[Bijou Drains]

jondwhite wrote:

Cheers. Looking forward to the SPGB game on itunes.

I actually have started developing the SPGB board game.It runs a bit like this. Every player is allocated a regional branch. they then pick up a "Useful Socialist Activity Card" the card might say something along the lines of "develop an introductory video for the party", "start a twitter feed" or "develop a whiteboard animation for Party use". The players then have to try and get all of the members of the branch together to form a quorum so that they can pass a resolution to conference backing the useful idea. This is not as simple as it sounds, whilst your moving round the board gathering members, you have to throw the bickering dice. This dice decides what the ones who are left alone together will bicker about. (sometimes the bickering means that one of the members goes of to the holding pen (Central Branch) which means that you have to gather more members to meet the quorum. If your lucky you can land on a Form A square, that means you get a new member and these members are immune from bickering for a short period of time.Once you have your quorum gathered you have to get your resolution passed by the branch. This means throwing the for, against and abstain dices. If you don't get your resolution passed you have to start all over again until you finally get your resolution passed.Once you have your resolution passed, and your delegate credentials singed by the Branch Secretary, you can begin the journey to Clapham High Street to go to conference, but be careful there are hazards on the way. You might land on the L Bird square. If you land on this square you are stuck discussing the nature of science whilst others are getting to conference before you. You might think that throwing a six will let you get away from L Bird, and although this is in the rules, L Bird doesn't recognise the existence of the matter which makes up the dice, outside of his own consciousness. You therefore have to wait on this square until L Bird calls you an ill educated imbecile, and then the Mods will step in and warn him. this releases you from his magic spell and you can carry on on your journey to Clapham.However there is also the Moderation square. If you land on this square you have to pick up a moderation card. This might give you a warning too, so you have to miss a go, you may have to carry out an act of contrition, which means you miss two goes, or you might get a complement, which means you move on three squares. It is important that all of the moderation cards are shuffled at the beginning of the game, so that they appear to be arrived at completely at random (just like real life!).The next square you might need to avoid is the "fuckwit" square. If you land on this square you are stuck with an IT developer from California, who won't let you move on until you have completed three surveys and filled in six postcards.(I was thinking of adding another square about sex in Socialism, which involves having sex with a bonobo, but I'm not quite sure about that one.)Eventually you arrive in London and there is just one more hazard to avoid before you arrive at Clapham High Street. When your in London you have to get past the undead zombies (aka as Socialist Studies) if you get caught by one of these creatures, they bite you and you become a zombie too. This means that you start to spout homophobic vitriol and start rambling on about MI5 spies. However don't worry too much because to bite you the Socialist Studies Zombies have to throw a six, which allows them to put their false teeth in.Having cleared this hurdle you have completed your journey to Head Office and the next part of your odyssey can begin, attending conference. At conference you have to negotiate the hazard of the standing orders committee, who might decide that you can't sit because your branch hasn't completed it's form C, but if you're lucky and you get accepted as a delegate, you can then pick up a chair's decision card. Hopefully the Chair's decision doesn't rule you and your resolution  "out of order", because then you'll have to go back and start again. If all of this is completed you can then throw the conference resolution voting dice. If you don't win you will have to start all over again from the beginning. If you win, you can then carryout your "useful Socialist Activity", but unfortunately you'll be too tired after all of the difficulties you've encountered, to do anything about it.(Advanced apologies if I've upset anyone, just a bit of fun. One of the things that has always separted the SPGB from other political parties is our ability to laugh at ourselves as well)

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The big question I have is: since when have Geordies qualified for human rights?

 Am  a Mackem so I wadent knaw. We dinit think Geordies should   have a football team nivver mind  human rites.   

Just to put things into historical context, The Kingdom of Northumbria was considered the cradle of Western Civilisation, that was at the same time as you silly buggers in the south were running around with your faces painted blue!

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Goodness me…i had almost forgotten their existence. Out of sight – out of mind, indeed. I did recently go to their website to check on their dismissal of the citizens' wage which was a fairly good rebuttal of it. In Thailand, there is a  word to describe a man who flits from one woman to another. He is called a butterfly and it is used as a verb also …to butterfly. It is an appropriate description …Butterfly politics… moving from one party to the next, especially when enamoured by attractive manifesto promises but then moving on to the next where the nectar is sweeter still. I think we have had experience of this type of serial party joiner. I wonder if there might be an opportunity to pick up a few SPEW supporters if they do dissolve. (i'm not confident that they will) Surely, they cannot all be damned. Can there be a few who are genuine and sincere socialists, if misguided and mistaken? 

I think you forgot to change your user name again.A little tip I used when I moderated on a site:If I was wearing my Darth Vada outfit, then I knew I was a moderatorIf I was wearing my Princess Leia costume then I knew I was plain old ordinary meIf I was wearing my spiderman pyjamas then I knew it was bedtime.Try it, it worked for me.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator3 wrote:

Obviously some users fail to grasp the reason the rules encourage us to contact the moderators regarding moderation decisions.The idea behind contacting the moderators off thread, regarding moderation decisions, is to allow a dsicussion to take place between moderator and forum user, that doesn't clog up the thread.   

Actually, let's be honest, the rules don't "encourage" us to contact moderators re moderation decisions, they forbid us from certain actions with regards to Moderation decisions.With regards to clogging up threads, it has been suggested on several occasions, that I am aware of, that a moderation discussion thread be started Such a thread would allow free discussion of moderation decisions, and stop the clogging up of threads. This suggestion has been turned down by Mods in the past, but to me would seem to be an easy way to resolve a very tricky problem.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Many thanks for your legal opinion and the lawyers latin, (a subject which never appeared in my school's timetable so i had to look it up) 

Quote:

*Forum rules* Your use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these.

I was amiss in not citing that earlier 

Quote:

should be applied to all participants in the forum, including moderators

As it did to this moderator who received a suspension for his post in reply to one of your own that tried my patience one time too manyBut, you have rightly deduced from my post to Cde. Lindanesocialist that it was indeed a threat of  me now drawing a line in the sand that any more breaches and i will automatically suspend her from the forum. Again, i hope she fully and clearly understands this and takes care with her future postings.   

Forum rules do indeed state that posters agree to abide by the decisions of the moderators.As I have stated very explicitly previously, no where in my posting, or in Linda's posting is there any indication that there is the intention of not abiding by any moderator's decisions, merely commenting.I also stated, and you clearly agree with this, that your posting to Linda was a threath "that any more breaches" will result in automatic suspension. However as I feel I pointed out earlier, neither Linda, nor for that matter myself, were querying or appealing against any decision, Linda commented on a moderation decision and I commented on her comment. Neither of these actions was in breach of the rules.As for interpretation, as you state the rules state that all posters agree to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing the rules. Linda did not state that she did not abide by any decisions you made in interpreting the rules, any more than I did.The problem here does not appear to be in understanding Latin, it appears to be more in understanding English.The only other possible way I can think of interpreting what you are saying is, that as a moderator you are able to interpret the rules in anyway that you see fit and that it is a breach of the rules for any forum member to comment on that interpretation or to publicly state that they disagree with the interpretation.I do not think for one moment you would be silly enough to place that kind of interpretation on the wording of the rules.I understand that at times that being a moderator must feel like a paret trying to sort out bickering kids. I do not want to add to your voluntary workload in this area, however perhaps the way forward here is a little moderation when undertaking moderation.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

And Lindanesocialist, just how many times do the moderators have to accommodate your repeated breaches of the guidelines?How many times do you require to be told not to take it upon yourself to perform the moderators' task by deciding what action  is warranted and what is not? For those of you who have forgotten RULE 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.You are already just one small step away from suspension, Lindanesocialist, and no more formal warnings from the moderators are necessary yet you persist in breaching the rules.Pay heed to this message and simply note its serious intent and there is no need nor cause to reply on the forum to this posting. 

Moderator 2, the rule you quote states:"queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message"Linda's posting was a COMMENT on a moderation decision, not a query, or an appealt. If it had been an appeal, she would have probably started the sentence with "I wuld like to appeal" if it had been  query, it would have probably started with words lke "why" or "what", etc. Her sentence would also probably have ended with a question mark. Therefore Linda has clearly not breached any of the forum rules.Similarly, as you did not make a moderation decision, merely issued an implicit threat, my COMMENTS on your contribution are also within the guidelines and the rules, as they neither query a DECISION or appeal against a DECISION.I think the implied threat which you have made is clearly a case of a moderator acting "ultra vires". Whilst I respect and am grateful for the role of the moderators and genuinely understand the difficulties you face trying to moderate the forum, I am also of the personal opinion that the current rules, especially those which ban the questining of moderation decisions in public are unfit for a Socialist Orrganisation, However I am happy, until new rules and guidance are developed, to go along with them as they are written. I also think that this is a principle which should be applied to all participants in the forum, including moderators

[Bijou Drains]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

If I could enact any law, I'd ban surveys and fuckin postcards as well

I have written that law for you and have a plan to enact it. Of course I made a postcard to get the news out and get support to pass the law.  Here's what it says on the postcard I made for you. . . https://docs.google.com/document/d/12N92wl74vQathQT1hJmNkJsl_DsKrdU7XrO_O66ZH8o/edit#heading=h.3w86cm3wtzd6for your convenince the postcard desgin at the link above (wich looks nicer because you can format text in a google doc better than in this discussion forum) is copied here below. . . 

---

We can stop junk mail and surveys that waste your time. We have a plan to stop it for good. Our political mailer philosophy is to prove we value your time and information by giving you 5 minutes of our time for reading this and completing a survey telling us how you want us to spend 5 minutes. It’s that easy to stop junk mail. We are going to make sure that junk mail solicitors value your time equal to their own like we do. We want you to vote YES on  “Public Good for Public Time in Mailers Law”. Once enacted, every time consuming non-profit survey or mailer will have to give you an equal or greater amount of time for every minute of your time that they take!   Imagine if every political mailer you received came with a 5 minute favor for your use? You could collect favors from that pile of political mailers on your coffee table and turn them into a new tree planted in the forest or on your sidewalk!  Wouldn’t that be a better world?  If you want to help more, we have other projects you can donate your 5 minutes towards like, “what if EVERY bank statement you received in your mailbox came with a 15 minute favor of your choice?”  Well, I’m getting ahead of myself, but if you like the idea, then join our brainstorming branch and upvote it for more attention and time resources. make a suggestion, or vote to encourage our next choice for legislative action for the people, of the people, and by the people.  This message was endorsed by and time data verified by a generous donation of time from the world socialist of Great Britain. Join with us to help stop junk mail.  

---

my mistake. I should have said a law that bans twats that post about surveys and postcards

[Bijou Drains]

If I could enact any law, I'd ban surveys and fuckin postcards as well

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

[Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well.

Dream on Bonny LadIf your theseis is that lack of sex produces violent threat, does the above quote back up my thesis that you're clearly not getting any

[Bijou Drains]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Robbo203,You wrote. . .

robbo203 wrote:

I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and  need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner.  The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour  will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist society 

I don't think we need an "organization" and I think any organizations in a post socialist revolution society need to be considered with skepticism. How do we ensure the organization isn't extracting surplus value from the workers? Maybe that's the nature of organizations? If the "organization" you descibe did exist after the socialist revolution, then how would socialist leaders ensure the suruplus value extracted from any free assoication and exchange wasn't used by the organization in ways not of benefit to the people?  Even if we had the power and authority to stop these organizations in a socialist world, We'd still need to monitor and endorse or veto almost every voluntary free exchange offer between people and that would take a lot of time for someone or some "organization".   

You seem to understnad the principles of post cards fairly well, however it is fairly clear your struggling a little with the ideas of the Socialist Party (exchnge, surplus value, leaders, power, etc. not really compatible with Socialsim)

[Bijou Drains]

mcolome1 wrote:

Subhaditya wrote:

At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The Britsh army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.

I thibk that 80,000 prostitutes is nothing compared with the ring of child prostitution that exists around the world. Doesn't;it   bother you to know that children are being  used as prostitute ?  Those are sexual slaves, and many of those children are already suffering from venereal diseases, and probably they will die at a very young age. That ring of prostitution is also tied to drug traffic, and some are also used  to transport drugs Personally, I do not care if the socialist society is going to be monogamous, or polygamy, what is really  worrying  me is this society based on profits who is  using children as prostitutes, and a bunch of perverts are having sex with minors, and are destroying their personal life. Those are the social issues that socialists must worry aboutThere is a big ring of women who have been forced into prostitution, only the rings from the Major Antilles is bigger than the 80 000 that you have mentioned, and those women are distributed thru different countries, and the most affected one are women because there is male prostitution too

You are right on the money there Comrade. The commodity based "society" that the upholders of Capitalism laughingly describe as "freedom" casually ignores that fact that slavery and especially sexual slavery still exists and thrives in most parts of the world.The idea of the "happy hooker" who chooses the so called sex industry as part of a life style choice. which Subhaditya appears to go along with, is a propaganda myth created for those making millions out of the misery of men, women and as you so rightly point out many children. A recent survey in the Uk by the charity Barnardos reported that of female prostitutes they surveyed over 70% began working in the sex industry as children.The fact that capitalism reduces everything to a commodity that can be bought or sold, leads to a situation where children are traffiked and forced into being sex slaves and creates a mind set where those abusing them think that it is ok to do so. The scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, that hit the headlines are only the tip of a very large ice berg.I'd rather live in a Socialist society with the problem of some people being sexual frustrated, than a capitalist society with millions being sexual exploited.

[Bijou Drains]

The subjective bit, presumably, comes from how we determine what is socially necessary labour time.. If your the immobilised patient in bed no2 dying for a crap, the usefulness of the consultant, who is going to examine your dandruff, might be less than the nurse with the bed pan!

[Bijou Drains]

Just out of interest, I know it's slightly off topic, but do warnings expire like driving licence points? I've had a few of those in my time. It would seem fair that posters can reduce their culpability by prolonged good behaviour. 

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

[Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.

To deal on a personal level with the ridiculous insults you throw at me. I have spent the last 35 years of my working life as a Social Worker. A good proportion of that time has been spent working to protect and support people with Intellectual disabilities and working to actually enhance the lives of people who have intellectual disabilities. As opposed to merely talking shite on a website (battling for a better sex life my arse).As part of that work I have been directly involved with assisting people with intellectual disabilties gain their freedom from the Long Stay institutions which they have been incarcerated in, many for a large proportion of their lives. I have indeed actually come across individuals who have been castrated, women who have been sterilised, individuals who have had their teeth removed, denied the right to have intimate relationships by arbitrary hospital rules, been forced to live in squalid crowded hospital  wards, etc. etc. All carried out by people who like you claim to have "their best interests at heart.I have spent much of that time batting with people who have attitudes like you, people who view people who have those disabilities as, to quote you "them" not as part of us. The "earth shattering difference between" using the term people with an intellectual disability" and "the retards" as you so ignorantly put it is that people with an intellectual disability, expressed through groups like the People First movement" have strongly lobbied that they find the term "retard" insulting and pejorative.The use of a term like "the retards" is not only insulting, it is also part of a process of dehumanization. If we dehumanise people we can do what we want to them, they are not humans any more. If we call them retards it makes it easier when we lock them up in institutions, take their freedom and choice away from them, they are inferior, we can do what we want. The process of dehumanizing groups of individuals has a log and sad history, you are part of the process of dehumanizing a group of people who you wish to label as retards, you should hang your head in shame.This leads me to the question, why, if a group of people find a term insulting, why would you as an individual insist on continuing to use that term?,Perhaps it is because, despite your protests of liberation, actually don't think that people with intellectual disabilities are capable of making such a distinction for themselves, that the "retards" you refer to are not capable of self advocacy, they need to be liberated by leaders like you.Well I have got some news for you, not only are people with intellectual disabilities advocating for themselves, lots of people with intellectual disabilities are advocating how they will develop their own loving and caring, adult relationships. I have come across many people with intellectual disabilities who have very active and varied sex lives. Perhaps you find that hard to believe, that people who by your own words you describe as inferior are actually managing to develop their own sex lives, without the support of patronising, creepy individuals like yourself. Isn't that ironic, the people you deride as inferior, are getting plenty of it, but judging from your comments here, you are clearly not getting any. To find the answer to why that is, perhaps you could look in the mirror and ask yourself, what would you rather by a "retard" or a virgin!

[Bijou Drains]

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?

[Author]

Posts