Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

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)  

1st Warning: 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. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

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.

2nd Warning: 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. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.

[lindanesocialist]

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.I have been telling Vin for a long time that he is wasting his time  with the SPGB. You can't agree amongst yourselves. The reason you get less votes than Mr Blobby is down to the present membership and not the Object and Declaration of principles. EVERYONE is the enemy including members that make legitimate criticisms. Ex members are traitors. You publicly criticise all workers demands and thus ensure they turn away from the Party and do not join up.All internal  initiaves are stamped on. You don't want members.  I have had my own opinion on why this happens. What happens to the party's millions when you drive enough members out?What happens to party funds when the party folds?No doubt this post will be censored as it critical of the party. You are the only party that does not allow criticism. The Capitalist Class allows more freedom of expression. You have heard how politicians refer to each other? None are banned from expressing them.I emphasise that this is not Vin's opinion. He is in complete disagreement on the subject. This is MY opinion Linda

[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.

Adam Alan's posts above are in clear and fragrant breach of the forum rules. Linda 

[moderator3]

lindanesocialist wrote:

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.

Yet more distortion.When Vin created his "Machiavellian" account, the Internet Committee had not been given the instruction from the EC to reinstate Vin's account.If Vin had contacted the moderators to discuss the situation, he would have found out that the IC had not yet received instruction from the EC. And that as soon as instruction had been received, Vin's account would have been unblocked.This is not the first time Vin and Linda have jumped the gun in seeking to apportion blame where it did not belong.

[Author]

Posts