Selective use of forum rules
- This topic has 22 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see the forum rules on off topic are being used selectively on the Corbyn thread. Has there been a meeting exchange of emails of the IC? Or is Mod1 acting on his own?
Vin wrote:I see the forum rules on off topic are being used selectively on the Corbyn thread. Has there been a meeting exchange of emails of the IC? Or is Mod1 acting on his own?You are correct the recent issue of warnings on the Corbyn thread was selective, especially in respect of – in this instance – you receiving a 2nd warning when technically it should have been a 3rd and final warning after you received a 2nd warning some weeks back. Nonetheless, I'm always selective when issuing warnings, I have to be.So the answer to your question is no there's been no exchange of emails between me and the IC in this instance.
Just a suggestion but when so many people are off topic why not just issue a general warning at first.
This is a discussion forum not a Socialist version of "Just A Minute". A certain amount of deviation, hesitation and repetition is necessary and should be tolerated. I'm in favour of more low key moderation in respect to this. Some people will complain no matter what…
I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used
Vin wrote:I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used"Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 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 wrote:Vin wrote:I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used"Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 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.
So I was suspended for simply questioning a moderator's decision? Apart from being despotic, an EC member has since done the same thing without even a warning.
No one answered this question. So I assume most SPGB members believed it is ok to censor opinions that question the moderators decision. If you are ok with that then you have no right to refer to yourself as a socialist
Vin wrote:No one answered this question. So I assume most SPGB members believed it is ok to censor opinions that question the moderators decision. If you are ok with that then you have no right to refer to yourself as a socialistUnfortunately comrade it seems you are in favour of structurelessness. A socialist follows a structure which embeddes certain rules, procedures, processes and protocols. You decided to ignore these to your own detriment. You were not suspended for questioning my decision but for not following party procedures appertaining to this forum.In short comrade you were out of order, nothing more and nothing less. If you have decided to continue down this path that is your decision. Nonetheless I will continue to enforce the guidelines and rules.
moderator1 wrote:Vin wrote:No one answered this question. So I assume most SPGB members believed it is ok to censor opinions that question the moderators decision. If you are ok with that then you have no right to refer to yourself as a socialistUnfortunately comrade it seems you are in favour of structurelessness. A socialist follows a structure which embeddes certain rules, procedures, processes and protocols. You decided to ignore these to your own detriment. You were not suspended for questioning my decision but for not following party procedures appertaining to this forum.In short comrade you were out of order, nothing more and nothing less. If you have decided to continue down this path that is your decision. Nonetheless I will continue to enforce the guidelines and rules.
Out of order, so you are silenced me. You can give as much mumbo jumbo as you want, you shut me up because of an opinion you don't like. I know t the moment you have the support of the majority but so did hitler but it doesnt mean you are right. In fact I know posterity will prove you wrong,wrong wrong Stalin made people and opinions disappear because he did not want them public. He was a cunt, i am sure you are not. so stop silencing me, deal with my argument
How is it that some users are permitted to 'cross-post' on multiple threads, thereby infringing a forum rule, without receiving any apparent warning or sanction?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/reforming-capitalism-supporters-about-money-and-what-it-meanshttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/participatory-delegate-democracy-practical-without-internet-access?page=1#comment-35566http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/imagine-you-could-pass-any-law-or-regulation-capitalist-society-order-make-?page=1#comment-35633http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/internet-democracy#comment-35683http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/spgb-website-upgrade-project#comment-35721http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/socialism-will-fail-if-sex-not-used-group-cohesion?page=8#comment-35745
Forum Rule 6 wrote:Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’)May I request clarification?Is there a new rule in force? Two second warnings in place10.51http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/myth-overcrowded-britain?page=4and 1.12http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/statisation-possible-flaw-world-socialism?page=1#comment-45142
Vin wrote:May I request clarification?Is there a new rule in force? Two second warnings in place10.51http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/myth-overcrowded-britain?page=4and 1.12http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/statisation-possible-flaw-world-socialism?page=1#comment-45142Thanks fo0r that.
I see third waning has been issued. So it is 4 warnings before suspension?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.