Directly electing moderators
- This topic has 67 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Here is RationalWiki directly electing internet moderators
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Election_booth
Should we do it in the SPGB
Moderator1 has asked on more than one occasion for volunteers to step up to the mark and ease his burden. To my knowledge, he has had no takers, so where will this list of volunteers come from?
Perhaps instead of volunteers we make it compulsory … any member subscribing has to do a year moderating. (i'm reminded of some tribe or other i once read about that keeps all the possible chiefs locked up in a hut until someone "breaks" and takes on the role.)Once again i think non-members can perform the moderating role despite those who claim it undermines Party democracy and accountability. I have often witnessed non-members selling the Standard and handing out leaflets and arguing the case for socialism. In one SPGB-run socialist discussion group a non-member was entrusted with being the treasurer, handling the cash and paying the bills, i see no reason why on a internet discussion list, one of the regular non-party or ex-member contributors cannot effectively be the moderator.A moderator is after all appointed by the internet committee and can be over-ruled by them without any reference to the members rule-book. I suggest e do the selection by reverse alphabet, Vin, rather than the usual such as in Alan,
alanjjohnstone wrote:I suggest e do the selection by reverse alphabet, Vin, rather than the usual such as in Alan,jondwhite wrote:I thought Vin would appreciate the image used at rationalwikiDo you mean this, ha ha
alanjjohnstone wrote:Once again i think non-members can perform the moderating role despite those who claim it undermines Party democracy and accountability.There would only be a problem if the mod could not be removed immediately by democratic vote. Which is a suggestion I made sometime ago. But otherwise why not
The issue of non-party moderators has been discussed on the thread Moderation Suggestions, starting at #91 from a suggestion by Alan.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-suggestions?page=8Certain requirements would need to be agreed on. Such as:-The non-member being a forum member of a certain length of time.They probably should be a party sympathizer.The relevant party body democratically agreeing on the appointment and if needed a party wide vote.The non-party moderator would be subject to the same controls, restrictions etc as a party member mod'. Meaning they can be removed from the post and if warranted from the forum.It would be desirable that there is also at least one other party member moderator making up a moderation team. That way it should alleviate any party member fears that a non-party member is in total control.I guess a big issue for party members is trust. Can a non-party moderator be trusted to moderate appropriately in an unbiased manner. However the same question regarding moderating in an unbiased manner is still applicable to a party member.There is also likely to be a simple question rolling around in some party members minds, "If they are willing to be a moderator then why not join the party?"
In the case of one regular contributor, an ex-member, we have no doubt of his understanding and commitment to socialism and we all are aware that he holds firmly to a principle that the Party cannot subscribe to and refuse to countenance. In other cases i am sure similar positions are held that stop them being members.
SocialistPunk wrote:I guess a big issue for party members is trust. Can a non-party moderator be trusted to moderate appropriately in an unbiased manner. However the same question regarding moderating in an unbiased manner is still applicable to a party member.Nope, nothing to do with trust or bias, simply: this is a Party forum, it should be run by party members, democratically accountable to the rest of the party.
Well the original question I was asking was how do we do this democratically? Nothing about non-members.
Motion to conference, amend rulebook.Or, 6 members declare themselves to be 'Internet Regional Branch' and ask the EC to hand running the forum to their Branch, and then elect a moderator amongst themselves.
Why should a forum moderator be in any different position to other comrades on sub-committees who are nominated in the first instance by branches and then appointed as the Executive Committee thinks fit? Ideally, moderators should be selected from party members appointed to the Internet Committee, in a similar fashion, say, as those who layout copy for the Socialist Standard are selected from party members appointed to the Socialist Standard Production Committee. Sub-committees are accountable to the EC and, ultimately, all party members are accountable to the party. Others aren't.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.