Development Issues

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

The OP does state that Libertas can be discussed.

o rly?

cactus flower wrote:

I'm starting this thread, with the idea that the Lisbon Treaty can be discussed here in a Libertas/Ganley-free environment.

More fully:

Quote :

A second referendum seems inevitable. I'm starting this thread, with the idea that the Lisbon Treaty can be discussed here in a Libertas/Ganley-free environment. In fairness, you are asked also to keep any party political pointscoring out of the thread and focus on the merits of the case.

I think that's perfectly clear on the idea that Libertas is not the subject, and neither is any other kind of party-slagging.

I refer you to PapalKnight's posts.

I see we've moved again...

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

The OP does state that Libertas can be discussed.

o rly?

cactus flower wrote:

I'm starting this thread, with the idea that the Lisbon Treaty can be discussed here in a Libertas/Ganley-free environment.

More fully:

Quote :

A second referendum seems inevitable. I'm starting this thread, with the idea that the Lisbon Treaty can be discussed here in a Libertas/Ganley-free environment. In fairness, you are asked also to keep any party political pointscoring out of the thread and focus on the merits of the case.

I think that's perfectly clear on the idea that Libertas is not the subject, and neither is any other kind of party-slagging.

I refer you to PapalKnight's posts.

Sorry Cookie, it is difficult to merge threads so I was having to split your post into a new thread and the merge it back in here. Bit of a procedure. That is why it seemed to go off the radar for a few seconds.

johnfás wrote:

Sorry Cookie, it is difficult to merge thread so I was having to split your post into a new thread and the merge it back in here. Bit of a procedure.

No need to apologise, merging threads is a pain. But hey, at least you didn't delete my post and then tell me to fuck off because I'm not happy about it!

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Sorry Cookie, it is difficult to merge thread so I was having to split your post into a new thread and the merge it back in here. Bit of a procedure.

No need to apologise, merging threads is a pain. But hey, at least you didn't delete my post and then tell me to fuck off because I'm not happy about it!

Actually I apologised. When, instead of responding to the apology, you went on pissing and moaning about it as if I hadn't - of which the above is a further example - I didn't feel much need to be polite. You're not here to post any more, it seems, just to give out about what we choose to discuss.

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

You're being moderated because you're trolling, and you've repeatedly been rude. You're taking it subjectively because you've lost all sense of perspective on the matter of Libertas.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Sorry Cookie, it is difficult to merge thread so I was having to split your post into a new thread and the merge it back in here. Bit of a procedure.

No need to apologise, merging threads is a pain. But hey, at least you didn't delete my post and then tell me to fuck off because I'm not happy about it!

Actually I apologised. When, instead of responding to the apology, you went on pissing and moaning about it as if I hadn't - of which the above is a further example - I didn't feel much need to be polite. You're not here to post any more, it seems, just to give out about what we choose to discuss.

Well it's more to give out about what you choose not to allow be discussed, unless it suits you.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Sorry Cookie, it is difficult to merge thread so I was having to split your post into a new thread and the merge it back in here. Bit of a procedure.

No need to apologise, merging threads is a pain. But hey, at least you didn't delete my post and then tell me to fuck off because I'm not happy about it!

Actually I apologised. When, instead of responding to the apology, you went on pissing and moaning about it as if I hadn't - of which the above is a further example - I didn't feel much need to be polite. You're not here to post any more, it seems, just to give out about what we choose to discuss.

Well it's more to give out about what you choose not to allow be discussed, unless it suits you.

Which is...? We don't want every single thread about Lisbon to turn into a Ganley-bashing fest. We have Frightened Albanian and we did have Kev Bar until we asked him to stop, and that was quite sufficient.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

You're being moderated because you're trolling, and you've repeatedly been rude. You're taking it subjectively because you've lost all sense of perspective on the matter of Libertas.

Indeed, I'm being moderated, but while others who breach the guidlines of the thread are not.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

You're being moderated because you're trolling, and you've repeatedly been rude. You're taking it subjectively because you've lost all sense of perspective on the matter of Libertas.

Indeed, I'm being moderated, but while others who breach the guidlines of the thread are not.

They're guidelines. A bit of off-topic chat is OK, as long as it doesn't assume the ludicrous one-liner-interchange proportions we've seen before. Coming in and repeatedly sniping at the OP and the thread because you believe that it's not sticking to your interpretation of the original suggested topic is trolling. And it's not necessary or useful to respond to trolling by trying to drown them out with 'banter' - the whole point of moderators is to moderate discussion, and keep it within reasonable and civilised bounds.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

You're being moderated because you're trolling, and you've repeatedly been rude. You're taking it subjectively because you've lost all sense of perspective on the matter of Libertas.

Indeed, I'm being moderated, but while others who breach the guidlines of the thread are not.

They're guidelines. A bit of off-topic chat is OK, as long as it doesn't assume the ludicrous one-liner-interchange proportions we've seen before. Coming in and repeatedly sniping at the OP and the thread because you believe that it's not sticking to your interpretation of the original suggested topic is trolling.

That's disingenuous on your part. I had highlighted my objection and that was fine. Later the discussion turned and there was solid discussion cirticising several political groups, direct contravention of the opening post and nothing was said. If one is going to make rules, one should also stick to them.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

So this is the thread where we can talk about the other thread then ?

I think this is the thread where we can talk about the presence of subjective moderation on this site. Or not as the case will, no doubt, be.

You're being moderated because you're trolling, and you've repeatedly been rude. You're taking it subjectively because you've lost all sense of perspective on the matter of Libertas.

Indeed, I'm being moderated, but while others who breach the guidlines of the thread are not.

They're guidelines. A bit of off-topic chat is OK, as long as it doesn't assume the ludicrous one-liner-interchange proportions we've seen before. Coming in and repeatedly sniping at the OP and the thread because you believe that it's not sticking to your interpretation of the original suggested topic is trolling.

That's disingenuous on your part. I had highlighted my objection and that was fine. Later the discussion turned and there was solid discussion cirticising several political groups, direct contravention of the opening post and nothing was said. If one is going to make rules, one should also stick to them.

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF, or have the equivalent of people korps' Libertas-is-the-spawn-of-Satan posts. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all!

ibis wrote:

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all.

And Libertas gets special mention because the board is so overrun with supporters?

ibis wrote:

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF, or have the equivalent of people korps' Libertas-is-the-spawn-of-Satan posts. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all!

Ah, I see we've been edited again. And again we have Papalknight's ranting about SF lies and Libertas lies and so on and so on, yet SF supporters on the boards were not allowed to defend themselves? Yet those comments were allowed?

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all.

And Libertas gets special mention because the board is so overrun with supporters?

Libertas gets special mention partly because there are people like Kev Bar, Frightened Albanian, people korps, etc etc who can turn any thread about Lisbon into a thread about Libertas - much more so than for any other group - and because there is you, who comes and takes offence at mentions of Libertas. Overall, though, Libertas gets a special mention because Libertas spent a lot of money making sure they were visible, and continue to keep themselves in the public eye. On a politics discussion forum, that generates discussion - and despite Libertas' brief existence, they've generated some real obsessives.

Come on, Cookie, you know this is the case - look at what happens on p.ie. All that's being asked is that some Lisbon threads remain reasonably Libertas-free. The rule is there not to be rigidly enforced, but to enable excessive discussion of Libertas to be pushed off the thread onto one of the others.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all.

And Libertas gets special mention because the board is so overrun with supporters?

Libertas gets special mention partly because there are people like Kev Bar, Frightened Albanian, people korps, etc etc who can turn any thread about Lisbon into a thread about Libertas - much more so than for any other group - and because there is you, who comes and takes offence at mentions of Libertas. Overall, though, Libertas gets a special mention because Libertas spent a lot of money making sure they were visible, and continue to keep themselves in the public eye. On a politics discussion forum, that generates discussion - and despite Libertas' brief existence, they've generated some real obsessives.

Come on, Cookie, you know this is the case - look at what happens on p.ie. All that's being asked is that some Lisbon threads remain reasonably Libertas-free. The rule is there not to be rigidly enforced, but to enable excessive discussion of Libertas to be pushed off the thread onto one of the others.

So some discussion is allowed, as long as it fits into the unrevealed parameters of the moderators of the thread. But it seems that while the discussion of Libertas which was left unhindered by the moderators was acceptable, it would not have been tolerated should I have taken it on myself, as a Libertas supporter to counter Papal Knight's claim of lies by Libertas, as you say yourself "All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF..." seems a bit odd to me.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

It's perfectly OK to criticise political groups as well. All that cactus wanted was not to have to listen to FG supporters criticising FF over the Lisbon campaign, and tonys defending FF, or have the equivalent of people korps' Libertas-is-the-spawn-of-Satan posts. It's impossible to hold a discussion of Lisbon without mentioning anybody at all!

Ah, I see we've been edited again. And again we have Papalknight's ranting about SF lies and Libertas lies and so on and so on, yet SF supporters on the boards were not allowed to defend themselves? Yet those comments were allowed?

If you wanted to defend Libertas' position on the thread, but felt you couldn't do so because of the OP, I'm sorry about that - it would have been perfectly reasonable for you to do so. You could, however, have sought clarification on that.

And yes, it probably would have been moderated if it had threatened to turn the thread into a discussion of Libertas rather than Lisbon.

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

cookiemonster wrote:

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

It wouldn't be, but then it's not what I said. You had right of reply, and should have exercised that instead of bitching, which would have been more constructive for everyone including you. At the very least you should have said what your gripe was, instead of complaining that the thread "wasn't Libertas-free".

I'm assuming, of course, that you wouldn't simply have said that anyone who said Libertas were liars was a meanie and a poo-poo head.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

It wouldn't be, but then it's not what I said. You had right of reply, and should have exercised that instead of bitching. At the very least you should have said what your gripe was, instead of complaining that the thread "wasn't Libertas-free".

Tripe. Had I replied Cactus Flower would be in like a light with the first paragraph all boldy ready to fuck me from a height.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

It wouldn't be, but then it's not what I said. You had right of reply, and should have exercised that instead of bitching. At the very least you should have said what your gripe was, instead of complaining that the thread "wasn't Libertas-free".

Tripe. Had I replied Cactus Flower would be in like a light with the first paragraph all boldy ready to fuck me from a height.

Whereupon you would no doubt have ably defended your position until someone stepped in and called both of you off. On that subject, though, attacking CF isn't a particularly attractive habit. I have my own disagreements with her, and I appreciate she can be quite maddening, but I don't follow her around snarking at her.

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

It wouldn't be, but then it's not what I said. You had right of reply, and should have exercised that instead of bitching. At the very least you should have said what your gripe was, instead of complaining that the thread "wasn't Libertas-free".

Tripe. Had I replied Cactus Flower would be in like a light with the first paragraph all boldy ready to fuck me from a height.

Whereupon you would no doubt have ably defended your position until someone stepped in and called both of you off. On that subject, though, attacking CF isn't a particularly attractive habit. I have my own disagreements with her, and I appreciate she can be quite maddening, but I don't follow her around snarking at her.

I don't find her ability to ignore the glaringly obvious subjectivity of her moderation while futhering her own blatant anti-Ganley agenda a particularly attractive habit either.

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

ibis wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

That, of course, makes perfect sense. The group you can support can be criticised with gay abandon, but you have no right to reply least your reply drag the thread off topic. Well that's fair enough.

It wouldn't be, but then it's not what I said. You had right of reply, and should have exercised that instead of bitching. At the very least you should have said what your gripe was, instead of complaining that the thread "wasn't Libertas-free".

Tripe. Had I replied Cactus Flower would be in like a light with the first paragraph all boldy ready to fuck me from a height.

Whereupon you would no doubt have ably defended your position until someone stepped in and called both of you off. On that subject, though, attacking CF isn't a particularly attractive habit. I have my own disagreements with her, and I appreciate she can be quite maddening, but I don't follow her around snarking at her.

I don't find her ability to ignore the glaringly obvious subjectivity of her moderation while futhering her own blatant anti-Ganley agenda a particularly attractive habit either.

When did she moderate you?