SPGB EC Mins Oct 2016
- This topic has 27 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MOTION 2 (Browne/Scholey): “This EC upholds the suspension from the Forum of Cde V. Maratty and requests the Internet Committee to forward a copy of the offending emails of March 2016.” AGREED 4-0-2. The Anual Delegate Meeting of the SPGB meeting this weekend has resolved that: "the EC instructs the IC to remove Comrade Vin Maratty's indefinite ban on the forum and elsewhere."Of course the EC is not bound by ADM decisions so it will be interesting to see it how it and the Internet Committee responds to this democratic expression . In the interests of good will and democracy I hope mods will reinstate Vin's account so we can move on to more constructive endeavours and draw a line under this Linda Maratty Membership number 7824
Actually, that's not the exact wording of the floor resolution carried at ADM. It's:
Quote:“This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen.”It was carried 8 votes for, 2 votes against, with 3 abstentions.As you say, it's not binding, i.e is only a recommendation not an instruction. However, there is a Conference Resolution (from 1986) stating that if an EC decides not to follow a floor resolution they have to explain why to the Party:
Quote:This Conference affirms that although Autumn Delegate Meeting recommendations are not necessarily binding on the EC, they are more representative of Party opinion than EC resolutions. Therefore the EC should take cognisance of such recommendations and give reasons for its failure to put such recommendations into effect.I would add that, as someone who was present, my impression was that the mood of the meeting was that it was the "indefinite" rather than the suspension itself that was considered to be unfair.
ALB wrote:I would add that, as someone who was present, my impression was that the mood of the meeting was that it was the "indefinite" rather than the suspension itself that was considered to be unfair.Indeed, very few people would appreciate unmoderated forums/ meetings. It would give a poor impression of the party if we were to allow free rein to sexists, racists, homophobics and sexual perverts on the forum.
lindanesocialist wrote:ALB wrote:I would add that, as someone who was present, my impression was that the mood of the meeting was that it was the "indefinite" rather than the suspension itself that was considered to be unfair.Indeed, very few people would appreciate unmoderated forums/ meetings. It would give a poor impression of the party if we were to allow free rein to sexists, racists, homophobics and sexual perverts on the forum.
There are other ways of dealing with those relatively rare occurrences which might arise but it could be argued that certain recent posts which fall into that category are already given free rein. And what impression does a heavy-handed, provocative and undemocratic moderation regime give of the party?
All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.
Young Master Smeet wrote:All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.That particular option was considered and rejected when the forum moderation was reviewed 3 years ago.
moderator1 wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.That particular option was considered and rejected when the forum moderation was reviewed 3 years ago.
Surely we of all people shouldn't be arguing that proposals to change systems should be rejected on the basis of "we thought about that three years ago and decided against it". At the last election the electorate rejected the idea of Socialism, are we saying that that proposal should never be looked at again?
Young Master Smeet wrote:All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.They do not have that option on the web forum. The new design could incorporate it, but it goes against an existing decision not to pre-vet posts.This can be reviewed but is not an easy answer I am afraid, as even using this option can have the moderator(s) subject to objections of 'censorship' and 'bias' filling up inboxes and time. Most of these objections would actually be irate posts referring to delays in posts as a consequence of moderator not being sat at his desk all day and night.(I am not refering to any individual currently involved, but to previous experiences with a number of comrades who eventually exercised and generally continue to still exercise, self discipline.)Why did I have to qualify that?Volunteers, such as myself, being bullied and harangued when they open their mailbox, even as they are trying to help an individual, are entitled to feel that, the need for sterner protective responses are required from time to time, especially so, if there is a history of previous abuse of posting privileges.
Matt,the extra workload is part of the point: there is no incentive for moderators to put themselves through that unlss they need to. It should be reconsidered (it worked just fine when I used to do it on the Old Forum).
ALB wrote:As you say, it's not binding, i.e is only a recommendation not an instruction. However, there is a Conference Resolution (from 1986) stating that if an EC decides not to follow a floor resolution they have to explain why to the Party:Quote:This Conference affirms that although Autumn Delegate Meeting recommendations are not necessarily binding on the EC, they are more representative of Party opinion than EC resolutions. Therefore the EC should take cognisance of such recommendations and give reasons for its failure to put such recommendations into effect.Actually, it's a bit stronger than that:
Rule 21 wrote:Addendum: Floor resolutions of Conference and ADM shall be recommendations only, though where the EC fails to implement such recommendations it will set out its reasons for not doing so in writing.There is no simple answer to this. Pre moderation has it's problems, too and can result in the frustration of users when legitimate on-topic and non-abusive posts are removed or not allowed to be posted.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Matt,the extra workload is part of the point: there is no incentive for moderators to put themselves through that unless they need to. It should be reconsidered (it worked just fine when I used to do it on the Old Forum).It still works on spintcom and spopen as well as WSM-Forum. This is because members self-moderate.It works better on lists. But there still comes a point when a rare poster requires to be suspended.You are talking about changing procedures for one,two or three at the most, posters.What a waste of time.
Socialist Party Head Office wrote:MINUTES OF THE 10th MEETING OF THE 113th EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN HELD ON 1st OCTOBER 2016Letter from Lancaster Branch (“we agreed to write a letter without making a formal resolution on it, but in any case there were 4 members present with all agreeing to send a letter”):“At our branch meeting of 11th September we discussed the ongoing matter of the video which has been produced by Vincent Maratty and strongly endorsed by some members on Spintcom and elsewhere (though not by the EC).Having viewed the latest version of this video on 11th September, we were concerned that it appears to use a large number of still photos and at least one animation without any obvious licence or permission. More alarmingly, the video also uses uncredited BBC interview footage. The only 'credit' given at the end is for the background music.As all members will be aware, the Socialist Standard is required by the EC to reproduce licensing details for any images used. This is a sensible precaution because with today's communications technology, copyright infringements are very easy to root out and prosecute. Members need to understand that the internet is no longer a Wild West where anything goes, and using images, video or animations without permission is likely to result in action by the copyright holder. Worryingly, this video displays official Party emblems which make it look like an official SPGB video, thus inviting court action against the Party by licence holders including the BBC. Since we don't make a secret of our considerable financial assets, such action may be deemed attractive and worth pursuing.In view of these factors, we feel that uploading this video to a public channel on YouTube was the height of irresponsibility, and we urge the EC to take immediate steps to have it taken offline, pending an investigation into what permissions have and have not been acquired, and what sort of guidelines need to be in place for any future video projects.Yours fraternally, Paddy Shannon, Lancaster Branch Secretary”.Thank you for taking time to watch the video. However your information to the EC is ill informed and misleading.Why did you not inform the EC of the use of BBC footage and footage from other TV channels that have been uploaded and displayed for last 12 years on the Party's official Youtube? You failed to inform the EC of this risk to party funds when offering your ‘expert’ adviceSee https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57g Vin Maratty thoroughly checked the 'legality' and copyright of the video including pictures and music. The only problem being the BBC footage. The Video was originally a draft and would have had the 'credits' added upon acceptance.Having checked with the BBC, in no way would they allow the use of their material as used by the party at the moment on Youtube, with the exception of the Video produced by Vin Maratty which they may licence at a cost because unlike other BBC videos used by the SPGB it is not identifiable as 'BBC' You have advised the Party to take down a 'legal' video while the party remains wide open to prosecution. You should really do your research before offering legal advice to the Party.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.