Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[lindanesocialist]

The OP asks for an act of contrition, yet the act of contrition has been sent to 'off topic' Mods 1 and 3 agree. Alan?Tim?

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 You are basically saying Brian and myself are using our Party roles as moderators to wage a vendetta against Vin.

 Yes. That opinion is democracy.send democracy to 'off topic'

[lindanesocialist]

 Vin saidSP We have had our differences.  and I have found it difficult to attend meetings because of the animosity. I know you think that is blackmail  but it is fear of confrontation.  I fell out with the branch because I felt let down  as I wanted the branch to get me back on the forum and it didn't If the branch will have me back we  will have an  even a bigger  opportunity to move on and do some positive things for the party. ffs take the risk. If you are wrong then so what.  Brian Mod1 has always wanted NERB to fail (if you don't believe me ask SC). Lets prove him wrong

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

Brian Mod1 has always wanted NERB to fail (if you don't believe me ask SC).

And for what reason would a moderator and Swansea Br member wish for the North East Regional Br to fail?I won't ask SC nor will i ask Brian, himself- i ask you Linda – the accuser…What possible motive would he have?Certainly, he may well have had questions when the branch was being set up and perhaps criticisms of the online procedures for branch meetings, but that by no means leads to the conclusion that he wanted NERB to fail. You are tantamount to alleging that a Party member sought to weaken ( i did originally type sabotage) the Party. No small matter. I have to concur with Stephen on this – put up or shut up.In fact, such seriousness that i take such claims – i expect you to be very contrite about it when it comes to an apology!!

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

produce my evidence of Brian's destuctive and negative comments and actions  with regard to NE organisation and my posts and NERB posts. What a wast of time to prove the obvious

You have to produce evidence that shows his comments were wilfully obstructive and not constructive criticisms aimed at ensuring the success and smooth operation of NERB.If you accomplish such, i would then suggest you forward your proof to the EC for them to take whatever official action against Cde. Johnson they see fit. 

[lindanesocialist]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 And for what reason would a moderator and Swansea Br member wish for the North East Regional Br to fail? 

 vin said OK I will take time off my video production and produce my evidence of Brian's destuctive and negative comments and actions  with regard to NE organisation and my posts and NERB postsWhat a wast of time to prove the obviousAnd I will not expect anyone to be contrite when I am proved to be correct. From memory Brian said when cde Martin was attempting to raise NE branch –  MOD1 said an I quote. ' it is a waste  of time, dont know why you bother the members will do nothing, the branch is as monty python said about the parrot 'it is dead, dead, dead." Do you wish me to continue with such research or should I produce a video for the WSP of US? I know what I think. Only I need to be contrite?  

[lindanesocialist]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

produce my evidence of Brian's destuctive and negative comments and actions  with regard to NE organisation and my posts and NERB posts. What a wast of time to prove the obvious

You have to produce evidence that shows his comments were wilfully obstructive and not constructive criticisms aimed at ensuring the success and smooth operation of NERB.If you accomplish such, i would then suggest you forward your proof to the EC for them to take whatever official action against Cde. Johnson they see fit. 

  Vin saidI have more important things to do. The evidence that Brian has a negative attitude to NE is all over the place. Why dont you ask for evidence about my wrong doings????????PROVE YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINS VIN OR GO TO THE EC AND MAKE CHARGESNo? Why not?MYSTERY

[moderator1]

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. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.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.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.

[lindanesocialist]

but you forgot for post 139 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. which Vin was suspended for 

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it.

You state that I just come out with sarcastic comments, however I believe you read my contribution #58, as you replied to it. But just in case, here it is again:"I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a separate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB"I have also pointed out previously that I think that in line with common dispute review procedures,  Mod 1 should not have taken part in the review. I have made the point that the use of the term contrition (which still keeps cropping up) was unnecessary. I have also posted on several occasions that I think the idea of an indefinite suspension was too strong a response to Vin's behaviour, behaviour which I have also publicly and privately criticised.I have clearly not "just come out with sarcastic comments". I have come out with some comments that are critical, some that are constructive and some that are sarcastic.In line with your comments asking other poster to back up what they are saying or withdraw it and in the light of the above, will you withdraw your comment that I "just come out with sarcastic comments"? Or does that principle only apply to others and not yourself? (N.B contrition not required)

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

  "I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a separate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB"I have also pointed out previously that I think that in line with common dispute review procedures,  Mod 1 should not have 

 Vin said: Members will have heard this before and the person who said it warned that  it will not go away and it hasnaeForums that ignore the basic principles of the party by making important decisions via PM and therefore in secret and  banning a member for life are not fit for purpose.A thread should be set up for mods to openly discuss their decisions in line with the history of the party. Instead of giving out decisions carved in stone like Moses

[lindanesocialist]

The OP asks for an act of contrition, yet when one is given it is sent to off-topic

[lindanesocialist]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

  "I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a separate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB"I have also pointed out previously that I think that in line with common dispute review procedures,  Mod 1 should not have 

 Vin said: Members will have heard this before and the person who said it warned that  it will not go away and it hasnaeForums that ignore the basic principles of the party by making important decisions via PM and therefore in secret and  banning a member for life are not fit for purpose.A thread should be set up for mods to openly discuss their decisions in line with the history of the party. Instead of giving out decisions carved in stone like Moses

FRom what has been said by some members, most of the EC don't frequent the Internet let alone forums, so they clearly make their decisions in the dark,  on rumour and advice from the Internet Committee 

[alanjjohnstone]

I have referred to it in a previous message but i will repeat it…the present moderators are discussing proposed amendments to the guidelines and as i have already indicated one of the difficulties in designing a guideline fit for purpose. There are others which we are addressingThe moderators are subject to a process by being a SUB-committee and that EC approval is also required for new guidelines to be adopted. My suggestion that we act as benevolent dictators was fortunately for the forum users not accepted.I suggest some patience. Unsubstantiated speculation about what amounts to, imho, a shadow EC operating via the IC is damaging to the Party's reputation and will not bring forth many new members. Members should be prudent in the way they express themselves. 

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have referred to it in a previous message but i will repeat it…the present moderators are discussing proposed amendments to the guidelines and as i have already indicated one of the difficulties in designing a guideline fit for purpose. There are others which we are addressingThe moderators are subject to a process by being a SUB-committee and that EC approval is also required for new guidelines to be adopted. My suggestion that we act as benevolent dictators was fortunately for the forum users not accepted.I suggest some patience. Unsubstantiated speculation about what amounts to, imho, a shadow EC operating via the IC is damaging to the Party's reputation and will not bring forth many new members. Members should be prudent in the way they express themselves. 

Hi Alan, I asked a question in a previous post, which I think kind of got lost in the deluge of posts, but I'll pose it again.As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?

[Author]

Posts