Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SocialistPunk wrote:Does anybody know what the term "ban" means in the Lancashire Branch item?
or 'disruption' ?
Brian wrote: gnome wrote: It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch. Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference. You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer." Lancaster branch supporting statement for this item for discussion starts thus;"Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal e.mail lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place."So you were correct in your initial assertion Brian, that this IFD did not include the SPGB forum. It must, in fact, come from certain members "hopeful" interpretation of the IFD but does not correlate with the facts. Steve.
Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."
steve colborn wrote:Lancaster branch supporting statement for this item for discussion starts thus;"Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal e.mail lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place."So you were correct in your initial assertion Brian, that this IFD did not include the SPGB forum. It must, in fact, come from certain members "hopeful" interpretation of the IFD but does not correlate with the facts.Anyone who fondly imagines that Lancaster's item doesn't include the SPGB forum is quite at liberty to contact the branch secretary, Paddy Shannon.
SocialistPunk wrote:Does anybody know what the term "ban" means in the Lancashire Branch item?Or the term 'disruptive behavoiur' for that matter. I have only seen the odd attempts to disrupt a discussion and basically the moderator just needs to point out the disruptive behaviour.I am thinking of the discussion on moderation when members have interjected with personal attacks upon those discussing moderation thus attempting to derail the discussion.
If it is, as you say Gnome and it does indeed include the SPGB forum, then the supporting statement itself, is inaccurately put together as to the intended discussion put forward by Lancaster branch. That aside, is that gloating I can hear? no, can't be, must be me MS.Steve.
gnome wrote:Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."steve colborn wrote:Lancaster branch supporting statement for this item for discussion starts thus;"Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal e.mail lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place."So you were correct in your initial assertion Brian, that this IFD did not include the SPGB forum. It must, in fact, come from certain members "hopeful" interpretation of the IFD but does not correlate with the facts.Anyone who fondly imagines that Lancaster's item doesn't include the SPGB forum is quite at liberty to contact the branch secretary, Paddy Shannon.
I think Steve has a point, surely it can't be a case that the Lancaster (not Lancashire as I used earlier) item is meant to include the "open" SPGB forum as well as the "internal" SPintcom and SPopen.If it is supposed to include the "open" SPGB forum as well as "internal" e.mail lists, it needs to be explicit in it's inclusion, if it is intended to be a voting issue.No moving the goal posts around to frame the discussion whenever it is required, with a "we all know what it means" whine.How many times have we heard on this forum the need to follow protocol etc?
It's not a voting issue, it's an item for discussion not a motion. To me it seems quite obvious that it's talking about any forum as it uses the plural "forums". In the supporting statement they start by mentioning that their motivation for putting forward this item is due to "acrimonious posts on our internal e-mail lists". While that may be the motivation for the item it does not limit us to merely discussing that particular part of it. And in fact it would have been strange for a member of Lancaster branch to specify this forum as their motivation as I'm unaware of any of their members using it.P.S. Steve you wouldn't be making an ableist joke would you?
Ed wrote:It's not a voting issue, it's an item for discussion not a motion. To me it seems quite obvious that it's talking about any forum as it uses the plural "forums". In the supporting statement they start by mentioning that their motivation for putting forward this item is due to "acrimonious posts on our internal e-mail lists". While that may be the motivation for the item it does not limit us to merely discussing that particular part of it. And in fact it would have been strange for a member of Lancaster branch to specify this forum as their motivation as I'm unaware of any of their members using it.P.S. Steve you wouldn't be making an ableist joke would you?I've just accidentally, deleted my wole post. so I will just saythis, it is a voting issue, as a floor resolution can be brought by any delegate!BTW, wtf is an ableist joke? Steve.
I will say this, any and all items for discussion can, and usually do, bring floor resolutions. If the item for discussion is not complete, how can any branch, even the one bringing it, instruct said delegates on how to vote, in the eventuality a floor resolution is PUT?In this instance, if any branch, other than Lancaster does this, then surely they can only instruct on the basis that they are voting on internal party forums! The SPGB forum is not, as far as I am aware, an internal party forum.There may be discussion of this issue at conference but as is implicit, any branch delegate can only vote on individual "assumption" of the issue, as the item is not fully explained, nor comprehensible as such.Do you get my GIST ED?
steve colborn wrote:BTW, wtf is an ableist joke? Steve.Ableism is a form of prejudice or discrimination against those with a disablity. An ableist joke is a joke about someone's disability. I was asking about the context of your remark about MS affecting your hearing. It didn't make sense to me, especially to someone with partial hearing.
As someone with Multiple Schlerosis, which affects my mobility, sight, hearing, toileting wtf would I make ableist comments?Answers please
For those following the discussion here who might not have access to the paper version, here is the supporting statement for Lancaster's discussion item in full:
Quote:Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal email lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place. They should be put under moderation faster and for a longer period. The posts in question have caused a great deal of damage to members' morale and this has not been good for the Party. Many members called for an end to such posts and they still continued for a period of time. We fully support any action taken by the moderators to deal with such posts in the future and hope they will not recur.Democrtatic centralism. More power to the vanguard. Get in line or get out!Excritate all signs of 'acrimony' , disatisfaction and disagreement. Makes the party look bad and it hurts our feelings as revolutionary marxists. Give the vanguard general guidlines and let them get on with it. Instruct the 'moderator' to remove all opposition and ban from the forum and silence anyone who suggests we are using censorship.We don't want the workers finding out that we are less open than the Tories.New reading list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stepford_Wiveshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism
ALB wrote:Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal email lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place. They should be put under moderation faster and for a longer period. The posts in question have caused a great deal of damage to members' morale and this has not been good for the Party. Many members called for an end to such posts and they still continued for a period of time. We fully support any action taken by the moderators to deal with such posts in the future and hope they will not recur.I think that pretty much explains the items intended target, SPintcom and SPopen. If a floor resolution were to come from it, then it can surely only include that which it specifies? So it isn't really a case of "fondly imagining" anything!Though I do not quite grasp what it is Lancaster branch is expecting to fix? A system whereby moderators have carte blanche and members can be suspended for indefinate terms quite quickly, already exists. It has led to big problems, seen two form F's being submitted and sympathisers turned off. Given these facts, why would anyone come up with an idea that advocates a more authoritarian approach? Just what sort of message is it sending regarding WSM socialism being an appealing social socialism?Surely the way to go is to ask a simple question and work from there. In the case of this forum it should be, "What is the intended purpose of the forum?"Once it is decided what the SPGB online spaces are for then it is a case of coming up with a framework and approach that seeks to achieve the intended goal.I find it hard to grasp that such a simple bit of common sense seems to evade most, but fortunately not all, SPGB member online contributers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.