Moderation and website technical issues
- This topic has 255 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A sad day indeed when a good comrade is treated so obviously shabbily and feels there is no recourse but to leave the party. The decision to uphold the moderation and suspension made and makes no sense. It is an illogical conclusion to a confusing event.The case for Socialism is based upon facts and logical thought, the decision against OGW lacked both! Yours for Socialism,Steve.
admin wrote:I also intend to add functionality which will make it possible for posts from certain users to go into a moderation queue before being published.Got anyone in mind?
Both of my appeals failed, 'moderation acted correctly' (according to the Int Dep) by suspending me for a total of 22 days, which gives 'Moderation' carte blanche to do as they please with me. This has forced me out of the SPGB.
With regard to forum rules and reporting problems to the moderator, what if the moderator takes no notice of your complaint?
I too OGW would like to know who these, "certain users" are! Are they, like I myself was, going to be judged on so-called previous, until I in fact appealed to the Internet dept and and this farce was overturned?Yours for Socialism, Steve.
Hi AdminI do not wish to sound awkward, though no doubt I do, but I have heard that the Int Dept rescinded OGW's first suspension after he announced his apology on SPintcom.Obviously this did not come from OGW, so I would appreciate some clarification.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi AdminI do not wish to sound awkward, though no doubt I do, but I have heard that the Int Dept rescinded OGW's first suspension after he announced his apology on SPintcom.Obviously this did not come from OGW, so I would appreciate some clarification.Hi there,It's a fair point you raise because there has indeed been a mix-up, for which I'd like to apologise to Cde. Maratty for the confusion caused. It's one of the perils of doing a report by committee TOGW's 1st suspension was upheld in the Internet Department report published in the E.C. minutes on 6th December. It said -"In our opinion, the reasons for Cde Maratty’s initial warning were not particularly clear-cut, and the warning was not fully explained by the moderator. This view is now shared by the moderator who has since had time to reflect on the matter and to review Cde Maratty’s posting history. The Department therefore rescinds this warning. We believe that Cde Maratty’s subsequent suspension from the forum was fully warranted on the basis of the two threads he posted attacking the moderators and Ed. We acknowledge, however, that he probably would not have posted them in the first place had he not been so angered by the questionable warning he received."It was my personal error to interpret this as a rescinding of the suspension, and the error was not picked up during the many re-draftings and conversations. The report into Cde. Maratty's second suspension therefore had this mistaken comment in relation to the first suspension and Dept. report – "The Report concluded that Cde. Maratty had been issued a 'first warning' by mistake, which invalidated his later suspension. It did consider that two of his posts were correctly judged to have been worthy of moderator intervention, but concluded that his erroneous first warning had contributed to these troublesome posts arising." So to clarify, TOGW's 1st suspension was lifted rather than rescinded.I have notified the Party's Gen. Sec. and the E.C. of the error in the 2nd report, and again … apologies to TOGW for this mistake.
Hi pfbcarlisleThanks for getting back to me.You say OGW's 1st suspension was lifted and not rescinded. Does this mean OGW's 1st suspension was upheld by the Int Dept.I am a little confused, as lifting something in regards to a sentence etc is the same as rescinding it.To put it another way. Does the Int Dept accept and uphold the validity of OGW's 1st suspension?
I have just been informed by admin that obscenities are allowed on this forum – well at least for that prick Chesham. Does the ID agree with this?
SocialistPunk wrote:Hi pfbcarlisleThanks for getting back to me.You say OGW's 1st suspension was lifted and not rescinded. Does this mean OGW's 1st suspension was upheld by the Int Dept.I am a little confused, as lifting something in regards to a sentence etc is the same as rescinding it.To put it another way. Does the Int Dept accept and uphold the validity of OGW's 1st suspension?Hi SP, Sorry, just to clarify – the 1st suspension was upheld by the Internet Department. The suspension ended after 7days. I see what you mean re. 'lifted' and 'rescinded' – I meant to say that the suspension came to an end, and was not reversed or declared invalid.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I have just been informed by admin that obscenities are allowed on this forum – well at least for that prick Chesham. Does the ID agree with this?Hi there,As Alan Johnstone notes on another thread, the context is crucial. Personal abuse is out of order – swearing for emphasis or exasperation is a different matter.So – "you fucking prick" – is an unacceptable use of swearing. It is clearly personal abuse. Saying "I couldn't give a flying fuck what other parties' candidates do; they can show pictures of their arses for all I care" may well come under the quaint expression 'use of unparliamentary language' but it is not an attack on anyone.Likewise, there is nothing at all wrong with users expressing disagreement with each other, or being forthright in their posts – as long as it isn't personal abuse, or "questioning another members credentials as a socialist."There have clearly been teething problems with the forum as some members are unclear as to the purpose and nature of forum moderation.As has been stated by others elsewhere, if the Party wishes to alter the moderation rules – tighten them up, loosen them or jettison them entirely – then it is free to do so. Party members / branches can pursue the matter via the usual channels.I have no personal preference. An unmoderated forum may be a bit too 'wild west', or maybe it would settle down and be self-regulating … I don't know.
"I've never sworn at anyone or used personal abuse to the best of my knowledge. If I am guilty of such then I deeply regret any instances.However, I've had enough of the abuse levelled against me not to mention the questioning of my socialist credentials. With immediate effect I am ceasing all my website activities including the running of the party's events section."See the baby has chucked his toys out of the pram again, then took "his footy" home. Oh well! Steve.
Hi pfbcarlisleThank you for your reply.A couple of things spring to mind. I am not sure why you thought an apology to OGW was necessary. He and I both knew the wording of the confused report did not in actual fact rescind his first suspension. I merely wished clarification to be in the public domain as others seem to think it was rescinded.As for his first suspension.The Int Dept accepted the unsound nature of OGW's first ever warning that set the scene for this issue. That there was no valid reason for the warning as he had not broken any rules or even come close.However in upholding OGW's first suspension after invalidating the warning that sparked off the situation, is rather illogical.You and the Int Dept accept that the situ' would not have arisen, had OGW not been given a pointless dressing down from Admin.It means that his first suspension was upheld based on only one warning, and his "problematic" posting of another forum users words. I understand that there were and still are no rules regarding number of warnings, before a suspension is given.Now if the first warning was upheld, we have an acceptable base for his actual suspension. 1st warning, he continued. 2nd warning, he continued. Then onto his final "offence" and suspension.Instead what we are left with after the rescinding of the 1st warning. One warning, then suspension.Also OGW's second warning came after he called for the expulsion of the moderators. I explained in my report, that the combination of inconsistent threats, his 1st unwarranted warning, plus major difficulties in posting due to the Tech difficulties on site at the time, led OGW to think he had been barred from the site. Later on the same thread as his call for expulsion, he retracted his outburst.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/freedom-speech-socialist-party
The Old Grey Whistle wrote:Thankyou Socialist Punk.That is all I was trying todo. I started this thread because I had dificulty posting and I thought I had been suspended for no reason. Of course I do NOT want the above members charged. But what would the average member feel if they receive 2 warnings and a suspension without receiving a reason?This means OGW was suspended, for one obvious offence (that he retracted) and a dubious offence of posting the words of another forum user to highlight a problem. Something we are all guilty of and are encouraged to do with the use of a quote function.I would be very grateful if you could explain the logic behind the decision to uphold the suspension? As I know for a fact this mess we find our selves in at the moment would not have arisen if consistent judgment had been adhered to.
SocialistPunk wrote:I am not sure why you thought an apology to OGW was necessary. He and I both knew the wording of the confused report did not in actual fact rescind his first suspension. I merely wished clarification to be in the public domain as others seem to think it was rescinded.Ok, no worries. I'm the primary author of the 2nd report, but did not write the 1st report or investigate the matter. Obviously, I thought it useful to refer back to that 1st report, but it eventually dawned on me that I had made an error in reading it. I therefore thought it only polite to apologise for this, regardless of whether anyone already knew I was mistaken. Bearing in mind how fractious things have become lately, I felt it best to correct my mistake on here and 'fess up :>)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.