Amendment to Rule 8.
- This topic has 74 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
moderator2 wrote:" 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.
Mod 2, are you seriously suggesting that because a decision has previously been made that this topic is closed for further debate? It's a bit like saying "the issue of captialism or socialism was decided at the last general election and there is no point debating it anymore as the issue is now settled". Surely the point of the forum is to generate debate and the purpose of moderation is to moderate that debate, not to lay down which topics can be discussed and which cannot? Am I not as an individual member, within my rights to discuss any issue about the running of the party on this forum, without recourse to my Branch?So taking on that right to discuss these issues, I will!I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.Vin said:Most of my suspensions are for openly discussing and challenging moderators' decisions suggesting that they should be discussed openly on the forum and in line with our Party traditions of openness. Indeed after one suspension I had to assure the IC that I would never again question moderators decisions on the forumAt the moment secrecy surrounds the decision making of mods.I have made these suggestions myself and I wish you luck in achieving some form of transparency. You have mine and Linda's supportoops Your off to a bad start, then
lindanesocialist wrote:moderator1 wrote:Neither really. The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC. So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him. But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem. But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.Moderator2 wroteThe moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so – to request that the EC over-rule the moderators. I am sure you can understand my confusion?Sorry, but I don't share your confusion. If Vin can assure the EC that he will abide by the forum rules in future I would expect them to reinstate him (should the EC decide not to they will need to provide a very convincing reason to the party). Once they reach the decision to reinstate him, the Internet Committee, of which the three moderators are members, will be instructed accordingly.
lindanesocialist wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.Vin said:Most of my suspensions are for openly discussing and challenging moderators' decisions suggesting that they should be discussed openly on the forum and in line with our Party traditions of openness. Indeed after one suspension I had to assure the IC that I would never again question moderators decisions on the forumAt the moment secrecy surrounds the decision making of mods.I have made these suggestions myself and I wish you luck in achieving some form of transparency. You have mine and Linda's supportoops Your off to a bad start, then
I recall being here before, with me suggesting Vin bring rule change issues up with the branch. He didn't seem that interested in that approach for some reason.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC. I've no idea how long that will take.
moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC. I've no idea how long that will take.
As part of a process of consultation with SPGB members, will you be posting the guidelines for comment/feedback before sending them to the EC?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:moderator1 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC. I've no idea how long that will take.
As part of a process of consultation with SPGB members, will you be posting the guidelines for comment/feedback before sending them to the EC?
That decision is not mine to make and neither is it for the IC to make. We have to report firstly to the EC under Standing Orders and party rules. However, I can assure you that the guidelines are purposedly designed to engage with constant comment, complaints, feedback, etc; in a positive fashion. And as such can be amended, altered and are subject to change as and when needed. And for all we know that process of Direct Participatory Democracy could start on the day when they are published? But like I've mentioned previously we are some months away before their are posted for your thorough assessment and application of a perculiar kind of critical thinking.
Quote:I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.And you have been repeatedly informed that we are in the process of addressing these concerns and those changes will allow appeals against moderator decisions to go to members uninvolved with the matter and for them to resolve the issue within a time-scale. The fact that these changes are taking place is sufficient evidence that the current moderators share the view of other forum users that aspects of the current guidelines is wanting in particular aspects. I think when we submit the changes to the EC, having already discussed them within the IC, the forum will be informed at the same time so to forward their views to the EC. (as well you and others know, some EC members decline to visit this forum so if someone has criticisms or improvements it has to go directly to the EC to hear and not automatically expect opinions expressed on the forum to be noted)But that is still to be finally decided and i offer only a personal opinion. Regards the EC, Cde.Maratty possesses the option of urging his branch or any other branch to bring the matter of his indefinite suspension to conference and ultimately a Party Poll of all members. That is the supreme body which over-rules all committees and rescinds all prior decisions. Albeit, perhaps a cumbersome form of democracy, but eventually it will resolve any disputes and grievances to the satisfaction of the Party as a whole, if not to an individual or perhaps a group of individuals. I am well aware of union procedure and often lawyers are required to approve the form of words in any negotiation settlement. I think the willingness of the present moderators to try and establish a harmonious forum is quite evident to those who recognise the genuine intent of our approach and attitudes. However, for those who look for sinister undertones and ulterior motives, there will always particular words or phrases to be misconstrued and misinterpreted.But i believe you, yourself, Tim, once referred to the thickness of your hide when it comes to barbed posts…likewise, the moderators are not easily distracted from their duties.
moderator2 wrote:Regards the EC, Cde.Maratty possesses the option of urging his branch or any other branch to bring the matter of his indefinite suspension to conference and ultimately a Party Poll of all members. That is the supreme body which over-rules all committees and rescinds all prior decisions. Albeit, perhaps a cumbersome form of democracy, but eventually it will resolve any disputes and grievances to the satisfaction of the Party as a whole, if not to an individual or perhaps a group of individuals.Vin saidJust to clarify: the three Mods have decided to indefinately suspend me (or continue with the suspension) and it will take a party poll of the membership, a confernce decision or an EC resolution to force your hand and give Vin the account backHaven't you got that the wrong way around? Shouldn't you have received EC instructions, Confernce decisions or party poll to impose the (in effect) permanent ban of a member from taking part in online discussions?Mod 1 says that he would willingly reinstate me if the EC allowed I have requested a copy of the EC decision to ban me: NoneMod2 says he will not reinstate me unless someone forces him to do soMod 3 says I should follow 'normal procedures' . I have rquested evidence of the 'normal procedures' and in particular the procedure that involves an act of contrition to the EC.It is open to you Alan, Brian and Stephen to allow me my account.If not, then correct me with some supporting evidence. EC decisions EtcWhat is preventing you.
Reminder: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
For clarity Comrade Mod3This account is the property of Comrade Linda Maratty. Are you accusing me of operating more than one account?Or merely informing me that I cannot express the opinions of another cde on my account?I do believe it was SP AKA Mod3 that first suggested Vin use my accountMy how things have changed OK I formally request that the MODS kindly allow Comrade Vincent Maratty to express his opinions (within the rules ) via Comrade Linda Maratty's account.I feel this to be fair as he is freely discussed and misrepresented on this forum and is in a better position than myself to defend himself.I would also request clarification of Comrade Vincent Maratty's comments in my previous post.I suppose if you prevent him asking questions then it saves you having to answer.
lindanesocialist wrote:For clarity Comrade Mod3This account is the property of Comrade Linda Maratty. Are you accusing me of operating more than one account?Or merely informing me that I cannot express the opinions of another cde on my account?You may not be aware of this action taken by the September EC.
Quote:Item E. COMMITTEE REPORTS TO ADM.The following reports from committees were read:Media Committee (with two updates)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.” Carried 5 – 2I don't know who's idea it was but it doesn't seem good practice to change the rules just to accommodate one case, especially as a pragmatic solution has been found and accepted. If you change the rule it will have to apply to everyone. So the next time LBird is banned he'll be asking permission for somebody to post on his behalf and, if this is refused, then there'll be another long, tedious argument as to why the moderators did in the one case but not in the other.Best to leave things as they are.
ALB wrote:Best to leave things as they are.It's a further example of rules being amended 'on the hoof'. First we had the rewriting of Rule 17 by the EC without it having received any authority from the membership, now we have this latest 'can of worms'. Then at it's August meeting the EC managed to contravene one of the Terms of Reference of the Head Office Organiser AND a Conference ruling, both at the same time.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.