Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[moderator2]

Regards messages #43 and 44REMINDER: RULE 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others *or allow anyone else to use your account.*

[lindanesocialist]

So I have to stop posting messages for Vin?He does not have  my password.But if he wishes me to express his  opinions that do not breach forum rules then I will. It is up to you to suspend my account for that reason

[lindanesocialist]

[SocialistPunk]

"Now that's what I call anarchy." Rick, from The Young Ones

[SocialistPunk]

It's important that rules are challenged, and at times this means breaking them. Without challenges to the status quo progress would be slow.But breaking rules without offering alternative ideas, solutions, etc, is in essence a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism.

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

But breaking rules without offering alternative ideas, solutions, etc, is in essence a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism.

 So follow rules right or wrong?  'I was just following rules' is suffucient justification?  

[SocialistPunk]

It seems we have a Socialist Party member who either doesn't want to follow the rules of this forum, yet still wants to post. Or who thinks the rules are wrong. If it is the latter, then it isn't unreasonable to expect an alternative set of rules to be presented for consideration. If it is the former then we have what I previously described, "a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism." 

[lindanesocialist]

 Banksy is simply saying that people who follow rules do more harm than people who don;t. It is a historical fact.  Are you suggesting that the SPGB members who refused to join the war and thus broke the rules should nevertheless have killed Germans untill someone came up with some alternative rules? Can't agree with such logic I'm afraid 

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

It seems we have a Socialist Party member who either doesn't want to follow the rules of this forum, yet still wants to post. Or who thinks the rules are wrong. 

 You must realise SP that you are at this moment breaking the rules. So it seem there is more than one socialist party member"Who doesn't want to follow the rules, yet still wants to post.

[SocialistPunk]

If I get a warning I'm willing to abide by the moderators decision.I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way?What has the organized mass murder of people got to do with rules/guidelines for an online forum? The use of Banksey's work in this way actually belittles the original message.

[lindanesocialist]

SP Have you ever read Animal Farm? Good read 

[SocialistPunk]

Yep, a good read. What you imply is not worthy of a response.How about you address some of the points I've sent your way?

SocialistPunk wrote:

I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way?What has the organized mass murder of people got to do with rules/guidelines for an online forum? The use of Banksey's work in this way actually belittles the original message.

If you can't or won't address these points, then perhaps you could let us know if you have a problem with the rules and procedures of the forum? If so, perhaps you have some sort of alternative to offer?If you refuse to address my points then we are back to one of the following.

SocialistPunk wrote:

It seems we have a Socialist Party member who either doesn't want to follow the rules of this forum, yet still wants to post. Or who thinks the rules are wrong. If it is the latter, then it isn't unreasonable to expect an alternative set of rules to be presented for consideration. If it is the former then we have what I previously described, "a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism."

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way? 

You make an interesting analogy SP. If a member was disruptive at a meeting, would you expect the chair to rule them out of order, I would guess the answer would be yes. If they continued to be disruptive would you expect the chair to ask them to leave the meeting, I would probably expect the answer, reasonabl would be yes. However if the member was subsequently disruptive at another meeting, would you think it consistent with the Socialist Party's democractic principles, that the chair of that meeting then goes on to  ban that member from attending SPGB meetings indefinitely? As a Shop Steward for many years there is no way on earth I would accept a member's appeal against a discilplinary decision to be undertaken by the very manager who made the original decision, any more than it would be acceptable that the decision making discussion and reasons for the dismissing the appeal would be kept completely unknown to the member I was representing. Alan (mod 2 or 3), you have written on several occasions about being an active trades unionist, could you say, hand on heart that you would have allowed a union member you were representing to be treated int h at way?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 seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

[Young Master Smeet]

If a branch permanently excluded a member of the public from their meetings, I wouldn't expect there to be a convoluted procedure, and frankly I'm against appeals for spammers.  Such a persopn excluded could always complain about the branch to the EC (and I beleive appeals to the EC have happened in parts of this case).  With a party member, personally my view is that they should be afforded the protection of rules 29 and 31.  After all, persistent disruptive behaviour sufficient to get a member excluded from a branch meeting would be action detrimental in anyone's book.

[Bijou Drains]

And the last line of Rule 31 states:"no parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as delegates or chair at conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed"My point exactly!

[Author]

Posts