Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[lindanesocialist]

mcolome1 wrote:

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

Thank you comrade but the EC has voted to continue with the ban.  Vin appreciates your support but still has a battle on his hands and sadly it is not only with capitalism – fraternal greetings.  

[Anonymous]

I corrected my post. Let's blame it on the keyboard. I know he is not allowed to post. But he can post on the. WSM forum. 

[Anonymous]

I corrected my post. Let's blame it on the keyboard. I know he is not allowed to post. But he can post on the. WSM forum. 

[Bijou Drains]

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.    

Mod 2So just to clarify, there appear to be three points you are making:1.. there is a "protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" could you please:                a) point out where this protocol is, does it exist on the forum rules?                 b) explain exactly AND EXPLICITLY where comrade Marratty has breached this "protocol"2. That there are different judgements made for forum contributers that are members of the SPGB as opposed to those who are not                               (Again I would be very interested in seeing EXACTLY where this is written in the forum rules or within party procedures)3.when asked about a ban for L Bird you state "considering the criticism we have received at continuing, ………. the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed"it appears that you are saying that as Cde Marraty's suspension is receivening criticism, you don't want to receive more criticism for doing the same thing again. So you are clearly indicating that you cannot support acting in the same way twice. Surely then the logical position is, if you can't support doing it a second time, you can't support doing it the first time.For once in this issue, Conrade, I would really appreciate a straight answer to some fairly straight questions. with regards to the first point I made could you also please explain how Mod 1 accusing me of being anti democratic was not a breach of the protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" and how in the light of his comment he was not banned from the forum?

[Anonymous]

This forum should have the same simple rules that we have at the WSM forum in order to avoid so many confusions. Comrade Vin has not been banned or suspended at the WSM forum

[lindanesocialist]

moderator1 wrote:

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.

 Please keep this in perspective:The numerous warnings and suspensions were issued by the same moderator with an axe to grind, MOD 1 and were mainly for questioning moderators decisions, which people are now freely engaged in.  The 'abusive behaviour' refers to ONE comment said at the spur of the moment and in frustration  'your acting like a little Hitler' to which Vin immediatly apologised. Vin has been called a lot worse but no one received a single warning As  has been previously suggestted, for the sake of basic fairness, MOD1 should step aside on this issueNBVin is against  unmoderated forums as he has pointed out on many occassion.

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 For once in this issue, Conrade, I would really appreciate a straight answer to some fairly straight questions. with regards to the first point I made could you also please explain how Mod 1 accusing me of being anti democratic was not a breach of the protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" and how in the light of his comment he was not banned from the forum?

The EC is acting on misinformation and distortion from the Internet Committee. The same Mod1 said this of VIN Maratty  but received no warning.You have not received permission to use the party logo.  Yet you continue to use it?  Is that sour grapes and nonsense?  By continuing to use the logo you are deliberately misleading the working class that the video is a party production.  It contains no diclaimer to this effect, neither does it state its your independent production. If you are so proud of your efforts how come you are not claiming ownership but seeking a free ride on the back of the party?You have dug yourself a hole which only you can backfill.Yours For Positive Socialist Activity(my arse)Fabrication

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.    

Mod 2So just to clarify, there appear to be three points you are making:1.. there is a "protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" could you please:                a) point out where this protocol is, does it exist on the forum rules?                 b) explain exactly AND EXPLICITLY where comrade Marratty has breached this "protocol"2. That there are different judgements made for forum contributers that are members of the SPGB as opposed to those who are not                               (Again I would be very interested in seeing EXACTLY where this is written in the forum rules or within party procedures)3.when asked about a ban for L Bird you state "considering the criticism we have received at continuing, ………. the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed"it appears that you are saying that as Cde Marraty's suspension is receivening criticism, you don't want to receive more criticism for doing the same thing again. So you are clearly indicating that you cannot support acting in the same way twice. Surely then the logical position is, if you can't support doing it a second time, you can't support doing it the first time.For once in this issue, Conrade, I would really appreciate a straight answer to some fairly straight questions. with regards to the first point I made could you also please explain how Mod 1 accusing me of being anti democratic was not a breach of the protocol which "stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a perty member" and how in the light of his comment he was not banned from the forum?

 Comrade, I hope you understand that in this post you have broken all the rules Vin was accused of breaking and you are in danger of becoming the second Foxy Knoxy of the SPGB Mythology,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58rYZCAZsiMWe look forward to voting you on to the next EC to bring an end to this sectarian religious nonsense  Fratenally  

[moderator2]

Tim, the protocols on etiquette between members was laid down by conference which as you are well aware of, supersedes the guide-lines, the rules and the moderators authority…and you can check which conference resolutions which mandates a certain amount of civility and respect between members by going to Spintcom files and searching out the year yourself. Once more, why do you not read what Mod2 actually responded when the same point was raised earlier. I was replying to Cde. Mcolme query about what he considered was a more lenient treatment of LBird and the reply was not accusing Cde Maratty of the same breach but an explanation to clarify for Cde. Mcolme that because of their different status, LBird can be more accusatory in his posts..again within reason.   Yes, we do hold members to a higher standard than non-members…Tough being an SPGBer, isn't it?Let it be clear what this moderator is saying and has said.I intend where possible to moderate with a lighter touch that what might have been the previous case. I'm not pointing the finger but simply saying my attitude and approach is my own. This means that i may well hold a different position from fellow moderators. I am one of three. I can be out-voted. I am also a democrat and accept decisions that go against my own view. Or would you like it if three individual moderators kept making individual idiosyncratic but conflicting decisions and kept reversing actions back and forth?If Mod1 infringed the rules as you claim by saying you were anti-democratic (again, i am not going to track back into history for the message) then banning would not have been the immediate response but a warning would have been issued. Has he repeated the claim? If not, then, we can assume he has understood he had gone further than he should have. I'm not going to return to the relevant messages for the context but let us be clear, many members in the history of the Party have accused others of not acting democratically and, in itself, does not warrant to be considered as questioning the member's socialist credentials and qualifications to be a member of the Party. Moderators have often been accused ourselves of behaving anti-democratically and, again depending upon what context, it can be considered as fair and acceptable comment. At other times, it can be seen as an unjustifiable slur that will evoke an official response. It appears to me, Tim, that you are  personally very concerned from the number of times you have posted about the moderation process and its implementation by ourselves. Cde. Maratty will vouch that i frequently in the now distant past when difficulties were arising and evolving suggested he puts himself forward as a moderator and shoulder some of the responsibility of maintaining some order on the forum. I now suggest the very same to you. If you feel you can bring your own expertise and knowledge to the task then come aboard.But if you believe that constantly highlighting what you perceive as the failings of fellow members and comrades, all volunteers for what i think many would see as an unenviable party position, is constructive contributions to the Party organisation, so be it. We, the moderators, will continue to defend ourselves and our actions when we think we are in the right and beg forgiveness if we tresspass and transgress.    

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

I intend where possible to moderate with a lighter touch that what might have been the previous case. I'm not pointing the finger but simply saying my attitude and approach is my own. This means that i may well hold a different position from fellow moderators. I am one of three. I can be out-voted. I am also a democrat and accept decisions that go against my own view.

And I know and appreciate that, so put the lighter touch into action and give your comrade his Basic rights back.

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

But if you believe that constantly highlighting what you perceive as the failings of fellow members and comrades, 

Which is what you do to cde Vin Maratty

[Anonymous]

Why we do not have so many  moderation problems, and conflicts  at the World Socialist Movement  forum ? 

[lindanesocialist]

mcolome1 wrote:

Why we do not have so many  moderation problems, and conflicts  at the World Socialist Movement  forum ? 

I nominate you as a mod on this forum  

[lindanesocialist]

lindanesocialist wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Why we do not have so many  moderation problems, and conflicts  at the World Socialist Movement  forum ? 

I nominate you as a mod on this forum  

But then I am not a full member of the socialist party  

[lindanesocialist]

Make no mistake about it Mcolcome1 as a moderatore yourself you know that the 3 mods haveVin banned but they refuse to accept that and blame it on the EC which makes them cowardly and bullshitters 

[Author]

Posts