The Religion word

[Ed]

aden wrote:

Ed wrote:

aden wrote:

This is a strange forum! What are your own members allowed to say? I have been reading articles over the last 3 months on your site and came across thishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1297-september-2012/50-years-ago-fascism-and-ignorance but I am disappointed to find that your own members are 'shouted down' and shut up via bans! 

Do you think it's ok to accuse members of being police infiltrators? In other words don't believe the hype

I have done some research on the site and your banned member definitely did not accuse anyone of being a police infiltrator, So your comment is untrue and inflammatory.In fact you have also referred to your comrades as the 'north east mafia'. Why have you not received a warning for these unless you are somehow favoured?My research indicates that your banned member used a lot less abuse and insinuation than most others on this forum including yourself

Does your research come straight from the mouth of Maratty?Do you find the word shit abusive?Do you find 4 people ganging up on 1 to not be abusive?Do you not think a member has the right to defend themselves when they are being attacked by a group of 4?Are you Maratty using a different account?  

[ALB]

robbo203 wrote:

The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,

You are begging the question here and have failed to see the difference between banning someone for the views they expressed and banning them for their behaviour (they way they put across their views).The two individuals were not personally abusive; their personal behaviour was different: abusing their right under the rules to post 3 messages a day every day for months on end. The result was that discussion about other aspects was swamped and people left the forum. They were in effect behaving like those who sent spam sex messages to your old open forum (which led you to take the drastic step of closing the whole thing down). In any event, nobody is banned from arguing for circular cities or anarcho-capitalism either on this or the WSM_Forum

robbo203 wrote:

That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

This raises another relevant question. Your semi-closed forum can take a vote of all the members since you exist essentially only on the internet. Nothing wrong with that  or that way of consulting forum members, It is democratic.Our forums are different. They are set up, run and paid for by parties which exist outside of cyberspace, so we have to use a different form of democratic control. A majority of members of the WSM_Forum are not socialists let alone members, so why should they have a right to say how the forum is run? If we go down that road, then the forum would be open to take over by opponents or people with a different agenda from us.Since not all members of our parties in Britain, the US, Canada and New Zealand are members of the forum, to let Party forum members decide would be more democratic but still not entirely fair. The only way is what we do here: the membership elects an executive committee which appoints a committee from nominations made by branches and then let's them get on with it. Of course they have to report twice a year to the membership and members can challenge any decision by appealing to the executive committee. That's democracy too.The WSM_Forum is more complicated as it is the forum of the World Socialist Movement rather than of any of the companion parties. The moderator is in fact a member of the Socialist Party of Canada, living in the United States, who was appointed by the SPGB and SPC together.I hope that this exchange of messages brings out that this is not a black-and-white issue and that it is unfair to cry "censorship" just because a forum reserves itself the right to deal with unruly or disruptive behaviour.

[Anonymous]

aden wrote:

I have done some research on the site and your banned member definitely did not accuse anyone of being a police infiltrator, So your comment is untrue and inflammatory.In fact you have also referred to your comrades as the 'north east mafia'. Why have you not received a warning for these unless you are somehow favoured?My research indicates that your banned member used a lot less abuse and insinuation than most others on this forum including yourself

This thread is entitled "The Religion word"; it is not for personal axe-grinding by individuals whether in support or opposition of the suspended (not banned) member.  The same applies for all other threads on this forum.The procedure for complaints is crystal clear.  If you believe a moderator is acting unfairly, then you should point this out to the moderator him/herself in the first instance; the two of you may be able to resolve the issue yourselves without the need to escalate it. That is, you should discount the possibility of a misunderstanding on either or both sides, or of reaching a mutually agreeable compromise, before taking the matter further. If you're unable to resolve your complaint with the moderator, then please contact the Internet Department at <spgb.internet@worldsocialism.org>, as they are the committee responsible for administering the Party's discussion forums. If after doing so you are still not satisfied, you can take the matter to the Executive Committee at <spgb@worldsocialism.org>, which appoints the Internet Department.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum ,

You are begging the question here and have failed to see the difference between banning someone for the views they expressed and banning them for their behaviour (they way they put across their views).The two individuals were not personally abusive; their personal behaviour was different: abusing their right under the rules to post 3 messages a day every day for months on end. The result was that discussion about other aspects was swamped and people left the forum. They were in effect behaving like those who sent spam sex messages to your old open forum (which led you to take the drastic step of closing the whole thing down). In any event, nobody is banned from arguing for circular cities or anarcho-capitalism either on this or the WSM_Forum

 I believe you are mistaken. It was very clear why they were banned and this was explained in a post by the new moderator on August 17thThe point of view of David and Bob has been adequately discussed in thisforum for a long period. This is the forum of the World Socialist Movementand its companion parties, and our main purpose is to discuss aboutsocialism and communism, and to discuss the case of the socialist party,but it was not created in order to attack the party, and to discouragepeoples who wants to become members of the party,This is not a forum for Anarcho-capitalism, Cooperativism, oranti-communism, or in order to make propaganda to those political trends,who ever wants to know about both subject matter, our website has plentyof information, or they can go the archives of the forum.Note the reference to the forum not being created "in order to attack the Party." I read that as saying no criticism of the  party is to be allowedI dont think your argument stands up to scrutiny – that these members were banned because they abused the rule of post only 3 messages per day.  Ive done that myself on occasions as have others but if that really was a problem in the case of these two individuals  then  answer is simple – you put them under moderation.  You dont ban them. Besides,  I think I can distinctly recall Bob at least saying on one or two occasions that he could not answer another post becuase he had reached his 3 post limit 

ALB wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.

This raises another relevant question. Your semi-closed forum can take a vote of all the members since you exist essentially only on the internet. Nothing wrong with that  or that way of consulting forum members, It is democratic.Our forums are different. They are set up, run and paid for by parties which exist outside of cyberspace, so we have to use a different form of democratic control. A majority of members of the WSM_Forum are not socialists let alone members, so why should they have a right to say how the forum is run? If we go down that road, then the forum would be open to take over by opponents or people with a different agenda from us.

 This is not the point at all.  The WSM forum belongs to the WSM and it is quite right that the WSM should control if and not people on the forum itself. I'm not questioning that at all. and I think you misunderstood me when I said a poll was conducted  by World in Common on whether to expel someone for supporting the Americans in the Iraq War becuase it contravened the terms of joining the forum.  The poll was conducted within WIC itself not among members on the worldincommon forum most of whom are not members of WICOne other thing – setting up a yahoogroup costs nothing so there is nothing to be paid for. Unless the situation has changed recently. Has it?

[Hud955]

What's the purpose and valid function of a internet forum for a democratic organisation like the WSM. It could be argued that, because we do not believe in censorship, any forum that we provide should be open to anyone to publicly discuss anything they want in any way that they want. We could provide a forum like that, but I don't see our principles obligate us to it. It would be absurd, for example, to claim that we were censoring people if we chose not to provide them with a public forum to use as they wished, especially as the opportunity to discuss any subject imaginable is available to anyone who has access to the web.The WSM's single purpose is to develop an understanding of socialism, so it is perfectly reasonable that any forum we set up should be dedicated specifically to socialist discussion, and equally reasonable, given that we are a democratic, non-leadership organisation, that we should invite anyone who wants, to join the debate.  It was set up for members to discuss the case for socialism with others.  The fact that most people here have accepted that this is the purpose of this forum, shows the reasonableness of this position, I think.  The SPGB set the forum up, then, with two purposes in mind: to promote the idea of socialism and to provide an arena in which anyone can examine and test the socialist case. It would be wholly against our principles and purposes to censor or eliminate discussion of any idea that was even remotely related to our position.  Censorship of ideas and arguments is unacceptable. Dealing with the behaviour of members who disrupt that process either by straying off the subject, indulging in personal feuds or riding particular hobby horses to death is different. I would be very concerned if McDonah and Bob were expelled from the WSM site because they expressed views that were contrary, or in some sense 'inappropriate' to the socialist case.  If they were banned for disagreeing with us, it would suggest that the WSM was attempting to assert its case by avoiding criticism or argument. It is my understanding, however, that McDonah and Bob were banned from posting on the WSM forum because they were simply repeating the same material over and over again, and contributing nothing new to the debate. It certainly sounded like it whenever I looked in.  I cannot see any valid claim of censorship here. Anyone who wants to see their arguments against the party case or the responses made by party members and others, can go along to the site and look them up.  They are still all there – in repetitive detail. But a point had been reached long before they were banned when the sole contribution these two were making was to deter others who might otherwise had made a valuable contribution to the debate.  They had more than their fair share of opportunity to make their case to us and failed to convince us.  If Bob and McDonah want to repeat their arguments to others and try to convince them, then once again ample opportunities are available to them.As for the recent feuding on the SPGB site, I’m not going to say too much about it as I wasn’t involved and have only read through the posts once.  What I see, though, is a classic example of a group of forum contributors who gradually managed to wind each other up with sarcastic, defensive and dismissive remarks until one of them lost his rag and went way over the top. It happens all the time on the web. And I don't believe any one person was responsible. I’ll leave aside the arguments and accusations about whether the moderator made a mistake in banning them or acted fairly in accordance with the rules of the forum.  I don't want to make that judgement.  There is an established process for dealing with that with built-in democratic accountability. But some kind of moderation is necessary in situations like this, even if it means temporarily banning members from the site until they have cooled down.  When they come back they will have a continuing opportunity to put their views, so again, I cannot see that any censorship has taken place. There are some issues about how the forum should be moderated, I think.  The party needs to discuss this further through its normal democratic processes, and come up with some clearer guidelines. That way, every contributer will know exactly what is expected of them and the moderator can be confident about his response.    People are responsible for their own ideas and beliefs about socialism.  When they come onto a forum like this they are entitled to freely express them.  But it can't a free for all – that just leads to chaos.  Censorship has everything to do with stifling or preventing debate.  It has nothing to do with the necessary process of managing people whose contributions are no longer reasonably focused on that debate.   

[aden]

I think Ed is being a little paranoid. Let me explain. I was a member of the labour party for some years but left. Mainly because of favouritism. You were not allowed to challenge party officers for example, nor show any serious disagreements. This is why I found the SPGB so interesting. I have been reading the Standard and the website. The idea of a party without leaders and fovourites sound better than the Labour elite.That is why I am interested in and disappointed with this forum but thankyou for your time anyway

[Hud955]

aden wrote:

I think Ed is being a little paranoid. Let me explain. I was a member of the labour party for some years but left. Mainly because of favouritism. You were not allowed to challenge party officers for example, nor show any serious disagreements. This is why I found the SPGB so interesting. I have been reading the Standard and the website. The idea of a party without leaders and fovourites sound better than the Labour elite.That is why I am interested in and disappointed with this forum but thankyou for your time anyway

 LOL.  Hi Aden. You clearly don't yet understand the SPGB. (How could you?)  It is arguable that challenging 'party officals' is what SPGBers do best.  We are always at it.  It's because we don't have a leadership structure and mistakes or bad decisions are sometimes made that there are well-established routes through which challenges of all sorts can be made.  Those involved in this row have repeatedly been advised to make that challenge by other members.  Personally, I'm really hoping they will as this situation needs to be resolved fairly and we can all learn something useful from it. Cheers

[Hud955]

I also agree that this thread be split, so that the discussion on censorship can be continued elsewhere. Can I also suggest, steve, that though I think you are making a valid contribution to this particular issue, and I understand that you want your view to be heard, this is not the place to deal with the matter.   No balanced judgement is going to come out of an ongoing on-line debate like this.  It is likely just to drag out the matter and in the end no-one will feel satisfied.  If you talk to Socialist Punk regularly and have contacts with some of the others involved, I'd suggest you get together and put your complaints to the internet committee, then to the EC, if necessary, so that this can be considered thoughtfully, and at a lower temperature.  If we can resolve this properly we might even learn something useful from it.Cheers.

[PJShannon]

If anyone has complaints about the moderation on this site please make them through the proper channels as outlined above so that they can be dealt with properly. Otherwise please let them rest. 

[PJShannon]

MODERATION NOTICEThis is a final warning issued to Ed. The appropriate channels of complaint have been outlined above.

Ed wrote:

Does your research come straight from the mouth of Maratty?Do you find the word shit abusive?Do you find 4 people ganging up on 1 to not be abusive?Do you not think a member has the right to defend themselves when they are being attacked by a group of 4?Are you Maratty using a different account?

 

[Hud955]

Hi RobinJust read over your post quoting Marcos's stated reasons for imposing the ban – missed it before.   I can think of several good reasons for banning Bob and McDonah, but this isn't one of them.  So, yes, you are right, this isn't acceptable.  We need to clarify what he meant and then address it. cheersRichard  

[HollyHead]

Has it not struck anyone that McD and Circle City Bob (and their like)  practiced their own form of "censoring"?They repeated their "objections" ad bloody nauseum. They asked the same questions over and over despite having long and detailed answers. As a result they discouraged the genuine enquirer and caused subscribers to the WSM Forum to leave.In effect our efforts were censored just as effectively as the shouting down of a speaker at a public meeting.

[SocialistPunk]

How about a little continuity!?Here is a suggestion to end this once and for all.10/10/2012 9.12am this:

Quote:

MODERATION WARNING.Ed and Old Grey Whistle are now on final warnings. Any further abusive language directed at any other forum user will result in these users being barred for the forum for one week.

Then 13/10/2012 at 6.32pm the following:

Quote:

MODERATION NOTICEThis is a final warning issued to Ed. The appropriate channels of complaint have been outlined above.Ed wrote:Does your research come straight from the mouth of Maratty?Do you find the word shit abusive?Do you find 4 people ganging up on 1 to not be abusive?Do you not think a member has the right to defend themselves when they are being attacked by a group of 4?Are you Maratty using a different account?

What we need is some continuity regarding warnings and suspensions from the Moderators.We have a situ were one member has been given only 2 warnings and then Banned for seven days.But another member involved in the same dispute gets 3 warnings.This matter will end now if one of three suggestions are put in place:1) OGW is reinstated on the forum now, but has 3 warnings in place the same as Ed2) Ed is given a seven day Ban.3) OGW is reinstated now and his and Eds warnings are wiped on the guarantee they end the issue forthwith.In the interests of peace and unity I suggest 3.Not too hard is it?

[alanjjohnstone]

I'll go with option 3, too, socialist punk We should move on and put inadvised comments down to the heat of the moment. A new slate for all. The moderator's actions were carried out with the best of intentions and he should not be criticised for his decisions but a resolution of this is required – it clogs up my e mail, for one. Lets put it all behind us and put it all down to experience. There is no need for it to be raised again once the status quo is returned to. Finis 

[HollyHead]

No. The Administrators decision should stand. Reverse it this time and  every future decision will result in an endless arguing of the toss. The complaints procedure has been outlined. Those suspended (not banned please note) can use it if they wish.

[Author]

Posts