Amendment to Rule 8.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 

Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”

Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):

“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”

This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission.

It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?

Moderator1:

There was no prior permission written into Rule 8.  And with the repeated postings by Linda on  behalf of Vin appearing on a regular basis the moderators reached the opinion that this practice revealed a loophole in Vin's suspension being enforced appropriately under the rules.  

This amendment effectively closes a loophole for any user who happened to find a way around a suspension being enforced.  Once Admin amends Rule 8. like all the rules it will be enforced if its breached.

[Bijou Drains]

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

[moderator2]

Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed.  How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached.   

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

Mod 1, I object strongly to your saying that the postings I have made are in any way undemocratic and I politely ask for you to withdraw them and apologise. I think that you have made a completely uncomradely remark.Not only that, you are factually incorrect. I have made no suggestions, I have merely asked two questions. I am surprised that you do not know the difference between a question and a suggestion. I would also ask you (this is a question by the way, just in case you get a littel confused) how can a question be undemocratic?

[lindanesocialist]

Why not give Vin his account back,  act like a socialist party and treat him as any other member would treated? Only the Party as  whole has the right to ban him for life. The IC and Mods have in the past went to extreme messures to prevent Vin from posting. On one occassion rather than let him speak on  the forum 100s of messages disappeared with their tinkering. This has gone beyond crazy.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed.  How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached.   

Hi mod 2 I have overlooked this post, and to be honest I still can't find it, could you be a dear and point it out to me, I genuinely can't find it.It seems from what you say that in this instance, Linda would need to get the Mods permision for every posting, as opposed to an overall permission to post, is that what you are saying your interpretation of this rule would be?The questions I asked ( I won't comment further on Mod 1's uncomradely remarks) actually, in my opinion demonstrate how unworkable the whole rule would be. To take it further, if Vin were to send me an email about an issue, are you seriously saying that I would have to seek Mods permission or I wouldn't be able to quote from his email as part of a posting I made? To test the rule to its logiical extreme, what if a banned contributor wrote a book about his or her expereinces of being banned from the forum, are you suggesting that no quote from that book could be used on this forum? Are you seriously saying that the views and thoughts of a member of the SPGB are forbidden from being discussed on this forum, whilst the views of everyone from Saddam Hussein to Leon Trotsky, can be? I thnk this is an example of the legal maxim, "difficult cases make bad law"

[moderator2]

Here, Timhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/september-2016-ec-minutes#comment-34461Message #6We are not trying to police private e-mails. We are not trying to impose censorship. A rule already existed but it could be and was being purposefully disregarded.  If in the context of your own message you cite a banned person's view or opinion, that is permissible. But if you are deemed to be deliberately posting on behalf of a suspended user so as to deliberately circumvent the suspension then that is not allowed. Certain suspended members may be in the unique and fortunate position of having a person to act as their proxy, but there will be others who will be under a suspension who will not have this advantage. But if they possess a legitimate and valid reason to communicate with the Party through the forum, our rule permits ourselves, the moderators, to temporary lift the sanction in the interests and benefit of the Party as a whole.  

[moderator2]

It would be misleading to deny that an individual case resulted in drawing attention to a very obvious breach of the intent of Rule 8, revealing a flaw in the purpose of a suspension – which is, naturally, to actually suspend posting privileges.But the wording of the rule was chosen to be applicable generally and be fit to apply in other future situations.       

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

It would be misleading to deny that an individual case resulted in drawing attention to a very obvious breach of the intent of Rule 8, revealing a flaw in the purpose of a suspension – which is, naturally, to actually suspend posting privileges.But the wording of the rule was chosen to be applicable generally and be fit to apply in other future situations.       

It appear that you have already made the decision to permamently ban a party member from expressing an opinion on this forum while allowing left and right fascists to freely express their opinions, indeed the party invites them on.Why would a socialist do that?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Here, Timhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/september-2016-ec-minutes#comment-34461Message #6We are not trying to police private e-mails. We are not trying to impose censorship. A rule already existed but it could be and was being purposefully disregarded.  If in the context of your own message you cite a banned person's view or opinion, that is permissible. But if you are deemed to be deliberately posting on behalf of a suspended user so as to deliberately circumvent the suspension then that is not allowed. Certain suspended members may be in the unique and fortunate position of having a person to act as their proxy, but there will be others who will be under a suspension who will not have this advantage. But if they possess a legitimate and valid reason to communicate with the Party through the forum, our rule permits ourselves, the moderators, to temporary lift the sanction in the interests and benefit of the Party as a whole.  

thanks for the link, I had overlooked it. I blame Messers Woods and Co and their 57% abv rum (my current tipple of choice).So you are saying that if a poster who is banned can post if s/he has a "legitimate and valid reason to communicate….  " presumably it will be for the Mods to decide what is valid and legitimate!As I have said on numerous occasions, and I know you disagree with me, this is not about Vin, it is about the principle of control of what is or is not discussed on what has become an important part of democratic discussion within the party. I know it's a little ironic considering my post about "Kilgallon's Law" but the idea that what is judged as valid and legitimate for discussion should be decided by a Party sub committee, appears to have more in common with Leninist Parties than ours. I am not for one minute suggesting that the mods are acting like Leninists, however there is always the law of unexpected consequence. I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum. Be careful what you wish for.

[moderator2]

It has been pointed out that there does not exist a permanent ban – but an indefinite suspension. The moderators have on numerous occasions directed Cde.Vin to address his concerns about his circumstances directly to the EC who possess the authority to instruct the moderators to rescind their decision. We rightly permit anyone to express their views…as long as they abide by the guidelines and rules of this forum. The original decision to issue Cde. Vin with his indefinite suspension was not taken lightly and it was subsequently reviewed and re-confirmed.It may have been forgotten by some but he was indefinitely suspended for persistently breaching the rules despite being subject previous sanctions against his behaviour on the forum which disrupted its operation for other users. 

[lindanesocialist]

Mod2Are your actions in opposition to your principles? Your Honor,years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Debs

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

It may have been forgotten by some but he was indefinitely suspended for persistently breaching the rules despite being subject previous sanctions against his behaviour on the forum which disrupted its operation for other users. 

 This is not what I have found. I have found provocation from mod1 displaying an uneven hand and vin questioning this on threads set up for questioning moderation. I believe his penultimate ban typifies the cenarioMod1 's provocation is evident even now in his discussions with Tim. Accusing him of being undemocratic without apologyVin has made it clear on numerous ocassions that he will stick to the rules, unlike many others.What more do you require?It is a permanent ban of a party memberAnd I suspect there are moves afoot to ban another member. This is unacceptable in our movement

[moderator2]

" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.  

[Author]

Posts