Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

You want to know how the vote went?I was in favour of lifting the ban regardless of the sensibilities among other members being upset by that decision. I was out-voted. Today, that moderator vote would be unanimous. 

 

moderator2 wrote:

After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded. Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conductAgreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)

  ??

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

Agreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)

??

I think it's collective responsibility for a democratically 'agreed' decision, linda

[lindanesocialist]

This thread was NOT published and started  by Vin Maratty. He is NOT to blame for this farce.  Without the ban, this would NOT have happened.You dont blame the person for screaming when he is being whipped, you blame the person holding the whip. Put the whips awayIf you voted to remove the ban then you are not responsible for this either

[moderator2]

I agreed to that statement being posted.And one important reason we agreed not to divulge voting was that we were well aware that our own difference of opinion would offer an advantage and opportunity for some to exploited it and so we agreed to show a common front  and have continued to do so since then even when we have consequently disagreed amongst ourselves.I think it is called collective responsibility, but i maybe wrong. 

[moderator2]

So all the problems of the forum that has gone on for years and years  has now been singled down to this one thread began by the moderators so as to be transparent in our dealings.Gies a break…You can cite my initial disagreement with my co-moderators but, i believe later, i did tell you in another message on the forum that i fully endorsed the indefinite suspension imposed upon you because your behaviour had not changed. And today i repeated that position. So, yes, i am now completely in accord with that original statement. 

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

I think it is called collective responsibility, but i maybe wrong. 

Well as Tim says we are in a democratic open organisation and we are entitled to know how members voted.But it explains a lot and your attempt to end the farce is appreciated. NERB had spoken of getting a member on the moderating team to lift Vin's ban. Vin really does or rather did want to get on with doing positve things for the party and the forum but like you he is at the end of his tetherWith regard to this account, the amendment to rules banned the use of 'Vin Said' – remember?Calm down, Vin is  trying to move away but comments appear and we are sucked back in. 

[moderator2]

But i am still a cowardly bullshitter, eh?…just like my fellow members and co-moderators …We never ever tried to treat you with any consideration or respect, did we?I watched the Trump/Clinton debate..Who do you think Trump reminded me of with his whining and whinging about the moderators' bias?

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

 because your behaviour had not changed. And today i repeated that position. So, yes, i am now completely in accord with that original statement. 

'Behaviour' if repeated by another forum member would result in the very same indefinate ban for said member. I think notOthers have witnessed Vin's  behaviour on the forum since the start of this thread and disagree with the indefinate suspension of a party memberIn fact  malcolm said that he  had only come across this type of moderation  when he was in a Leninist organisation.He doesn't need to know the history, he can see for his own eyes the type of 'behaviour' you refer to. None of  it justifies the indefinate suspension of a party member from the organs of communication.You have become pissed off with someone, that doesn't give you the right to silence them

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

I watched the Trump/Clinton debate..Who do you think Trump reminded me of with his whining and whinging about the moderators' bias?

 Well it could be worse, I could remind you of Stalin

[lindanesocialist]

By the way, other members have used a lot worse than 'cowardly bullshiter; and 'little Hitler' But the magnifying glass and the knives are out for Vin. Oh heard the latest……….

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

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.

3rd and final warning.  I shall be PM'ing this user to remind them that if any further breaches of the rules occur they will automatically be suspended for an indefinite period.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.

[moderator1]

This thread is now locked.  If any further posts appear here they will be deleted.

[moderator1]

moderator2 wrote:

Quote:

Even if I was to accept (which I don't) that the spirit of that resolution should be applied to this forum

Well, i do. Please officially lodge your protest and your request for my removal as a maverick moderator.  Miss out the IC – complain directly to the EC  I for one have gone out of my way to exercise tolerance and be lenient of Cde. Maratty's  forum behaviour since which now stretches back years.Sadly, Cde. MColme's knowledge of the situation as he admitted is limited to reading posts on one thread. He is unaware of the very long history that is involved, going back literally years. Sadly, action was taken against Lindanesocialist only today  (or was it her, for it takes no Sherlock Holmes to deduce who is really at the keyboard when her posts appear? Another clear sign of our willingness to compromise that goes unacknowledged)  after two requests to follow common sense behaviour on where to post messages was simply ignored and defied.We are not dealing with isolated occasional infringements but a well-trod path of repeated misdemeanours which culminated in an indefinite suspension.Each new day and each new post from Cde. Maratty is re-confirming the correctness of the moderators' caution in not restoring his posting rights. You want to know how the vote went?I was in favour of lifting the ban regardless of the sensibilities among other members being upset by that decision. I was out-voted. Today, that moderator vote would be unanimous.As i said to Cde. Maratty in a PM he has never extolled confidence in me that he would change his spots. And that has exactly been the situation.  He had an opportunity that if he accepted our decision in a comradely manner as it was issued that outcome  would have probably been reversed. But that was not to be, and it was not through moderators actions but Cde. Vin's own reluctance to appeal to the EC and yes…to be genuinely show regret and remorseful for previous actions, admitting a role in causing the dispute. But for yourself, you'd rather indulge in some theocratic semantics about one word i used. I do not kindly take to being called a cowardly bullshitter and having the integrity and sincerity of my moderating doubted. You may well consider such invective as acceptable from a fellow member but to return to my opening remark – i don't consider it comradely in the slightest and don't expect such accusations to be made against me or any other member of the Party..i can only talk for myself, but my patience is being tested and i am coming to the end of my tether and quite frankly if you want my job as moderator, you are very welcome to volunteer for it….but i very much doubt you will…As a parting piece of information i recommended Cde. Maratty to be given the admin of an inactive media blogspot so he could continue his interest and involvement  with videos.More fool me, eh? 

5 day suspension7. 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.Cde. Johnstone, regretfully stepped across the line in recent posts by indulging in some unnecessary goading of fellow forum users. He is accountable as any other member of the forum for breaching its guidelines. Thus, his co-moderators have imposed a 5-day suspension without the customary warnings upon Cde. Johnstone, who is a frequent and almost daily contributor to the forum. He accepts the reasoning for this decision by his fellow moderators, any holds no ill-will against them and has no intention of challenging his co-moderators actions

[Author]

Posts