Nama thread pulled: here's why....

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
Folks,

I've made the decision to pull a thread about the NamaWineLake list from the site.

There are a few concerns, which primarily center around the likelyhood of comments being made by users on the site that may impugn or defame members of the public who have done nothing wrong in any way.

The NamaWineLake list is a fine piece of work I'm sure, however, the "associations" column invites suspicion and commentary about people who may have no relationship with Nama. It could therefore lead members of this website to make defamatory remarks about those people "associated".

As we have seen today, even elected members of parliament are being pursued for remarks they've made about developers (who through no fault of their own) have found their loans in Nama.

Secondly, having loans moved to Nama does not in any way suggest a developer or any other bank debtor has assets that are not performing.

We want Politics.ie to be a place for quality, responsible and open debate, however the concern is that users of the site make accidentally be misled by this data, and posting remarks here that contain errors (and it's happened three times in a thread in question) leaves users here wide-open to potential defamatory proceedings.

The Terms and Conditions that users agree to by their use of Politics.ie are clear, that users are responsible for what they post on Politics.ie. But we need to be responsible here too.

To that end, whilst we're happy to encourage people to read the blog in question (we're hugely in favor of sources for users to read on) in this situation we have to ask that commentary on the document (including the "associations" or anything else) not be done on Politics.ie.

It's unfortunate, and it's not something I'm particularly happy with, but we must ensure responsible and open discussion, but also we all as users have obligations surrounding the absolute accuracy of the remarks we make here on Pie.
I understand why you're doing this Dave.

However the constitutional provisions protecting one's "good name" [along with private property] are a major impediment to open government and provide a convenient cover for corruption. Countries with more open-ness [& more equality] are much less corrupt & thus, much more prosperous.
 


Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,249
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
Is the site now heading in the direction of banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?

After all, if you look hard enough, you'll always find a poster who doesn't understand the topic and draws false inferences from plain facts. Will that be the excuse should the site move from banning discussion of a specific list of NAMA debtors, to banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?
If the discussion infers that Nama debtors somehow have done something wrong or in some way should be considered in a negative way, that's likely to result in said developer trying to march me into the courts to sue and the user who posted the remarks. I have NEVER had an issue with the discussion of factual information. But I know too well the damage that uninformed "anonymous" remarks can make.

I'd like Politics.ie to encourage open and genuine debate, but I'm not here to defend users who don't understand what being in NAMA actually means. There are individuals objecting to being in Nama on the basis of their reputation, and there are developers in Nama taking members of our national parliament to the High Court for defamation proceedings along side this.

I'm going to apply my own rule from earlier and not discuss the spreadsheet in question here, I'm asking that users accept my bona fides from the OP and respect that.
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
Is the site now heading in the direction of banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?

After all, if you look hard enough, you'll always find a poster who doesn't understand the topic and draws false inferences from plain facts. Will that be the excuse should the site move from banning discussion of a specific list of NAMA debtors, to banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?
I rather fancy that's part of the government's plan.

Any comment on NAMA will soon be a suing matter.

Quell discussion, quell dissent.

Just hand over the ************************************g money.
 

Malbekh

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,012
Was that a link to a rival site about politics run by c. flower?
Yes, as was H. R. Haldeman's who quoted me. I'm not a poster on pwo, although I am a member. I'm very happy to keep posting on P.ie, but this kind of pettiness can drive people off.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
Is the site now heading in the direction of banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?

After all, if you look hard enough, you'll always find a poster who doesn't understand the topic and draws false inferences from plain facts. Will that be the excuse should the site move from banning discussion of a specific list of NAMA debtors, to banning discussion of NAMA debtors in general?

That is a danger and it is potentially a wider problem.

For example I was wondering how, in a very general and abstract sense of course, you could have a debate on what constitutes a conflict of interests given the obvious inferences that may erroneously be drawn by some given the general level of suspicion, lack of trust and rumour?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,613
Yes, as was H. R. Haldeman's who quoted me. I'm not a poster on pwo, although I am a member. I'm very happy to keep posting on P.ie, but this kind of pettiness can drive people off.
It wasn't done out of pettiness. I don't mind reprinting exactly what my concern was when I raised it in the mod discussion:

It's playing a shell game where we say "We're taking this off our site because we think it could be problematic. But hey you can follow this link from our site to another where a few of our users make those same comments"
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
That is a danger and it is potentially a wider problem.

For example I was wondering how, in a very general and abstract sense of course, you could have a debate on what constitutes a conflict of interests given the obvious inferences that may erroneously be drawn by some given the general level of suspicion, lack of trust and rumour?
A specific issue with the list was it was tieing people in that have ZERO to do with that persons business.

The Laziness of the people pulling it together is shown in highlighting people supposedly having interests in Manchester United when that interest was extinguished in 2005.
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
A specific issue with the list was it was tieing people in that have ZERO to do with that persons business.

The Laziness of the people pulling it together is shown in highlighting people supposedly having interests in Manchester United when that interest was extinguished in 2005.
odie, funny you should mention happenings in Manchester..................

Did they eat the dinner?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
odie, funny you should mention happenings in Manchester..................

Did they eat the dinner?
Dunno but you want to defame either of those 2 gentlemen please feel free as their pockets are deep and happy to hit the 4 goldmines because given the nature of their business their handshake is their word and their bond.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,249
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
Ok lads, you can take it outside, let's not get handbaggy here.

I'm happy for users to respond and question the decision, I want to be completely open and transparent about this, but would prefer users didn't knock it off-topic.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
A specific issue with the list was it was tieing people in that have ZERO to do with that persons business.

The Laziness of the people pulling it together is shown in highlighting people supposedly having interests in Manchester United when that interest was extinguished in 2005.

I do take your point, but alas like many others will be printing it out and reading with great interest. Human weakness.

Out of the 223 rows one will be wondering just how many have real substantive involvement? Very unfortunate and unsatisfactory. A shorter list more stringently compiled may have been much more damaging and there again it may not.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
I do take your point, but alas like many others will be printing it out and reading with great interest. Human weakness.

Out of the 223 rows one will be wondering just how many have real substantive involvement? Very unfortunate and unsatisfactory. A shorter list more stringently compiled may have been much more damaging and there again it may not.
I can see some people consulting lawyers and going after the publishers and anybody else who defames them.
 

Squire Allworthy

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,404
Ok lads, you can take it outside, let's not get handbaggy here.

I'm happy for users to respond and question the decision, I want to be completely open and transparent about this, but would prefer users didn't knock it off-topic.
Fair enough, will stop being wicked.
 

Elmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
426
I rather fancy that's part of the government's plan.

Any comment on NAMA will soon be a suing matter.

Quell discussion, quell dissent.

Just hand over the ************************************g money.
Exactly. The minute I heard that O'Flynn was going to sue Creighton, I knew that this would be used to shut down the wider national debate on NAMA and developers.

And so it comes to pass.........:(
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
Ok lads, you can take it outside, let's not get handbaggy here.

I'm happy for users to respond and question the decision, I want to be completely open and transparent about this, but would prefer users didn't knock it off-topic.
David, I agree with you on this topic on this board, (post #2, first in) but odie's desire to see all discussion of NAMA shut down is plain puke making.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
22,622
David, I agree with you on this topic on this board, (post #2, first in) but odie's desire to see all discussion of NAMA shut down is plain puke making.
WRONG

I have issues with the attempt to smear anybody who knows them and the use of the list as a WITCH HUNT which is exactly what is now happening.
 

dresden8

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
14,598
WRONG

I have issues with the attempt to smear anybody who knows them and the use of the list as a WITCH HUNT which is exactly what is now happening.
I will accept your use of SHOUTING as definitive proof.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
29,613
Odie, Dresden, stop it.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top