Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

[lindanesocialist]

From the EC – Your Forum suspension –  The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself  to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM  ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”)  by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet  for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee.

[moderator2]

Quote:

They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum,

 So it took you a just 26 days to breach that assurance you had given to the EC which formed part of their decision they reached 5 days prior to your latest infringement of the forum rules.The suspension on this forum remains until the EC reviews your subsequent actions and issues the moderators with further instructions.  

[lindanesocialist]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Tim, perhaps you are unaware that we have been down this road with Cde. V. Maratty already. I have previously personally said that my approach to Cde. V Maratty was one of lack of confidence in his assurances of better conduct on the forum but now, since the Machiavellian development, a false account opened to launch an anonymous attack on the Party’s internal democracy, it is now one of trust.This is a repetition of his accusations made on a RevLeft discussion list thread in 2013 which he set up to criticise the party for permitting a "purge"of members that should be brought once more to the fore.This is what Gnome had to say about Vin’s posts at the time on that discussion list“If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter…some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious disruption which continued for around six months taking place mostly on these sub-forums…The OP has now been banned indefinitely from posting on the forum after numerous warnings and temporary suspensions.”Gnomes’s opinion may have changed but the facts have not.While Cde. V Maratty is now citing approvingly of mcolome’s comparison of the moderators with Leninist practices, here is Cde. V. Marattys judgement of mcolome’s moderating policy.“I am permanently expelled from your SPGB forum for being 'off topic in thread' Perhaps spgb members have an explanation for this comedy duo which is typical of their forums at the moment. The moderator and 'malcom' is the same person.  Who is 'disrupting' this forum? Who is challenging the integrity of members? Who is off topic? And perhaps I can give you a demonstration of the status of free speech in the SPGB by going on the forum to defend myself?  unable to post link but it is the WSM forum.”This is related to the unfounded accusation which was never retracted that the Yahoo WSM moderator and I colluded together in publically publishing a private e-mail on the forum. “I sent Alan Johnstone a private email. You can tell it is private the way it is worded. Worse than that the moderator took it from Alan and published it! How low is the party willing to stoop?”Admitting that the error addressing his post incorrectly was his own was beyond Cde. V. Maratty ability. Better to just blame others of a conspiracy. This is what Cde. Marcos said at the time. “You have already violated four rules of this forum, in others forum that I know, you could have been expelled from the forum.” (my emphasis) Frankly, this is a very sad situation.”Only a fool, (and I am not and I am sure other members aren’t too), believed that every post from Lindanesocialist was from her and that her account was not being used as a proxy by Cde. V. Maratty. But believing and proving something are very two different things but I recall Cde. V Maratty acknowledging in a PM to the moderators that he felt a “humiliation” having to resort to logging in on Cde. L Maratty’s forum account. We never expelled him from the forum but permitted Cde. L Maratty to “reply on his behalf” repeatedly. Again to use Cde. V. Maratty’s own words of his past situation and his view at the time.“It seems some member of the SPGB are terrified that I intend to rejoin the party. and are disrupting the forums by attacking ex- members and sympathisers – it is no wonder they remain smallThey are not representative of the party but I have no intention of joining while there people like that in the SPGB.These very same people have chased off sympathizers and will continue to do so until the silent majority discovers what is going on.The members and sympathisers attacked here have since left the party and are being vilified for trying to improve a rubbish moderation”http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/180388-spgb-forum-purgehttps://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/wsm_forum/conversations/topics/51116Little has changed. Yes, it is indeed very sad that the full history of Vin’s past disruptions are being so easily forgotten. I haven’t even gone into the archives of Spopen or Spintcom for the period. Others are very welcome to.Is this Vin simply expressing fair comment and criticism of the Party procedures and process, in particular, the moderation of its forums?From another, I would judge yes, but in his case, I think it simply illustrates a person who is unwilling to change. Due to his (and others) behaviour the Party conducted what could be described as a "branch-poll" concerning the re-admittance of ex-members who still adhere to our principles but have proven to be disruptive to the smooth running of the Party. It overwhelmingly agreed there are indeed grounds for refusing re-membership.When Cde. Maratty eventually re-joined the Party having had his initial request for re-membership denied, his re-admittance was on his own pledges that his behaviour on the forums would improve. I would not be the only one to conclude that this assurance was never kept.All water under the bridge. Let bygones be bygones?Tim, with all good intentions, seeks that we once again take Cde, V. Maratty at his word.   I think it perhaps is repeating an earlier mistake that has come back to haunt us and which now requires rectifying for once and for all.  I am loathe to say that it is my opinion his continued disruption and claims about a lack of party democracy are reasons not just for his permanent suspension from the forum – but that his latest action was detrimental to the party and deserving of expulsion from the party. As I said at the start, my own attitude has moved from one of lack of confidence to where I now question the integrity of a fellow-member who can again smear the Party and/or its officers, just as he did in the past.My own apologies for my own broken promise to not to add any further to this thread but for those who are only recent members, they should be made aware of everything and that all the relevant information is out there and as Socialistpunk says, not omitted from our consideration of the situation. 

Vin has made it clear that he was being censored.  So he asmits to criticising the party. Thanks for the asmission Alan, or should I say Mod2'.?  Vin is banned for criticising the party.   Since rejoining the party Vin's attitude has been positive save arguments with over moderation which Vin claimed to be deliberate provocation.Alan (Mod2)you post is nasty and vindictive and devisive and stubbern refusal to leave the past. Unlike Gnome and others who have put the interests of the party first and the sit behind, you have decided to take the side of those who believe in the censorship of criticism. Good luck with your attempt to expell a member for criticising the party

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?

 Socialist Punk or should I say Mod3I will ask you again, where is the 'existing appeal process' you talk of. I may be missing something but I cannot see any reference to EC appeals in forum rules.  

[moderator2]

Cde.V. Maratty, i liken your actions to that of an anonymous poisoned pen writer.And i judge your attempts to evade your own responsibility by somehow implying every member who uses a nom de plume (one mind you, not two) are sock-puppets and thus are as guilty as yourself concerning breaking the rules and that moderators appointed by the EC and fully authorised to use two accounts are also sock-puppets, is simply plain silly.It is as laughable as your allegations that censorship has been applied to your "criticisms" of the party you did not deign to put your real name to or even acknowledge you were a member of.The word to describe your behaviour is scurrilous.   

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

Quote:

They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum,

 So it took you a just 26 days to breach that assurance you had given to the EC which formed part of their decision they reached 5 days prior to your latest infringement of the forum rules.The suspension on this forum remains until the EC reviews your subsequent actions and issues the moderators with further instructions.  

I didn't send anyything to the EC but I will now.Alan you have two accounts Mod2 and AlanJohnson. Vin has no account until he attempted to set one up with ADM and EC approval.If anyone is deceiving onlookers it is MOD! replying as Brian, MOD2 replying as Alanjohnson and Mod3 replying as Socialist Punk.   The only support expressed on this thread for moderation is expressed by the moderators under a different name.NB It is moderation that is disrupting the party and the forum at the moment. 

[lindanesocialist]

Mod2 or should I say Alanjohnson, Move on.. and stop the religious guilt trip. I do believe you introduced  the phrase 'Act of contrition' which started all this crap.have no argument so delve into the past. You didn't mention the years of graft we have put in for the partySome members of this party were in the Liberal Party, Tory Party and BNP. And some are from leninist and stalinst organisations.What's your 'act of confession' or were you a 'born socialist'. HypocriteYou are way off topic  and should have received a warning by now. 

[moderator2]

I really can't be doing with all this shit right now.If those who wish to take such a deluded comrade at his word, fine. I won't be complicit. Consider this my resignation as moderator and i will be logging out and have no intention of returning to the forum. Oh, in case those amateur psycho-analysts think i am employing some sort of emotional blackmail to get my way – they too can fuck off.I won't be on this forum again…and i won't be hiding behind a wife's skirts or creating some fake sock-puppet to post.  What our so-called fellow member seemed to not realise but what some other members have understood, you do not require to be a forum user to campaign and promote the SPGB case. Apologies to my much put-upon co-moderators who have been let down by other forum users who, for their own reasons, have not provided them with their fullest support.  Adios amigos

[lindanesocialist]

It is not only a few forum members. It is also ADM and the EC. If you go over your recent posts, you sound angry and frustrated and making abusive off topic remarks. How would you feel if you were given a 10 month suspension for such 'disruption' and had to appeal to adm and the EC?Take time out and calm down, your contributions to this forum would be missed. 

[lindanesocialist]

Vin said: I thank ADM and the EC for these very positive comments and hope we can move on. I look forward to the invitation from the Internet Committee to rejoin the forum and I hope I am allowed the same priveleges as other members vis a vis the right to use a pseudonym and maintain a degree of anonymity.  Hopefully this will prevent me from being constantly under a microscope. – Your Forum suspension – The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself  to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM  ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”)  by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet  for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee. –  Your request to the EC to reconsider your nomination to the AV committee The EC considered your request and viewed your video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production during the EC meeting. I'm afraid that after due consideration the EC re-affirmed the rejection of  your nomination to the Audio Visual Committee, but encouraged you to reapply for the forthcoming year (Motion 3 page 2 of November EC minutes)  

[lindanesocialist]

lindanesocialist wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?

 Socialist Punk or should I say Mod3I will ask you again, where is the 'existing appeal process' you talk of. I may be missing something but I cannot see any reference to EC appeals in forum rules.

I would be grateful for a reference to 'the existing appeal process' involving the Executive Committee. As you know I am not a stickler for the rules  but I can't find this one.  

[ALB]

Vin, you are right. There is no right of appeal to the EC in the rules of this forum. This is because it is a forum composed of non-members as well as members. It was deliberately decided not to allow forum members to appeal to the EC as forum members as this could lead to malicious and time-wasting appeals by non-member trolls and troublemakers just to clog up the work of the EC. Your 'right' to 'appeal' to the EC derives from elsewhere : your status as a party member, as any party member is able to appeal to the EC against a decision of one of its subcommittees. This doesn't just apply to members suspended on this forum but also, for example, to a member who has had an article turned down by the Socialist Standard editorial committee.

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Take time out and calm down, your contributions to this forum would be missed. 

its a shame, Linda, that Vin did not take on board your very wise words. If he had done perhaps we wouldn't be in the situation we now find ourselves.Whilst I have no wish to rehash past difficulties, perhaps Vin might reflect on how far his intemperate responses and reactions have contributed to the present situation.Whilst I have been somewhat critical of the ways in which the Mods have handled some of the issues. I think Vin also needs to understand that if he is going to make the kind of "little Hitler" remarks he has made, then it is not unnatural that those he makes those remarks about will feel annoyed and offendedI think it is terribly sad that a valued contributor to this forum feels that they can no longer contribute to this forum because of some of the accusations that have been flung about by contributors. In my opinion we all need to be conscious of the impact of our contributions and we all need to be aware of our responsibilities as Socialists, to our fellow Socialists and to our movement.

[ALB]

It's a good thing that we did wait for the EC Minutes. I had guessed that what the EC had done was to lift Vin's suspension on condition that he undertook to abide by the forum's rules. It now turns out that he had already given such an undertaking and that this was one factor in the EC's decision to left the ban (my bold):

Quote:

i.    Re Motion 2 (“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.”)In connection with this item the agenda for the meeting included:a.    A number of documents containing communications by and between the Internet Committee and Cde Maratty (“the one post that immediately preceded his Spintcom suspension (for personal attacks) the three posts that immediately preceded his spopen suspension (for using the list to air complaints about his other suspensions), and some posts relating to his Web forum suspension”)  and an offer to provide “on request a full record of his… posting history for March 2016, as well as his e-mail correspondence with the IC, though this could run to several hundred pages”;b.    E-mail from Cde Maratty via the Acting General Secretary (29–30/10/16): Being his “request to have his suspension from the Party Forums lifted.” Cde Maratty stated that “The 'Act of Contrition' read out at ADM by Cde Browne was not meant for the EC, it was a sarcastic and humorous attempt to reply to the forum moderators request for an 'Act of Contrition' to the EC.” It further explained that last month he had submitted but subsequently withdrawn the following request to the EC:“I request that the EC lift my ban and reinstate my account. I undertake to abide by the rules of the forum. May I also ask that the EC reconsiders my nomination as a member of the AV committee as I feel I have something to contribute to the party and our movement? Please see … video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production”. The video was viewed by the EC during the meeting;c.    ADM Floor Resolution arising f rom x23 (Report of Internet Committee), Cdes Kilgallon (North East Regional) & Whitehead (Manchester): “This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”, reported as being agreed by a vote of 8–2–3.A discussion took place regarding the items on the agenda. Taking into account the content of the emails from Cde Maratty (b, above), the views of delegates expressed at ADM, and the fact that the suspension had now exceeded seven months, several EC members suggested that the Internet Committee should be asked to end the suspension. Others took a contrary view, that there was no evidence to support lifting the suspension and that delegates at ADM may not have been fully aware of the circumstances.MOTION 3 (Browne/Thomas): “That we thank the Comrades of the Internet Committee for their reply to our request of October, and endorse their actions i n the circumstances. We note that Cde Vincent Maratty has, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore we lift his suspension and enjoin Cde Maratty to work together with the Comrades of the Internet Committee for our common aim.” AGREED 4-2-1 [Division: For – Browne, Foster, McLellan, Thomas; Against – Scholey, Skelly; Abstain – Cox].

So, Vin undertook twice to abide by the rules of the forum yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.I would say that that amounts to the end of his third chance that the ADM delegates voted to give him and that the least messy way out of this would be for Vin fo follow Alan's example and withdraw completely from this forum.

[lindanesocialist]

ALB wrote:

 yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.I would say that that amounts to the end of his third chance that the ADM delegates voted to give him and that the least messy way out of this would be for Vin fo follow Alan's example and withdraw completely from this forum.

 Vin saidIt seems Alan's tantrum is paying offAdamThis was not a sock puppet account. The Internet Committee have acted undemocratically and refused to take into account the recommendation of ADM and the EC. They have been constantly provocative. I could see they had no intention of allowing me back on the forum so  opened up an account – which is my right . I opened ONE account. I did not have an existing account. My previous account was permanently blocked. Mackiavellian defies the definition of a sock puppet account. A sock puppet account requires TWO active accounts.The problem was criticism of the party. The IC will always find a rule to apply against me. I moved a resolution to have them removed for undemocratic behaviour and they have had it in for me ever since.TIMALL of my responses were effects of a cause, not saying they were correct but they were provoked. Are you saying that calling a member a little hitler should result in a permanent suspension. Is it any worse than telling someone to stick his head up a bears arse?  Read Alan's very abusive comments about me , he also  tells people to fuck off. You may say that you understand his frustration and forgive him. Shame he has to leave etcIf I am forced to leave this forum it has nothing to do with  being abusive, it is because I criticised the party and the Internet Committee. Which some people seem to object to for some reason.That is blatant censorship. ADM and the EC knew Vin broke rules but believed that the suspension had been too long. Both of you were there. Do you think the party would go along with a permanent on-line ban of a party member? When you consider future democratic organisation will be online.Our democracy is beginning to look a sham.  a committee has decided it knows better than an Annual Delegate Meeting and an Executive Committee. The membership makes the decisions  not a self appointed leadership.As democrats we should be demanding the implimentation of our democrtically arrived at decisions. If you or anyone else do not like those decisions,  we have democratic procedures to change them. Write to your branch, bring a chargeUntil then I would appreciate an account. as decided by the ADM and EC. And as I informed the EC I will work with rather than against the Internet Committee for the good of the movement. The past will be the past but it takes two sides to make an agreement. The next step is reinstatement.The first time I break that undertaking I will leave the forum and the party myself. In the meantime I have things and ideas I would like to be getting on with. I would love this to come to an end.

[Author]

Posts