed to no conclusion, this is not unusual. The grouping of topics is also normal practise. Throughout Boards it is accepted that, unless a thread has been specifically marked to the contrary, all and any posters may contribute, provided they post within the Charter.

    There is a specifically Covid related thread here on the topic and in this forum.
    Will you lock that thread too if I discuss the latest developments such as the Gardaí interrupting a Mass, and the related response, or suggested response to it? Or the responses of many of the faithful such as the various rosaries outside churches and comments from international religious leaders?

    Or discuss the comments from the church in general about imminent reopening?

    If I start a new thread about the last point above will it be locked?

    This should be clarified, as Smacl says any Covid related discussion is off topic in the forum entirely (and presumably will result in further censorship).


  • Options
    #175
    looksee
    Registered Users Posts: 28,110 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    After discussion with the mod team, it has been decided that discussion can continue in the threads linked here in the Boards Coronavirus directory.

    Posters are advised that any soapboxing or promotion of illegal activity will result in sanctions.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    That's very cool, I didn't know there was such a directory, very handy. Thanks for this, I think it is a fair compromise all round. Taoiseach has promised the Bishops that Mass will be allowed from the start of May so hopefully the ban on worship will come to an end soon in any case.


  • Options
    #177
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I have been accused of advocating illegal activity. I reported this post and pointed out that I have done no such thing. Baptisms, confirmations and first communions are not illegal. There exists clear public health guidance that they "should not" go ahead, but they are not legally prohibited. RTE have also reported on this. https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0701/1232517-covid-restrictions/
    While such ceremonies are not prohibited under the guidelines, the official advice is that they "should not take place at this time".
    The moderator is in grave error, with their mistaken belief that this form of ceremony constitutes a "prohibited event" under the "Dwelling Event" provisions. It does not. But fair enough, mistakes happen. I reported the post which made this horrendous accusation that I am advocating breaking the law in the expectation that the error would be addressed, sadly it seems that this had not been addressed and we are in a position (again, sadly), where this moderator has made extremely serious FALSE accusations about me, and it seems it persists despite correction being offered via the report function. Accusing someone of supporting or advocating criminal activity is no small matter.

    Can this false accusation please be corrected.

    Out of consideration for mobile users and for clarity of what post I am referring to, I tried to embed an image of a screenshot I took of the post where the accusation is made, but it proved unreadable when resized on the forum. But if I have done it properly this link should take you straight to the post. If that doesn't work it is a recent enough post in that thread so just scroll a little and you should find it. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117564003&postcount=157


  • Options
    #178
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »
    I have been accused of advocating illegal activity. I reported this post and pointed out that I have done no such thing. Baptisms, confirmations and first communions are not illegal. There exists clear public health guidance that they "should not" go ahead, but they are not legally prohibited. RTE have also reported on this. https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0701/1232517-covid-restrictions/


    The moderator is in grave error, with their mistaken belief that this form of ceremony constitutes a "prohibited event" under the "Dwelling Event" provisions. It does not. But fair enough, mistakes happen. I reported the post which made this horrendous accusation that I am advocating breaking the law in the expectation that the error would be addressed, sadly it seems that this had not been addressed and we are in a position (again, sadly), where this moderator has made extremely serious FALSE accusations about me, and it seems it persists despite correction being offered via the report function. Accusing someone of supporting or advocating criminal activity is no small matter.

    Can this false accusation please be corrected.

    Out of consideration for mobile users and for clarity of what post I am referring to, I tried to embed an image of a screenshot I took of the post where the accusation is made, but it proved unreadable when resized on the forum. But if I have done it properly this link should take you straight to the post. If that doesn't work it is a recent enough post in that thread so just scroll a little and you should find it. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117564003&postcount=157

    With respect, the contents of an RTE news piece do not constitute official government advise, whereas the linked CAB page does. Should you care to produce a stronger reference to support your assertion, e.g. from one of the statutory instruments on covid from gov.ie, I will happily provide an apology and remove the warning.

    I would note that the guidance that "Religious ceremonies such as communions, confirmations and baptisms should not go ahead at this time" comes into effect from July 5th as a revision to more stringent rules that are already in effect.

    Given that this is both a highly sensitive and dynamically changing situation, I would also ask you not to directly advocate for breaching government public health guidelines, regardless of the actual or perceived legal position at time of posting. This is not an easy time for any of us and such incendiary advise is not helpful.

    Please also note that notification of a reported post can take several days to reach the mod team via email. I have yet to receive any notification with respect to this. As for your card today, that was for in-thread discussion of moderation after explicitly being instructed not to.

    I have also locked this thread pending discussion with the mod team. Please take any other covid related discussion to the covid forum.


  • Options
    #179
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    With respect, the contents of an RTE news piece do not constitute official government advise, whereas the linked CAB page does. Should you care to produce a stronger reference to support your assertion, e.g. from one of the statutory instruments on covid from gov.ie, I will happily provide an apology and remove the warning.

    I would note that the guidance that "Religious ceremonies such as communions, confirmations and baptisms should not go ahead at this time" comes into effect from July 5th as a revision to more stringent rules that are already in effect.

    Given that this is both a highly sensitive and dynamically changing situation, I would also ask you not to directly advocate for breaching government public health guidelines, regardless of the actual or perceived legal position at time of posting. This is not an easy time for any of us and such incendiary advise is not helpful.

    Please also note that notification of a reported post can take several days to reach the mod team via email. I have yet to receive any notification with respect to this. As for your card today, that was for in-thread discussion of moderation after explicitly being instructed not to.

    I have also locked this thread pending discussion with the mod team. Please take any other covid related discussion to the covid forum.
    Happy to abide by instruction that advocating breaching or disregarding "guidelines" "regardless of the actual or perceived legal position at time of posting" is not allowed.

    An easy solution here would be for you to edit the wording in the "warning" to say precisely that. It achieves the same result from the perspective of the moderators, and removes any of the serious issues that come with accusing someone of advocating illegal activity.

    I think this is a fair compromise? No need for an apology as I understand your general point, I hope you appreciate the seriousness of an accusation of supporting or advocating illegal activity and my resultant distress. The yellow card etc. does not bother me, it is the defamatory nature (albeit this may be an error easily resolved by my suggestion above) of the accusation of advocating illegal activity which is the issue. Hopeful that tis can be resolved as per the above, without the need to go to further trouble (incidentally, the "burden" is on the one making the alleged defamatory statement to demonstrate the truth of the comment as a defense. In this instance the clue is in the fact that the relevant SI cited for those fines is in reference to "Fixed Payment Notice and Dwelling Event Provisions" which are an entirely separate category to the type of ceremony we are talking about here. It is clear from the published language on Gov.ie that what is relevant here is couched in language such as "it is advised" "should" etc. It is clearly advisory, and the fines you reference are in relation to an entirely different "category" of "event", which is again refined and should be viewed in light of the definition of "scheduled event" etc. Anyway, I don't think there is need to go further, as I believe we should all be happy with my proposed solution.)


  • Options
    #180
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CAB is the Criminal Assets Bureau btw! I hope we can all agree they should not be involved here :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Sonia Loud Resort wrote: »
    Happy to abide by instruction that advocating breaching or disregarding "guidelines" "regardless of the actual or perceived legal position at time of posting" is not allowed.

    An easy solution here would be for you to edit the wording in the "warning" to say precisely that. It achieves the same result from the perspective of the moderators, and removes any of the serious issues that come with accusing someone of advocating illegal activity.

    I think this is a fair compromise? No need for an apology as I understand your general point, I hope you appreciate the seriousness of an accusation of supporting or advocating illegal activity and my resultant distress. The yellow card etc. does not bother me, it is the defamatory nature (albeit this may be an error easily resolved by my suggestion above) of the accusation of advocating illegal activity which is the issue. Hopeful that tis can be resolved as per the above, without the need to go to further trouble (incidentally, the "burden" is on the one making the alleged defamatory statement to demonstrate the truth of the comment as a defense. In this instance the clue is in the fact that the relevant SI cited for those fines is in reference to "Fixed Payment Notice and Dwelling Event Provisions" which are an entirely separate category to the type of ceremony we are talking about here. It is clear from the published language on Gov.ie that what is relevant here is couched in language such as "it is advised" "should" etc. It is clearly advisory, and the fines you reference are in relation to an entirely different "category" of "event", which is again refined and should be viewed in light of the definition of "scheduled event" etc. Anyway, I don't think there is need to go further, as I believe we should all be happy with my proposed solution.)

    With respect to laws in force at this point in time, from the previously linked Citizens Information site
    Citizens Information wrote:
    Laws in place now
    The Government continues to issue guidance to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. It has also passed laws that make it an offence to do or not do certain things.

    Current restrictions are set out in the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A - Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 (pdf), as amended by Statutory Instrument 267 of 2021 (pdf). The amendment sets out the easing of restrictions on events, business and services and applies until 5 July 2021.

    Neither of these documents makes any reference to baptisms or communions as they do to weddings or funerals. As such, by my reading, baptisms or communions are subject to the same restrictions as any other indoor event. This in contrast to the changes due on the 5th July where they are referenced explicitly. Again, if you you have information contrary to this, please provide it.

    With respect to the covid thread, it will remain locked until such time as the mod team have had an opportunity the best approach moving forward.


Advertisement