Directly electing moderators
- This topic has 67 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Actually SP why are you so concerned with the inner workings of an organisation that you either do not agree with or cannot be bothered to join?
DJP wrote:Actually SP why are you so concerned with the inner workings of an organisation that you either do not agree with or cannot be bothered to join?Yes, Socialist Punk, member of the working class, what is your interest in us? This is local party for local people, What's all this shouting, we will have no trouble HERE. Don't bother us, we have a business to run. We have no concern for the outside world.By the way Socialist Punk, are you local??https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOtpgz4L5d8
Let's put it another way… If anyone is so bothered about the functioning of the party then they should join. If they can't or don't join then they must either disagree with us or can't be bothered to be a part of a democratic organisation. Either would rule them out as being suitable for the job.
DJP wrote:Let's put it another way… If anyone is so bothered about the functioning of the party then they should join. If they can't or don't join then they must either disagree with us or can't be bothered to be a part of a democratic organisation. Either would rule them out as being suitable for the job.Perhaps some may wish to checkout the party's democratic credentials before joining. Political parties are not always what they claim to be. What right have we to claim to be different unless we demonstrate by our own actions.
Moderating a forum is hardly sampling democracy. And no, this isn't a public debate, this is a party propaganda place where people can meet party members (and where the party also debates). Besides, letting non-members take on party responsibilities would be a bad example of democracy: the main lesson needs to be that people need to join a party.
Should for the sake of argument party members be able to directly vote to deselect moderators including where there are no volunteers to moderate the forum?
And this could be considered
Young Master Smeet wrote: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.SocialistPunk wrote:Surely more than one moderator would be preferable?Exactly, then the structure remains intact if for some reason party members start registering their disapproval. Without structure democracy is meaningless.
jondwhite wrote:Should for the sake of argument party members be able to directly vote to deselect moderators including where there are no volunteers to moderate the forum?No. Anymore than members should be able to directly vote to deselect members of any other sub-committee. If there is deemed to be an issue with the actions of any particular moderator than the matter is taken up with the Internet Committee in the first instance. If there is no satisfactory outcome then it becomes an issue for the Executive Committee who have the power to deselect any member from any sub-committee.Personally, I'm opposed to forums being moderated on a day-to-day basis. Users should self-moderate and except for the tiny, tiny, habitually troublesome few the vast majority do just that. Having said that I think the Internet Committee has been far too lenient with those who have a long history of forum disruption. In those circumstances a three strikes policy – three suspensions resulting in a permanent ban should have been the order of the day.What we won't see implemented, however, is a desperate act to import any Tom, Dick or Harriet off the street to fill moderator vacancies anymore than in the case of the vacant party officer posts we currently have. Want to participate in the democratic running of the party? Then join it. Period.
Gnome wrote:What we won't see implemented, however, is a desperate act to import any Tom, Dick or Harriet off the street to fill moderator vacancies anymore than in the case of the vacant party officer posts we currently have. Want to participate in the democratic running of the party? Then join it. Period.Nobody ever said anything about allowing any "Tom, Dick or Harriet off the street.." as a non-party moderator.I'm aghast at the incoherent opposition to the idea of non-party moderators being part of a mod' team.
Gnome wrote:Ideally, moderators should be selected from party members appointed to the Internet Committee…"Ideally", I'd like to hear an actual credible reason other than the one that is becoming quite clear now. As Vin pointed out with his League of Gentlemen skit. "This is local party for local people, What's all this shouting, we will have no trouble HERE." Hilarious.Anyone ever given any ounce of thought into the possibility that there could be any number of reasons why a sympathiser may not be able to join? Perhaps it's time the SPGB enshrined in it's rule book that support of any kind from sympathisers be rejected?
gnome wrote:jondwhite wrote:Should for the sake of argument party members be able to directly vote to deselect moderators including where there are no volunteers to moderate the forum?No. Anymore than members should be able to directly vote to deselect members of any other sub-committee.
Then perhaps it is undemocratic for a sub committee to control a gathering, assembly, conference, congregation, convention, summit, forum, convocation of members? Sounds like central control.
gnome wrote:Personally, I'm opposed to forums being moderated on a day-to-day basis. Users should self-moderate and except for the tiny, tiny, habitually troublesome few the vast majority do just that. Having said that I think the Internet Committee has been far too lenient with those who have a long history of forum disruption. In those circumstances a three strikes policy – three suspensions resulting in a permanent ban should have been the order of the day.I can't believe a member of the party would say that.An individual member of the party with the power to permamently expel other members from the party's public discussion meetings Try getting that in the rule book first
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.
Vin wrote:gnome wrote:Personally, I'm opposed to forums being moderated on a day-to-day basis. Users should self-moderate and except for the tiny, tiny, habitually troublesome few the vast majority do just that. Having said that I think the Internet Committee has been far too lenient with those who have a long history of forum disruption. In those circumstances a three strikes policy – three suspensions resulting in a permanent ban should have been the order of the day.I can't believe a member of the party would say that.An individual member of the party with the power to permamently expel other members from the party's public discussion meetings
Yet you in February 2013 publicly favoured proposals which included the following:
Quote:one member be permanently banned from internet moderation duties for constructive negligence…..[…..]another member be permanently banned from internet moderation duties for gross negligence for posting on 15th January 2013 remarks on Spintcom, which are considered to be anti-socialist bigotry and is unacceptable for party committee members whose duty is to moderate internet forums.I can't believe a member of the party would want that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.