Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban
- This topic has 252 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
For starters I'm not moderator3 right now, I'm SocialistPunk. I'm not making official statements or [sarcasm alert] dispensing righteous justice. I'm simply addressing an issue the way I see it, the way I saw it before becoming a moderator.I've already told Vin on a number of occasions, that as far as I could make out he was last suspended for breaching forum rules 7, 14 and 15, so I've no idea why you feel the need to mention that he wasn't suspended for posting memes. I know that already.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14Vin has been advised a number of times now, that he holds the key to unlock his suspension. It would be a lot easier and quicker than seeking out a change of forum rules. Theoretically he could be back on the forum come the next EC meeting, if he got his appeal to the EC on time for their next meeting, this Saturday.It always comes down to an issue of, "Vin was moderated unfairly etc". I've stated on numerous occasions that moderators are not machines, they have to make human judgement calls. When I signed up to become a moderator, it wasn't part of my job to go over old moderation decisions to see if they were "just and true". So it's pointless to keep on about how Vin was unfairly moderated etc.Once again I've told Vin numerous times, to put together a case to prove his "innocence". I first asked Vin to do this months ago during a NERB PM discussion on this forum. He flat out refused to do so. Perhaps had he done so then we might not be having this discussion now.My guess is this will just drag on and on with no resolution, wasting peoples time and energy, when it could have been solved long ago. The choice is Vin's, either keep it dragging on, arguing on the forum, or take some action that might result in a democratic decision he is happy with. It's a no brainer as far as I can tell.
Could someone please remind me of when and explain the particular circumstances of why those guidelines came into practice?
lindanesocialist wrote:The choice is yours, not Vin'sHow so? I don't get the logic behind Vin thinking he can bypass forum protocol and then claim it's the moderators who are at fault? Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.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.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.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.
SocialistPunk wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:The choice is yours, not Vin'sHow so? I don't get the logic behind Vin thinking he can bypass forum protocol and then claim it's the moderators who are at fault?
No mention of 'protocol' 'contrition' or 'EC' in your post. Has all that rubbish been put aside?You are the Moderator and you decide who speaks or posts on this forum. The party is controlled by its membershipAnalogy would beRule 16. The members of the EC shall not be eligible to act as chair to the Delegate Meetings or Conferences, nor shall any member act as chair who has been on the EC whose work is under review. Such members shall have the right to speak thereat. The EC holds no sway here, it is an administrative body. This is the unit of organisation. If we wish to follow the 'chairperson' and moderator analogy (of wich I completely disagree with) then the EC could not turn up at a meeting and instruct the 'chair' or direct the chair. Only the members present could do that You are in the 'chair' Vin requests the permision to speak. You cannot blame 'protocol', EC or forum rules. Moderators are in the chair
Linda, I no longer know what on earth you and Vin are going on about now.The only thing I can make out in your post is the bit about moderators being the chair. Only thing is, I never said moderators were like a chairperson.I've already said the forum is not like a Party meeting with all contributions going through the chair. It's an online discussion space with multiple discussions going on at any one time, sometimes within the same thread.Here's what I said a few posts back.
SocialistPunk wrote:Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.SocialistPunk wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.It is not regulated by members, but by moderators and as I have pointed out most members do not follow the rules. Nor do they 'behave themselves'. Rules are constantly broken.If you were elected chairperson at the next NERB meeting would you allow the EC to decide who you allowed to speak or attend that meeting?It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.
lindanesocialist wrote:It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.
LBird wrote:.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.Well you have been fairly treated, Lbird. so you think Vin's long term permanent ban is justified?
Mod1 has declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to call him a comrade. How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderate
LBird wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.
Good to see that satire's not dead
Paddy Shannon said "Frankly I'm a little disgusted that these slurs keep reappearing. As regards rules, I think we have one about casting aspersions on the integrity of other members, that some members might want to keep in mind."
lindanesocialist wrote:Well you have been fairly treated, Lbird. so you think Vin's long term permanent ban is justified?I don't want to see Vin banned.Personally, I just want Vin to discuss some issues from the point of view of informed debate, rather than him calling me names, and then me responding in the same childish manner.But, from the point of view of the mods, Vin's a party member, and I presume they expect more of him, than they do of me. They must think any ban is justified.It's your party, not mine. I think that the SPGB has got far larger problems than this issue.
- The topic ‘Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban’ is closed to new replies.