Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[lindanesocialist]

northern light wrote:

Lindanesocialist said;  quote [ Wow, wish you defended Vin so well] unquote.You seem to have forgoten who it was who fought in Vin's corner on the previous occasion that he was suspended from the Forum.

Vin said:No, I will never forget that cde,  and I have told him so.  I understand Mod3 your son is having health problems, please wish him well. His health is more important than all this crap Keep well Joe and Steve Vin and Linda 

[alanjjohnstone]

Just general remarks and i won't switch accounts and post as Mod2 It is not the task of moderators job to double-guess posters intentions and to determine motives. But it seems we are expected to do detective-work. I personally and very quickly made my response known to an uncomradely remark to a fellow-member. I myself could be deemed in contravention of our rules. Rule 7 :(trolling) Do not respond to such messages.I could have changed accounts and acted officially as a moderator but chose not to since many seek the minimum intervention from moderators – yet when we do try to accommodate those critics, we end up becoming the target for not enough policing and insufficient punitive measures. You cannot have it both ways, comrades, you can't run with the fox and chase with the hounds.  Who it was i have no idea. You can all indulge in your conspiracy theories and accuse us of naivety…(if you have actual evidence or proof of the identity or use of a second fake account please supply it in a PM to ourselves) but moderators have to act on what we actually know, not on what we might suspect. Mod3 will endeavour to investigate the post further. If the infringement is repeated, we will respond appropriately.But for those who seek no moderation at all, that post is one of the more gentler exchanges you will expect to find being posted – so be pre-warned if that is the path you wish to tread   

[lindanesocialist]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But for those who seek no moderation at all, that post is one of the more gentler exchanges you will expect to find being posted – so be pre-warned if that is the path you wish to tread  

Alan I appreciate what you say but you talk as if you don't have a member suspend for six months and probably permanently which to some is VERY harsh moderation.But as for the list of possible culprits? It;s a case of Who Killed JR LOL.   

[Anonymous]

What has he done to be suspended indefinite ? 

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

What has he done to be suspended indefinite ? 

Cde Vin Maratty was suspended on the forum for breaching 3 rules in one single message on the 3rd March 2016.  Previous to that suspension he had been suspended for breaching the rules on numerous occasions.  Around the same date he also got suspended on SPINTCom and SPopen for abusive behaviour to one of the moderators.The Internet Committee passed both suspensions to the EC for them to deal with in April 2016.  The EC held off reaching a decision until cde Maratty made an appeal against the indefinite suspensions.  Having made an appeal to the EC in September this appeal was discussed at their last meeting. Until the EC minutes are published we wont know the result of the appeal.  In the meantime the suspension stays in place.Note that cde Maratty never made an appeal to the IC.  However, after 5 months he did ask the moderators to "reconsider" his suspension.  We advised him to make an appeal to the EC which he then did.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

What has he done to be suspended indefinite ? 

Cde Vin Maratty was suspended on the forum for breaching 3 rules in one single message on the 3rd March 2016.  Previous to that suspension he had been suspended for breaching the rules on numerous occasions.  Around the same date he also got suspended on SPINTCom and SPopen for abusive behaviour to one of the moderators.The Internet Committee passed both suspensions to the EC for them to deal with in April 2016.  The EC held off reaching a decision until cde Maratty made an appeal against the indefinite suspensions.  Having made an appeal to the EC in September this appeal was discussed at their last meeting. Until the EC minutes are published we wont know the result of the appeal.  In the meantime the suspension stays in place.Note that cde Maratty never made an appeal to the IC.  However, after 5 months he did ask the moderators to "reconsider" his suspension.  We advised him to make an appeal to the EC which he then did.[/quote)Okay. What about all the forum violations, and insults that L Bird has inflicted in this forum ? 

[moderator2]

LBird is a non-member guest contributor to the forum. He has in the past (before my time as moderator) been sanctioned and suspended for breaking the forum rules (if memory serves me rightly.)As a non-member of the WSM and an opponent, he has the liberty of challenging the SPGB and its members' credentials as socialists just as long as his remarks remain within limits civil and are not abusive or insulting. He is free on the forum to express sentiments that we dispute and deny. He is not subject to any Party protocol that stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a party member. Many may think he has had time enough to explain his position and question our own but as long as forum users respond and reply to his posts, he will continue to answer them. Therefore, the onus is upon forum users to take action by taking no action, when LBird posts his message. i don't think it is the purpose of moderators to control or censor the contents of posts other than enforcing the forum rules. LBird has been reminded to remain on-topic and not to de-rail threads. If he persists and, especially if there are complaints, the moderators will, indeed, act. Something, i hope he is fully aware of. One thing has to be remembered, LBird, unlike Cde. Marratty, has no recourse to an appeal process other than request the moderators to review their decision. Our decision is the final one. We could impose a permanent ban if we so wished but i wonder, considering the criticism we have received at continuing, for the time being, the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed when the moderators are being asked to change their attitude and approach to moderation towards a lighter touch.    

[Anonymous]

moderator2 wrote:

LBird is a non-member guest contributor to the forum. He has in the past (before my time as moderator) been sanctioned and suspended for breaking the forum rules (if memory serves me rightly.)As a non-member of the WSM and an opponent, he has the liberty of challenging the SPGB and its members' credentials as socialists just as long as his remarks remain within limits civil and are not abusive or insulting. He is free on the forum to express sentiments that we dispute and deny. He is not subject to any Party protocol that stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a party member. Many may think he has had time enough to explain his position and question our own but as long as forum users respond and reply to his posts, he will continue to answer them. Therefore, the onus is upon forum users to take action by taking no action, when LBird posts his message. i don't think it is the purpose of moderators to control or censor the contents of posts other than enforcing the forum rules. LBird has been reminded to remain on-topic and not to de-rail threads. If he persists and, especially if there are complaints, the moderators will, indeed, act. Something, i hope he is fully aware of. One thing has to be remembered, LBird, unlike Cde. Marratty, has no recourse to an appeal process other than request the moderators to review their decision. Our decision is the final one. We could impose a permanent ban if we so wished but i wonder, considering the criticism we have received at continuing, for the time being, the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed when the moderators are being asked to change their attitude and approach to moderation towards a lighter touch.    

Since I was the one who brought the question. The problem  and the mistake falls on me, and ignorantly I broke rules 1 and 14 of this forum, therefore,  if the moderators want to apply the rules on me, that would be fine. I am not going to argue about that, because  I know that they are right

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Okay. What about all the forum violations, and insults that L Bird has inflicted in this forum ? 

I think that you'll find that on any recent thread, it's you who's been insulting me, mcolome1.This is because you can't argue logically, theoretically or politically with the arguments that I'm making, and thus are compelled to attack me as an individual, to cover up your own political weaknesses.In the past, I returned the personal abuse from the other 'materialists' (which is what you are, at your own admittance), because they too are compelled to take the same actions for the same reasons. But I was sanctioned, like Vin, for doing so.But, unlike Vin, I've learned to appeal to the mods to protect my rights as a poster to make posts which are politically disagreeable to the SPGB, and to allow the mods to chastise the 'materialists' who resort to personal abuse (ie. all of them – they have no choice, because of their ideology).So, to summarise, mcolome1, I've now got you in my sights, and any more personal abuse of me by you will be followed by a PM by me to the mods.Rules, eh?It's a pity that only non-members like me adhere to them, whilst the 'materialist' SPGB members resort to forum violations and insults. Tsk, tsk.

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

He is not subject to any Party protocol that stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a party member. 

This new to me, noone has ever given this as a reason for Vin's suspension.  

[moderator2]

You really must overcome this idea that every comment by the moderators is related directly to Cde Maratty's  situation.The case for an unmoderated forum has been made in the past by Gnome. I merely reminded those with like-minded opinions to be careful for what they wish for.And in my reply to Mcolome i was trying to explain the reason why LBird appears to be able to make uncomradely accusations against some forum users without any consequences – because for the simple fact that he is not a comrade in the sense of being a fellow-member. But moderators do expect him to show a certain amount of civility as a fellow-worker, I was not referring to Cde. Marratty's own circumstances. 

[lindanesocialist]

Thanks Mod 2 but this thread is about CDE Vin Maratty ,  has over 4000 views and is a farce. It should never have been started and  It should be brought to a rapid conclusion.

[lindanesocialist]

Based on a report to the EC by Mods  the EC has uphold Vin's ban. Thankyou, Comrade Mods

[Anonymous]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Based on a report to the EC by Mods  the EC has uphold Vin's ban. Thankyou, Comrade Mods

Good, Comrade Vin is a socialist fighter

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

Based on a report to the EC by Mods  the EC has uphold Vin's ban. Thankyou, Comrade Mods

 Comrade Vin is a socialist fighter

[Author]

Posts