Falling down the pit to nowhere

[An Fear Dubh]

I am not sure if there is a section to discuss the forum/ethos/direction. It seems to be an Admin topic area only,
I have noted Bearhunter's frustration at the types of discussion that we seem to be falling into -
Bearhunter said in post 9 of the thread 'Britain's Anti-Semitism' - "You lot are worse than us lot. No youse are worse than ussuns. No you...." etc ad fucking nauseum. I don't really care anymore. If this is what this site has come to, namely simply listing the sins of each side, then it should change its name to the Way Backwards." -
And I think this is fair comment from Bearhunter.

Now I do not want to go down the blame game road or look to see who has been the biggest offender, or to create some sort of sliding scale. But perhaps I have played a part in creating the 'beast'.

It has not been my intention deliberate or otherwise to poison debate and discussion. But discussion that involves two opposing ideologies Unionism v Nationalism, and further entrenched by Loyalism v Republicanism, needs to based in facts. We seem to be confused as to what constitutes a fact. And what is opinion and journalist opinion is not fact. And information is transfered from questionable areas as facts. And some things are asserted as facts without any facts being presented to affirm these assertions.

We need to look seriously at what we are discussing as too many topics seem to stray off point and end up following previous cul-de-sac debates, of the type Bearhunter referred. And I have no interest in such debates either. We must form some sort agreed guidelines for debate, when I first joined both Setanta and Harry seemed to have no problem deleting posts that strayed off topic. Why has this policy lapsed?

Now one of our main problems is the lack of balance. Harry is the only regular 'loyalist' poster, and he would admit that he drifts in and out. Wasp is a consistent poster and the only category I suppose he would feel comfortable with would be to be classed 'Protestant', we seem to have an abundance of mouthy Republicans of which I am one. And there are others that are more difficult to categorize given by their lack of regular contributions. And it is this lack of balance that can make Wasp feel under pressure, and because of this he might feel he has to respond before he should. I am sure he will respond with bravado and say he does not feel the pressure. But I have been on 'Loyalist majority sites' and have seen the other side. So I feel that we should not look to Wasp to constantly provide the challenge.

But I also feel that such sweeping generalizations are wrong. All Loyalists are not bigots, all Republicans are not fascists, all Irish supported the Nazis during WW2, all Protestants are not sectarian. And such sweeping generalizations must be curbed. Either by the author themselves or by the Admin, unless links from accepted sites can be provided. We might need to establish a list of sites that are acceptable.

Setanta recently asserted that this forum had found plenty of common ground. I disputed that assertion and think we have found the same old divisions. This should not be a surprise to anyone but to those who innocently believe 'world peace'. But that is not to kick anyone in the teeth, I think leadership can be delivered. And while some might snarl at the mention, the Paisley/McGuinness have shown leadership away from the old ways. And if they can do it so can people like ourselves also forge new links. But we need commitment from members that their intentions are to forge new ways forward and not to create obstacles that put up barriers. How we do that I am unsure as yet but we could perhaps discuss this.

One suggestion might be that for a period a member of the forum is classed 'newbie' and while this tag remains no onus is on them. But once they go to the next level there is an onus to state your intentions. And if you commit yourself to the ethos of finding a way forward that is inclusive then you can not post comments that are not inclusive. You can opt out, but you must state either way or membership is terminated. All admin/mods etc must adhere to the ethos.

There are other points I want to discuss but for a beginning this will do.

[Republic]

Can you clarify what you mean by being inclusive? Thanks!

[An Fear Dubh]

While I do have more to develop this idea, I would rather we discuss it generally first and come to a collective agreement rather than myself of another impose what is meant by inclusive, without making it sound confusing. I am thinking about the general ethos of the forum that we are looking to find a way forward where everyone including the extremes can feel a part of the one. But at the moment it is like some are outside of the whole, either that is by choice or because we have pushed them there. If we have pushed them there then we need to re-evaluate ourselves, if they are there by choice then they need to re-evaluate why they are part of this forum.

[Wasp]

There are some points that I agree with both of you on. Afd for the record I am a member of the Protestant Unionist/loyalist community and proud of it. What anyone defines me is up to them. I was actually thinking today that most republicans on here sing from the same hymn book and jump in to defend other republicans, but this isn't the same with loyalists on the site although it does happen it just doesn't happen often enough. As far as pressure is concerned I agree that at times I do feel it or rather feel more frustration than anything else.

I am still trying to find the guy whom I am taking posts from, if memory serves he is actually Irish and is not Unionist. When I get it I will post it. Republican claims on what a soldier is, is dillusional at best and with that mindset there is not much point discussing it.

Setanta as much as we argue and fight I for one do not want you standing aside and you being a member of sf doesn't bother me, infact it both helps and frustrates depending on your answers. I also agree with you that I am also not comfortable with pigeon holing someone. Now if someone has there views then they are entitled to them, if they call everyone sectarian names etc then they shouldn't be here. But the fine line is too hard to find and that is why apart from constant insults all should be welcome.

[Harry]

First of all AFD thanks for starting this thread and i would urge all members to have an input on this thread and let us know your thoughts. I deleted some posts once to keep a thread on topic and me and AFD where at loggerheads for days and became embroiled in petty digs at each other. It was felt that i had acted in my own interests and had targetted one side, so once me and Setanta had a chat about it was decided to not delete posts to simply keep threads on track and we would only moderate if it was really needed as in sectarian name calling etc.

Merely having these debates is great to me, merely providing the platform to allow these debates to take place is great to me. Altough its the same old arguements at least we're attempting to have a go. We are very short of Loyalist/Unionist posters and i'm banned from Calton simply because i engaged in debate with hardline republicans on UTR. I'm as much a Loyalist as anybody that uses that forum or moderates on it and one day i'm chatting with one of the admins through PMs and the next time i log on i've been banned. I never want to let this forum be ruled like Calton. I know we shouldn't even be using Calton as reference but it seems to be that its the admins way or the high way and thats something we have tried to avoid here.

This is the members site. Setanta and I merely have a few extra controls to use if we really need to. We try and behave just like members and avoid warnings etc but AFD if you feel this is something we need to change i'm more than happy to listen to your ideas. If its felt that this would help get things moving in the right direction then by all means we as admin can change.

I don't see this site as having any goals other than providing somewhere for the different sides to come and debate without one side being favoured. The Way Forward is through talking and we are trying to talk. We aren't going to change anything major or produce a movement of like minded Loyalists and Republicans moving forward with one voice. Too many divisions still exsist, to many wounds haven't healed. I feel this site does more good than bad.

[Jim]

There is always going to be some point scoring going on thats not something we can do away with. I do it, most of you all do it, it just depends if its appropriate.

When I signed up to this website it was under the impression of being a more no-holds-barred forum, than the original forum where we couldnt put flags or symbols in our avatars and it was taboo to say anything in support of the IRA or loyalist paramilitaries, I didnt enjoy that because it didnt reflect my views which I'm sure you all know by now.

Likewise its not a place where you need to be supportive of them. I got banned from UpTheRa very slyly (they kept changing my password) a number of times because I wouldnt agree with their conto logic, and most likely because I was an active poster on these forums too. I stopped trying to go back when I saw some of the PMs Harry was getting.

Important thing is we don't have that here, we have our two religious nutters, we have our two loyalists, and we have plenty (too many) of Republicans and those in the middle somewhere (bh, earl, ptar i cant spell his name) who are quick to go against the grain of either community.

I like it the way it is, even if we are constantly laying into Wasp he's still bothering to give replies unlike other people who have just left and not came back or just nip in now and again to score quick goal and nip out again.

The main loyalists/unionists we've known on other forums are all registered here, they just dont post for some reason.

And, we dont have Aiden!

[An Fear Dubh]

I think both Harry's and Setanta's replies have been informative and reasonable. And I take the point about stifling the site and personal choice, and I would never want to curtail that. But I wanted to explore through collective discussion ways we might avoid the type of frustration that Bearhunter (and myself) and now it seems everyone else had at the types of cul-de-sac debates where one side was weighed against another. I appreciate the freedom granted to this forum.

I do agree that in principle I am against the deletion of posts for any reason. But that assumes you are always dealing with people who are willing to listen to reason. Sometimes people need a slap to bring their thought process into focus. The way I always look at this, we are all in a public bar, and if I said something insulting, then there is a chance I might get a punch in the mouth. The same goes for someone else if they were out of order I would not be slow in delivering the smack in the mouth. The knowledge that your comments do have repercussions does make those in the bar think a bit.

I am not trying to control what people believe, but I have read statements that have generalized sections of society. So not everyone knows that such generalizations are wrong. I do not take such people seriously and from then on everything they say is dismissed. But this leads to the feelings of frustration that Bearhunter expressed and I support. I feel it is unfair on the majority to be dictated to by a minority. And therefore we must make some sort of hurdle that limits such generalizations. Otherwise this forum will not appeal to new members and discourage old members, till it is left with the few that are solely out to fly the flag for their side.

I too think it is worth the effort and time to try and make some connections. At this point I am not proposing anything merely throwing out ideas and thoughts so we can discuss and consider.

Labeling/pigeon holing is not perfect as people are more complex. But we all do it and need to do it to allow analysis and assessment. Wasp says he is a member of 'Protestant Unionist/loyalist community' and I have asked him before in different ways - what branch? He is not DUP unionist, he is not UUP unionist, he is not UDA loyalist, he is not Orange Order loyalist. I am not looking to pigeon hole him, but he seems to be outside of all streams. In other words a minority of a minority of a minority of the largest tradition. But he is of the opinion that his views are mainstream, and are commonly held. That is not possible.

If Wasp is frustrated by facing (I use this term loosely) 'A pan Republican front', then he needs some sort of buffer or support base. And we must provide it. If we do not accommodate Wasp we will constantly be drawn into sliding scale comparisons that serve no purpose. It is my hope that by accommodating Wasp, I might make some ideological connection that will help him. I am not looking to convert him to Republicanism (and republicanism is a lot more than a United Ireland) but I am hoping to show that the Unionist community has nothing to fear from Republicans.

I have to say as a life long Republican, I take exception to people using the title 'republican', who have little understanding of what Republicanism is, and commitment required to live up to those ideals. I have no personal knowledge of the site UTR, and from the sound of it nor am I inclined to bother. I am a member of Carlton but merely to observe. But I do make the regular pro-loyalist statement to keep my cover. But I view it like other sites (including nationalists ones) as having little touch with the real world.

I welcome the responses so far and would certainly like to hear more views, from others.

[Republic]

How do we go about attracting more unionist members?
I feel it would solve many of the problems. It would put a fresh slant on debate and we wouldn't be going down the same cul-de-sacs all the time.

Unfortunately many unionists seem to have no interest in cross-community forums. And I think WASP and Harry should be praised for consistently contributing.

If only more unionists were as willing to debate as they are, then this forum would be flying.

I see whiggamore is a member of this site, yet he never posts. I always enjoyed his input, he was very knowledgeable about the ulster-scots. Is there any way admin could get in touch with any unionist members of this site, i.e. ones who have taken the trouble to register here at least, and ask them to contribute?
That might be a good starting point.
At least those posters might be open to the idea of debate. Killsally is another one that comes to mind.
I don't know, its just a suggestion, maybe not a good one, but I can't think of anything better yet.
Good thread by the way AFD.

[Wasp]

So Harry, Earl and republic are in my club as well or am I in their club??? Wahey at least I am not alone.

[leeside]

setanta said:

They're fair points Republic. Kilsally is a very articulate Unionist and would benifit any site, Wiggamore as you said is well up on his history, but he had told me that he could only pop in and out due to work pressures, and of course I/We all hope Carol comes over. I think if I asked them it'd be like me throwing down the gauntlet to them, so maybe we could agree on Recruiters (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic) that we know are respected (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic) and that don't have the baggage of party affiliation that has turned off other Unionists or huge rows (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic) that could be held against them (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic). I remember one Unionist that came here thinking it was Carols site and never posted again when he realised I was here. So if anyone want's to put their name forward (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic) to go forth and spread the message that there's a Board where they can say what they think....... within reason (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic)please do so, anyone at all (Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic)










(Harry/WASP and Earl/Republic)

Anyone in mind? ;D ;D

[An Fear Dubh]

I think we have highlighted before the slight imbalance in the regular contributors. And we would obviously all welcome more input from those already registered here. But rather than create a wish list and hope that member from Carol's site might join and become vocal here let us deal with the reality.

Setanta had made it very plain on Carol's site that anyone is welcome. And I imagine that for various reasons that offer has been rejected. Let us now move on they are adults let them make their own choices, they know the invitation is open at anytime. I can not see the point of sending various 'emissaries' to plead our appeal. Some of our regular contributors are admin over there that is enough.

I think Republic did mention a few articulate Unionists who have contributed positively in the past. And I agree with his assessment. But we can not wish, wait and hope. Rather we must build on what we do have now and deal with the reality. It is only through building on the foundation that we have created will we begin to have more appeal.

I think to a certain extent Wasp has highlighted one aspect. People who designate themselves as Republican seem to express very similar views and present what may seem as one argument. Where we do see a number of 'non Republican' members giving opposing views to that one argument, but that response is very much across the spectrum and seems a bit disjointed and at times not totally united. So the forum 'balance' is there but not seen as balanced because one 'side' presents a disjointed argument. I have seen Harry's frustration at this many times, but he keeps himself in check. So as not to dilute the opposition.

I am still hoping others will contribute to this debate and help push it forward, so that something constructive can be achieved. Rather than a wish list of what might be nice. It is only through involvement and by participation that members will build something. And it is only when you personally have helped build something that you buy into that thing for the future and it will last longer. If something is imposed by a forum admin we are not necessarily buying into the forum, but going along while it suits our purpose. Leeside you are obviously paying attention give us your impressions so far. And going by the number of people who have viewed many others have read but said nothing, I would like their input.

[An Fear Dubh]

Ok, can we not create one? And if this host is not suitable then create one elsewhere and redirect here for 'security' reasons. Even if we create a number of 'proxy' groups/sites/internet links, we can even paste hot topics from here into these 'proxys' to maintain 'activity'.

[An Fear Dubh]

Come man what is with these negative waves!

[Jim]

I dont want to ask anyone for donations so we can sit and argue with each other.

I use to pay for my own website (was mainly to host things on, not a public website) and they are nothing but trouble. Getting a forum onto a paid proper server is very difficult and can take hours; I've not done it in about 4 years and wouldnt even be able to guarantee being able to set it up!

There are redirectional services where you type in a .com/.whatever address and it'll forward to this site here on proboards, but honestly those cost money too.

I'm fine with what we have, not having an easier link is not our problem, far from it and if we got one you would realise our problem is a lot deeper, that some people just dont want to be told they are wrong, I dont like being told i'm wrong, you dont, and no one else here does and we only take it on the chin because we know better, most people dont.

[An Fear Dubh]

Nobody is going to be asked for donations!!

That is just Setanta and his negative vibes, and he maybe smarting a bit because I put this debate up before he thought of it! And he he still trying to get over my rejection of 'Co-operation Ireland'. All that about poor site address etc, is excuses that shy away from dealing with the reality of what we do have here. So let us stick to what is here and forget the wish lists, and if only we had this.

Yes nobody likes being told they are wrong! But life is not black and white Jim. It is not true that some are wrong and some are right. We are in the grey area and some are somewhat wrong and somewhat right!

We need some way to get beyond the them v's us picture. That creates negative and frustrating feelings and leads to division and failure. Because failure for this forum means it will no longer exist. And we need to keep on topic and not let Setanta or others deflect the discussion away.