Hostility Clause

[steve colborn]

Just a final point, then I'll let it lie. If reminders are posted after posts by a particuler postee but not after posts by others, can people not see that this, although mod1 states "Reminder are not posted for any particular post or user, but for all posts and users." can in and of itself be seen as a chastisement of a "particular" postee? and a form of targetting!I know full well that this will be understood and can in no way be taken out of context, the point is will the "meaning" be taken in and fully comprehended?Over to others.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Anyone can write to a branch, NERB chose to host their branch meeting place on a party site where anyone, member or not, could post, as opposed to a closed invitation only list.  We have to accept that different meeting formats have different rules, in a physical meeting, you'd have to wait for the chair.

I was under the impression that a non NERB member had to introduce themselves and be welcomed by the members before posting?Once welcomed onto the meeting by NERB members, the guest is free to contribute.An important reason to be welcomed into the meeting, is to prevent unwanted bullshit plaguing the branch meetings. It was agreed early on that if needed the NERB would request the forum moderator/s assistance in dealing with disrupters.This is how I understood the NERB system to operate. Of course, I could be wrong.

The NERB section on this forum is open to any user on this forum.  The section includes topics and Branch meetings. I assume any contributions by non-members of NERB to Branch meetings would have to go through the chair via a PM to the secretary.However, to set the record straight, Matt did not disrupt a Branch meeting but posted a topic in reference to the twitter account held by the Branch.  Which he's entitled to do.  In fact if you go through records you will see that I've contributed to a topic which didn't at the time create any queries on breaching party rules, simply because it was a topic and not a Branch meeting.

[SocialistPunk]

steve colborn wrote:

Just a final point, then I'll let it lie. If reminders are posted after posts by a particuler postee but not after posts by others, can people not see that this, although mod1 states "Reminder are not posted for any particular post or user, but for all posts and users." can in and of itself be seen as a chastisement of a "particular" postee? and a form of targetting!I know full well that this will be understood and can in no way be taken out of context, the point is will the "meaning" be taken in and fully comprehended?Over to others.

Steve, an important thing to consider is that a moderator may not be available at all times. This will mean them having to ost a reminder when they log on, if they deem it necessary.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

The NERB section on this forum is open to any user on this forum.  

So when did you and the rest of the internet committee decide this? And why is Spintcom for 'members only' while the NERB section of this forum is for any passer by who fancies to have a go?The branch section is for branch business. If you are now changing the rules. I would like to know when you and the IC decided this and why were we not informed of the change? 

[Anonymous]

Mod1 and Matt are on the Internet Committee just to put the discussion in perspective as is DJP 

[SocialistPunk]

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Anyone can write to a branch, NERB chose to host their branch meeting place on a party site where anyone, member or not, could post, as opposed to a closed invitation only list.  We have to accept that different meeting formats have different rules, in a physical meeting, you'd have to wait for the chair.

I was under the impression that a non NERB member had to introduce themselves and be welcomed by the members before posting?Once welcomed onto the meeting by NERB members, the guest is free to contribute.An important reason to be welcomed into the meeting, is to prevent unwanted bullshit plaguing the branch meetings. It was agreed early on that if needed the NERB would request the forum moderator/s assistance in dealing with disrupters.This is how I understood the NERB system to operate. Of course, I could be wrong.

The NERB section on this forum is open to any user on this forum.  The section includes topics and Branch meetings. I assume any contributions by non-members of NERB to Branch meetings would have to go through the chair via a PM to the secretary.However, to set the record straight, Matt did not disrupt a Branch meeting but posted a topic in reference to the twitter account held by the Branch.  Which he's entitled to do.  In fact if you go through records you will see that I've contributed to a topic which didn't at the time create any queries on breaching party rules, simply because it was a topic and not a Branch meeting.

I think the issue of online meetings and physical meetings has been discussed before. They aren't the same, people can post one after another without needing permission from "the chair".I don't think any specific rules were written in stone, regarding the NERB site, more a system of etiquette of how the members would like it to function. Hence every time I pop on I say "Hi" and wait for a welcome before I post further. Sending a PM to "the chair" or branch secretary is unnecessarily formal for such an online set up. If that were to be adopted then why not send a PM to the elected chair everytime anyone wishes to post? Try running it like a physical meeting and it would quickly grind to a halt.As for Matt posting such a subject openly on the NERB site, why not send Vin a courteous private message informing him of the issue regarding the twitter account in question? 

[steve colborn]

Just to correct any misinterpretation/misunderstanding, the NERB section of this site is, as I tried to illucidate earlier, for NERB members. That was the understanding I was under when I first, reluctantly, agreed to attend meetings/discussions on this Forum.If this is not the case, then I will, reluctantly have to reevaluate my participation.

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

I would have thought it is quite simple. People operating social media accounts in the name of the party or a branch of the party should not be promoting rival parties.Republishing tweets from the Labour Party, Left Unity etc., without any critical comment, is promotion.

And what about quoting David Ike propaganda?  like the twitter account under the control of the Internet Committee of which you are a member? Hypocrite or what?

[Anonymous]

So Matt (member of the internet committee ) – as you told me –  get this sorted!

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

So Matt (member of the internet committee ) – as you told me –  get this sorted!

The twitter account you are reffering to @worldsocialism has not yet been activated.  The David Ike promo must be on a similar named account.  Would appreciate a link.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

So Matt (member of the internet committee ) – as you told me –  get this sorted!

The twitter account you are reffering to @worldsocialism has not yet been activated.  The David Ike promo must be on a similar named account.  Would appreciate a link.

https://twitter.com/WorldSocialismThis is the account NERB requested. Now it is being used to promote David IKE

[Anonymous]

So am I right?

[Anonymous]

You had a look at the account Mod1 and determined if I am lying or not?

[jondwhite]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

So Matt (member of the internet committee ) – as you told me –  get this sorted!

The twitter account you are reffering to @worldsocialism has not yet been activated.  The David Ike promo must be on a similar named account.  Would appreciate a link.

The particular status update is herehttps://twitter.com/WorldSocialism/status/700292260907368448

[Anonymous]

Vin wrote:

You had a look at the account Mod1 and determined if I am lying or not?

Mod1 member of the IC 

[Author]

Posts