Free speech and criticism

[alanjjohnstone]

Re-Message #27Just to clarify a few points on our blogs.1. Socialism Or Your Money Back was set up before i joined it but if memory serves me right (BillM will be able to confirm or deny because he was i believe instrumental in its beginning), it had EC approval from the outset.2. Socialist Courier (again if i recollect rightly) was set up at the initiative of Edinburgh branch approaching Glasgow branch to begin a joint blog venture and both branches approved at their branch meetings without resorting to EC for permission.3. Socialist Banner (once more relying on recall) was started by Cde, John Bisset as an online version of a hard-copy magazine that was published with the approval of the EC. It continued as an internet blog commentary without formal approval when the magazine ceased. 4. Socialist Standard Past & Present  grew out  of  a My Space account which had been started (yet again from recollection) at the request of the EC and has took over as the main online medium than My Space, a one-time rival to Facebook but now very much dwarfed these days. It is important to note, that the first three Blogs accountability to the Party is shown by its regular Blog Committee's reports submitted to every Conference and ADM since their inceptions. Members at conference and ADM can comment or instruct the blog Committee. SOYMB has also made it very clear that they will cooperate and coordinate with other committees such as the Elections Committee upon its blog-post content.    We also have a couple of other blogs. Socialist Party Election blog that sprung forth from Vaux Populi started by the Election Committee and London branches and a seldom used but still live News from Nowhere blog, also begun as a dedicated election blog in Scotland. 

[Tristan Miller]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Just to reiterate, Tristan, I have not responded to any criticism with any form of abuse,

Sure.  I wasn't referring to any action of yours.

Quote:

however I must take up your point of not using "rule lawyerism"

Perhaps that wasn't the most appropriate term to use.  I was referring to the practice of invoking a rule, either selectively or in bad faith (i.e., knowing that it does not apply), in order to attempt to punish someone for having raised criticism in good faith.

[Tristan Miller]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Let's drop all this pretence, shall we, comrades. Rule this.. rule that…This has now become something more personal than procedural.  The simple fact is that one comrade does not have the confidence or trust of some other comrades. This is demonstrated by resignations from the AV committee and not just by issues being raised on the Twitter account by the same said members. Would the situation have become such a controversy if it involved another member from a different branch? I think not.

I strongly disagree.  The two issues, while related, are very easy to isolate from each other.  The EC, and its subcommittee the IC, have been presented with an unauthorized Twitter account that purports to speak on behalf of the whole party or perhaps the entire WSM.  It does not matter whether this account is operated by the comrade in question, or by a branch collectively, or by a trained monkey, or by the reincarnation of Karl Marx himself; it needs to be either endorsed by the party as a whole, or else rebranded to eliminate any confusion with an official mouthpiece of ours.  If NERB really is operating the account, then the resolution to this problem is perfectly clear: comply with the outstanding EC resolution to change the branding.  (Of course, the branch could also, if it wishes, seek official endorsement for the account from the EC.  If, and only if, it obtains such an endorsement, then the branding can be switched back.)  I'm at a loss to understand why this has not been done.The membership's confidence in the comrade in question is a much wider question that involves many other incidents and allegations.  As many of these relate to a moderation decision that is currently before the EC, I don't think it's appropriate for me to go into that issue here.

[alanjjohnstone]

Before others draw your attention to my message #31 message, Tristan, we have had a situation where EH and GW  began and ran a blog  without prior EC approval.And to those who may wish to use it as an example of double-standards i want to point out that the banner description when it began did indeed explain that it was a branch blog but this description was dropped when the blog was later re-designed. Members have had ample opportunity to object to any of its 6,500 posts blogged in the name of the PartyCertainly, as you say, Tristan, we can isolate and separate cases that have been brought before the EC but i simply don't consider that approach to be a permanent solution since the different issues very much over-lap and have a common cause.Like yourself, i hesitate in going any deeper into all the problems being highlighted. It has a very long history, going back years.The only new thing i have brought to the table is the possibility that we can seek neutral mediation as a way to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Because if we don't lance this festering sore soon, it is going to burst and the pus will splatter all over the Party. 

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The only new thing i have brought to the table is the possibility that we can seek neutral mediation as a way to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Because if we don't lance this festering sore soon, it is going to burst and the pus will splatter all over the Party. 

You are over-egging the pudding again, of a member refusing to accept the conclusion of customary procedures and seeking to undermine them by saying one thing to the committtes and another to his branch, as in the example below.

Quote:

Cde Maratty pre-empted our effort to contact him by sending us an apparently friendly e-mail on 4 March, thanking us forthe motion and noting that it had reminded him to have the account state that it is operated by NERB.Exactly one minute later, however, he posted an angry forum message at <http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=5#comment-30354&gt; about the same motion, calling it “beyondcomprehension” and accusing us of trying to shut down the Branch’s account:

[lindanesocialist]

I believe NERB will be drafting a reply to the IC report at it's online meeting this weekend. I agree with Alan that the EC should appoint a small committee in an attempt to come to an objective conclusion. 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Before others draw your attention to my message #31 message, Tristan, we have had a situation where EH and GW  began and ran a blog  without prior EC approval.And to those who may wish to use it as an example of double-standards i want to point out that the banner description when it began did indeed explain that it was a branch blog but this description was dropped when the blog was later re-designed. Members have had ample opportunity to object to any of its 6,500 posts blogged in the name of the PartyCertainly, as you say, Tristan, we can isolate and separate cases that have been brought before the EC but i simply don't consider that approach to be a permanent solution since the different issues very much over-lap and have a common cause.Like yourself, i hesitate in going any deeper into all the problems being highlighted. It has a very long history, going back years.The only new thing i have brought to the table is the possibility that we can seek neutral mediation as a way to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Because if we don't lance this festering sore soon, it is going to burst and the pus will splatter all over the Party. 

Alan I agree with most of what you have said. The present situation is a distraction to the real purpose of the party and should be dealt with as soon as possible. I also agree that if it doesn't get sorted soon it will continue to bubble under and cause more difficulty. I do disagree, however with your idea of neutral mediation, in this case. I think the time involved in setting that up and coming to a conclusion would be likely to lead to further difficulties. I would however suggest the following solutions:1. At our Meeting this weekend the NERB approve a formal motion to put the twitter account forward as the NERB twitter feed. (Cde Miller has already indicated that he would support this and it would seem to comply with the requests of the EC.)2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.3. That The EC action the nomination of cde Marratty to the AV committee and should the present members of the AV committee feel that they cannot work with Cde Marratty, that they resign from that commitee and allow the EC to appoint members to the committee in line with rule 15.4. That in future all members consider there actions on the forum, bearing in mind that this is a direct access point for non members to access party materials and party activity.5 We ALL (and I include myself)stop acting like a bunch of babies.I have no dopubt that Comrades who are not invloved in this dispute find it excrucating to watchYFSTim

[DJP]

FWIW…

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.

This has been done before, several times. What would make this time different?

Quote:

3. That The EC action the nomination of cde Marratty to the AV committee and should the present members of the AV committee feel that they cannot work with Cde Marratty, that they resign from that commitee and allow the EC to appoint members to the committee in line with rule 15.

The EC has already accepted the nomination. They have yet to accept the resignations, which where made some time ago and have not been retracted. The resignations have not affected the status of the nomination or any subsequent nominations.

[lindanesocialist]

Cde vin maratty has no right to reply to the criticismsHe has been suspended by the three members making the criticisms; members of the Internet CommitteeDoesn’t this give credibility to the claim made in the OP?

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.

This suggests that cde Vin Maratty is to blame.  He maybe at fault but he's not to blame! As you well know Tim an apology goes a long way.  But when that apology lacks an explanation its meaningless.  In my experience its the explanation which actually counts for it provides that essential reflection on how, when and where and thereby reassures all parties the lessons have been learnt and absorbed so that the relationship – in the future – is more fulfilling, enjoyable and interesting.In effect the explanation and reflection means all parties have acknowledged they are on a learning curve and have a direct interest to ensure that learning curve continues to the benefit of all participants.  In short they are not part of the blame game and scrutinise all possible reasons why what happened did happen.This scrutiny includes: structure; guidelines and rules; protocols and procedures; standards; communications and competence.  And if its found that there's a fail in any of these factors all parties work as a team to ensure mechanisms are put in place so there is no re-occurrence of past failings.This is what occurred three years ago and since then I've taken every opportunity to engage with users to improve the role of moderation.  Hence the introduction of: Reminders; a specific thread on 'Moderation suggestions'; a sensitive approach to 'Off-topic' discussions; and to only issue a suspension once the 3rd and final warning has failed.Whatever the outcome of this latest upsetting disturbance I intend to keep going along this path despite the possibility it may well lead to challenges between the IC and myself when the time comes to review the guidelines and rules.  But like I've mentioned previously I love challenges because it means I'm firmly focused on that essential learning curve.However to complete that essential learning curve all participants must acknowledge that although the present structure; guidelines and rules; protocols and procedures; standards; communications; and competence are experiencing faults and are in need of improvement that improvement can only come about by working with them. Albeit for now, so the scrutiny is completed to everybodies satisfaction. This unity of purpose and a common understanding of the task ahead will ensure the essential learning curve and improvements continues.Its when a participant deliberately disregards these factors of conduct outlined above, that our focus on the essentials starts to wander and we tend to point the finger in the direction where nobody learns anything of substance.   

[lindanesocialist]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Cde vin maratty has no right to reply to the criticismsHe has been suspended by the three members making the criticisms; members of the Internet CommitteeDoesn’t this give credibility to the claim made in the OP?

Make that four members of the IC: 

[lindanesocialist]

May I remind members of Vin's last 'outburst of abuse and disruption' Vin wrote:Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion Mod1 (member of the Internet Committee) 1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Vin wrote:I am sure you are under pressure from committee but chill out and leave fun alone. Revolution will be fun or we wouldn't bother.People will turn away from boring strict bookworms and be drawn to positive things. Very early materialism I know but still intuitiveWhy remove jokes?2nd Warning: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.TopVin wrote:Brian Whywould you give a comrade a warning for that.? 3rd and final warning: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[lindanesocialist]

As a member is being attacked and unable to defend himself, I posted an example of his 'disruptruptive and abusive behaviour'On reflection Mod1 you were correct in removing it as it restores the balance of the thread.

[lindanesocialist]

Fro Feb EC Minutes Email from Internet Committee regarding a Twitter account (@world_socialism).MOTION 14: The EC authorises the Internet Committee to contact the owner of the account and request that they specify that the account is not officially endorsed by the party (Craggs/Scholey) 5-0-0 EC instructions have been carried out to the letter. One problem solved  https://twitter.com/World_Socialism

[Author]

Posts