Machine Nation mods agenda against Libertas

The Libertas debate was made private?

lostexpectation wrote:

The Libertas debate was made private?

Morning, lostexpectation.

This is a response from me, not from the Mod team - who can mod the hell out of it if they wish.

One Libertas discussion was made private - quite a long time ago in fact.
The discussion started on March 22 and I can't be sure what date it was made private but it was probably about four pages in.

There were a couple of reasons for this - mostly, I have to say that I pushed for it to be private to pre-empt damage caused by any of the kind of posts that might be written and would have gotten MN in trouble in the way that the Carruth posts landed DC in trouble on p.ie.

Other posters were not so keen to have a private forum but my explanations after the event were as follows.

Quote :

by Kate P on Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:18 pm

I asked Auditor to make this particular thread private to only those who posted on it because I was and am anxious about where the discussion might go and how that might affect the site if it was publicly viewable.

Clearly the tribunal thread over yonder got out of hand and while I don't wish that on Dave, I wish it even less on those who were good enough to set up this rather comfy place.

It was - and is - my opinion that in a discussion that focuses on something as specific and sensitive as this thread has done in the past, it is better not to have that viewable to every passing tourist.

I was also anxious that the way things were going with p.ie, a lot of posters might end up over here and the discussion on this topic would be reduced to the kind of stupid personal commentary that has just gotten Dave in trouble. Apart from the trouble making, it makes for crap debate and discussion and frankly, I have no interest in either.

If people would prefer to have an open debate on this topic, by all means do so but I would be very, very reluctant to engage in it.

As far as I recall cf, I did mention to you in a pm that I thought this would be a sensible step to take. It's not about being 'cloak and dagger', rather it's about being sensible.

This was a follow on.

Quote :

It is possible to do everything right and still come under fire from solicitors. Whether or not you have right on your side is a moot point when legal fees, consultation, time and emotional energy are invested in something that you'd rather not have in your life.

and this

Quote :

There's a big - huge - difference between open political debate and what goes on on some of the threads on p.ie. It is a strength and weakness of the site that anyone can post there. If discussion of Libertas and one of its directors is not allowed in an open way on p.ie, we can be sure that posters from there may want to post on him here and that raises big concerns. I'd hate to see this place suffer from that kind of lunacy that comes with fixation on an individual - be it Bertie or Declan Ganley. But that's the least of it.

It is fair to say at this point that David Cochrane has been asking for a week (since this day last week, in fact) for this private thread to be made public. There has been a certain amount of discussion going on behind the scenes about this and we sent him a statement last week outlining the reasons why there is no obligation for the thread to be made public.

This is it.

Quote :

Response to Concerns Raised by David Cochrane re Private Forum on Machine Nation

Machine Nation observes the right of posters to engage in open discussion. It also balances that right with the right that the subjects of all discussion should be treated with dignity and respect. It reserves the right to learn from the mistakes of others and to pre-empt and indeed prevent defamatory material being published on the web. This is a responsible and pro-active step to take.

In discussion of some issues that have proven contentious on other sites, we have taken, as one particular open discussion progressed, what we consider to be the most fair and most safe route by limiting that discussion to a small group. This move was specifically taken to prevent hi-jacking of the subject by trolls and posters whose motives may not be in the spirit of investigative discussion as we promote here on Machine Nation.

Discussion of this topic is not limited to the private forum. However, the Editorial Team reserves the right to retain the private forum that developed as a result of legitimate concerns raised by sensible posters.

We reserve the right to do all of the above and stand over our actions. Indeed the topic of this discussion has seen posts being hidden on other sites, precisely as a result of the concerns raised above.

All boards have private spheres which the Editorial Team of Machine Nation would not for a moment consider requesting access to. These forums are often for the workings of a content team or for private discussion among specific groups of people. We accept that these are necessary and reserve the right to have them.

The Editorial Team sympathises with those who feel they are the subject of personalised discussion through the private forum and unequivocally states that this is not the case. It is a forum for discussion of issues relating to a topic that has a record of creating difficulty when discussed elsewhere. The Forum is a source of mature, investigative and analytical discussion in the main and was not intended to nor has it morphed into a personalised discussion of any individual or organisation.

The Editorial Team is available to listen to anyone who feels they might be subject of inappropriate discussion in a private forum. The Team unequivocally states that this is not the practice in Machine Nation. Visitors to the site will know that the ethos of the site is friendly and respectful. The Machine Nation Forum aims to develop as a source of mature, investigative and analytical discussion, in a site in which it is enjoyable and rewarding to participate.

The Editorial Team

I am of the personal opinion that David's immoderate defence of Libertas in the face of legitimate discussion and questioning has made it virtually impossible to ask any questions about the organisation without being sometimes somewhat irrationally censured. I contributed very little to Libertas discussion on p.ie for that reason but I know that other posters have received warnings on the basis of comments they have made that are inoffensive and uncontroversial.

To me, it is clear from the OP that David has a difficulty with distinguishing between discussion and criticism - both of which are legitimate, by the way. It is understandable that he is defensive on behalf of an organisation for which he works but if this quote is indicative of his general attitude then we can forget about any rational discussion of Libertas. Asking questions and raising concerns is not sniping.

Quote :

Let me be clear - regardless of me not being 'endearing' - very few people will know the name David Cochrane regardless of the referendum outcome, and it'll hardly damage Libertas' profile for me coming on and (rightly) slapping into place those who think they can snipe and attack Libertas

From a discussion on p.iehere.

I absolutely defend David's right to defend Libertas. I do not defend his right to stifle discussion on the subject by harrassing - and I feel personally harrassed - individuals and/or forums about holding discussions in private that it is impossible to hold in public. It's a no-win situation for all concerned.

It reflects poorly on p.ie as a much vaunted forum for open discussion, it reflects poorly on Libertas that they scream 'libel' and 'attack' every time a legitimate question is asked, it reflects poorly on David Cochrane that he sends messages requesting that material (which he hasn't seen - because it's on a private forum) be made public because he believes - wait for it - that it is libellous. It shows a clear misunderstanding of the libel laws if nothing else because, if there were anything libellous there, it would be against the law for us to re-print it.

On two occasions DC has made apparently 'random' references in pms to me and to the Ed team here, to my work. The implication, very clearly, is that he will post details about my professional life which he conveniently feels presents a conflict of interest in my ability to discuss Libertas on a website like this or p.ie. For what it's worth, I work as a freelance, regional news journalist. It's not a big swing.

I have never referred to Libertas in the course of my work. I'm not a pol cor and I'm not a columnist or analyst. I have provided unbiased news reports to some broadsheets on Lisbon related events and have neither ignored nor commented on Libertas, simply because they were not present. Like I say, it's not a big swing.

I am furious at this point that David thinks it's okay to 'hold' that kind of information over my head as he requests access to private threads. There is no other reason for mentioning it in a pm signed by the editor of politics.ie and the Director of Libertas. It is not my unforced choice to put this personal information in the public domain but, following the second message last night, I find myself taking responsibility for doing so myself. I will not be bullied. I am not providing my name - I'm entitled to that on anonymous forums and I expect that David will respect that. To do any less in respect of any poster whose identity he knows would be grossly unprofessional and a serious breach of 'nettiquette.'

The discussion on the private thread is actually pretty innocuous and no reasonable person could take offence at it or assume that their reputation has been damaged. We have made very, very sure of that as we went along and again more specifically since David's concerns arose. He has, incidentally, despite numerous requests, refused to give specific details of what he finds offensive to him, to p.ie, to Declan Ganley or to Libertas. It's impossible to moderate in the dark under those conditions - on the site in general or on the private thread but we are confident that we have done our best to engage in fair discussion without prejudice. It is impossible to remove offending posts immediately if we don't know what they are. Again, it's a no-win situation.

David has suggested that a person who is not on this board and not on p.ie has read him the contents of the private thread - which has about 8 members - over the phone. However, again, despite requests, he has not given us details of who has apparently hacked into the MN private forum.

I don't know what David thinks he knows, or thinks he might know but the time for tolerating threats to publish (what he knows, or thinks he knows but doesn't have access to) allegedly libellous information (which is a criminal act) or demands for MN to publish allegedly libellous - but unspecified - information (which is requesting us to carry out a criminal act, were there such material on the site) - well that time is gone.

We have tried here to deal with David's concerns in a professional and discreet way without involving everyone here. It is the way that I have always done business but I will not tolerate this any longer.

I am sorry guys on the Ed Team for stepping outside of our team role - please fire me if you want and, as I say, you can mod the hell out of me if you want, but right now I would rather be the roofwalker than be the person reading about the roofwalker.

I am entitled to post in peace. I am entitled - as an individual or a journalist - to ask questions and expect answers. I am entitled to my good name and not to be placed in a position where someone involved with a wealthy business man, a political organisation and the most popular politics discussion board in the country threatens to publish (whatever) information and randomly prefaces it with references to my professional life. None of the several journalists who post on p.ie would tolerate it. I am entitled to not repeatedly receive personal messages - despite reminding DC on several occasions that all MN communications go through the Ed Team.

MN is entitled to go about its business without having its time hijacked - and we have spent a lot of time dealing with DC's queries over the past week, at the expense of solid posting and discussion that makes this a great site. MN is also entitled not to be treated like a dirty word on p.ie where any attempt to mention it - as I did last night when I tried to link to a news item posted here first - sees it replaced with asterisks. MN came about when p.ie was out and there was no attempt to communicate with posters about the nature or duration of the outage. It's a nice place, with nice people, good discussion and a good cup of tea.

So now, lostexpectation, you got a little more than you bargained for.

But I hope that answers your question.

well obviously the private thread wasn't so private, it was a mistake to make it private, DC is paranoid and being childish but he has no power on this site. that would be enough.

lostexpectation wrote:

well obviously the private thread wasn't so private, it was a mistake to make it private, DC is paranoid and being childish but he has no power on this site. that would be enough.

Kate P's personal statement is very welcome. Machine Nation is very young, still at its formative stage. The Ed Team, of whom Kate P is a member (along with Auditor#9, Ibis, EvotingMachine0179 and myself) has been doing its best to support the site development, get "site policy" and a site charter together and this has created pressures of time, compounded by having to deal with a series of aggressive and personalised communications from David Cochrane making demands in relation to running the site.

A thread on Libertas, originally open, was closed for private discussion at a stage when Politics.ie itself was under threat of closure for reasons of possible libel and when posters here had been pm'd by David Cochrane that they had posted libellous material on Libertas. In the interests of safeguarding the site, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the thread was closed. It has not been active to any significant degree since closing.

Personally, I see no further need for me to post in a closed thread and will not be posting in one on this issue. I have asked other Mods to mod my posts, in addition to my self - modding, if I post on Libertas as I have a very poor opinion of it as an entity. But I think it is perfectly possible to continue discussion of Libertas openly and entirely within good posting practice.

All members are asked as usual not to open the site up to action by stating as fact anything they can't prove.

If Declan Ganley wants to put himself forward in public political life he must expect to be scrutinised and cannot realistically expect that material of the "Public Relations" puff stories type will be accepted as the limits of coverage he will get. His employees should realise the same thing. Bullying, hectoring and pestering websites, posters on P.ie and authors may have some initial success in stifling debate but in the longer run will only arouse hostility and suspicion. Not a good idea.

This is a link to the previous Editorial Team statement on this issue

link

ah never saw that before cos it was all hidden

is DC going round reading everything written about ganley on the web by everyone?

lostexpectation wrote:

ah never saw that before cos it was all hidden

is DC going round reading everything written about ganley on the web by everyone?

Im sure he is - probably has a bit of second hand technology that is used by the Israelis and the Chinese to alert him when ever "libertas" "Ganley" are keyed.

We need to start another thread on how Libertas are funded. Keep DC distracted from actual campaigning.

I mean he accuses this board of being anti-Libertas, but come off it, who's pro-Libertas? even on p.ie bar him and McGuirk?

I notice via cedarlounge that McGuirk is FI'er, mercenaries indeed.

That was a great post Kate P. I can see why you chose to be a journalist and why you are suited to it.

I hope that people will now get back to contributing to public threads and leave the spoilt child to play on his own.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

That was a great post Kate P. I can see why you chose to be a journalist and why you are suited to it.

I hope that people will now get back to contributing to public threads and leave the spoilt child to play on his own.

Seconded. Lean ar aghaidh ye girl ye

I'd third Zhou-Enlai. Great response KateP. Really, a private discussion is a private discussion, inside a pub, or on a website. I'm a bit surprised that DC would take this tack...

And if I can add, I really do think there is far too much sensitivity on the part of Libertas and those related to it, which we saw displayed in a recent letter to the IT. Any of us familiar with political campaigns know and expect that criticism will be considerable. Not least because political campaigns deal with significant issues where people have entirely sincere and heartfelt views on either side. I was in the Workers' Party for a decade, and then DL, so I guess I have a thick skin when it comes to such things. Now, when criticisms are personally directed against an individual, not about their beliefs, but about them as people/their personalities/etc, that's a different matter. But MN has as far as I can see avoided any such utterances, at least on the public level, which in some respects is all that counts.

Interesting stuff here.

I went to the Libertas meeting tonight in Tallaght and was very impressed - surprisingly so. Dave and I had a long and decent chat afterwards and I hope he will come here and post - and have said as much to him. For all our sakes, I think now is a good time to leave personalities aside and get on with the discussion.

It would be great if we could have meaningful discussion of Libertas here - and certainly the Dave I met tonight is keen to engage in discussion about Libertas - all aspects of it. And like anyone else here, I'd hope that he personally would be treated with the same degree of respect as any other poster.

Now could be a good time - better than any other time, at a neutral and pleasant venue like this - to start all over again and actually get beyond personalities and the past and have a seriously good debate.

What about ye lads? Can we all keep the claws and handbags out of sight and get on with it - whether he takes up the invitation or not?

If he's not trolling (as before), I can't see why he wouldn't get treated like any other poster!

Agreed Kate. The post above your one is skating very close to the edge of libel. Though it'd be hard to say what he wanted to say without skating somewhat.

I for one would love to see a mature approach and debate on the subject. As I've said already, I don't know much about Libertas (though I know lots about some of its members), but I'd like to get involved in the points that would be raised.

Peace in our time Kate - glad to hear it.

Hermes that post above is one post and an opinion which is not widely shared or at least expressed on this site - would one outburst of opinion be enough to warrant action though? Surely that's part of debating - people get het up and fly off the handle - if it's a pure expression of opinion ... We'd be suing each other left right and center in this country every day if that were the case that one or two posts were enough to warrant action.

Isn't there such a thing as judge-chasing?

I agree that it was broad comment, but for the avoidance of doubt I have edited into modding space - Ed Team can decide.

Fine post by Kate on Monday, just seen now, and much to ponder there.

It the politics that bother me, not the personalities. It is welcome to see in the last day or so more extensive discussion on the facts and political issues in relation to Libertas on a whole number of sites, not excluding David Cochrane's own.

Kate P wrote:

It would be great if we could have meaningful discussion of Libertas here - and certainly the Dave I met tonight is keen to engage in discussion about Libertas - all aspects of it.

I seriously doubt that.

It seems the happyness is restored: From todays P.ie Dev and Ed thread:


by Pidge Thu May 01, 2008 11:59 am

Oh, I just noticed that the term "Machine Nation" (without the space or quotation marks) is blocked by the word censor. Why's that?

David Cochrane wrote:
No, it's not, it was for a while during a period of 'great unpleasantness' - but I think all is back to happyness.

Re: Politics.ie Upgrade, Redesign & Changes
by cactus flower Thu May 01, 2008 2:04 pm

David Cochrane wrote:
No, it's not, it was for a while during a period of 'great unpleasantness' - but I think all is back to happyness.

http://machinenation.****.com/portal.htm

Just testing !

And a little later...

Re: Politics.ie Upgrade, Redesign & Changes
by cactus flower Thu May 01, 2008 2:04 pm

David Cochrane wrote:
No, it's not, it was for a while during a period of 'great unpleasantness' - but I think all is back to happyness.

https://machinenation.forumakers.com/portal.htm

Just testing !

And this -

Re: Politics.ie Upgrade, Redesign & Changes
by lostexpectation Thu May 01, 2008 4:40 pm

i see neither option (to delete)
there no notice and reason for editing thingy.

ETA David still suffering from the "great paranoia"

Government in crisis Trusted sources close to Politics.ie have tipped me off this evening that the Government will fall tonight.

by David Cochrane Thu May 01, 2008 4:42 pm
Off topic folks.

Editor, Politics.ie
Director, Libertas - http://www.libertas.org
David Cochrane
Editor & Publisher

by TheBear Thu May 01, 2008 4:58 pm

Not really; it's someone trying to figure out the new features.

TheBear