[Bijou Drains]

From what I remember Martinez was extremely honest, honourable and straight about his views and argued in support of them, this was in sharp contrast with the future members of Socialist Studies, who tried to keep him quiet and then argued that we shouldn't make a fuss and that he should resign from the EC and that would be the end of the matter. So much for Socialist principles. I still can't remember the name of D'Arcy's miserable mate. He had a face like a well smacked arse when the heathens of NE branch turned up, with our "strong regional accents".i suppose the proof of the pudding is how their predictions worked out. Regarding what they said in their pamphlet, I may be mistaken but I don't recall the party rejecting the parliamentary route, embracing Industrial Unionism, etc. I always found their obsession with homosexuality a little strange, perhaps a case of "thou protest too much"?

[Bijou Drains]

My recollection of the time may be slightly different, being outside of London I wasn't aware of all of the nuances, however distance sometimes gives perspective. From what I observed many members of the two branches who formed Socialist Studies, had a view of themselves as in some way "The real SPGB". At the time there was the growth of several large and very active branches. The Islington branch was very active and growing, as was the branch (later two branches in the North East) there was a lot going on in Manchester, Glasgow, and other places. Coming down to conference or ADM I have to say the welcome from the bulk of comrades was in sharp contrast to the scowls and disdain that came from the likes of Jim, D'arcy, (Jim D'Arcy had a mate, whose name I cannot for the life of me recall, he kind of played Muttley to D'Arcy's Dick Dastardly) Harry Young, Ken? Knight, Joe Bell, Lily Lestor etc. Sadly Hardy seemed in thrall to Jim D'arcy, however I must say he was never anything but warm, polite and encouraging to younger members like myself.In my view the events that culminated in those two branches leaving wasn't really the issue at hand. The real issue, to my mind was the view of some of these members that there were members of the party who were somehow lesser party members than the genuine members in their branches. The implication was often that we didn't understand the case for Socialism, the form F process in other branches was less than in theirs and that the Party was being taken over by trendy lefties. The fact that some of these younger members questioned some of their attitudes to issues like sexism and racism provided an irritant. Who were we to question their use of sexist remarks, etc. The issue of homophobic views held by some older members of these branches at the time was also something that needed to be addressed. (This was even more ironic, considering their views on a Party Poll about expelling a member of one of these 2 branches who had been elected to the EC and who it turned out actually held views that were diametrically opposed to the SPGB!, I think his name was Martin, some of the London Comrades may recall better than I can,)The level of personal insult from these members and intolerance of any view other than their own was noticeable. Harry Young in particular I recall used the phrase Jewish Anarchists to describe some Party members he disagreed with. Another example was of a member of one of the Branches concerned who took issue with a comrade from Liverpool who had recently joined after having been a member of the Militant Tendency. The member of Camden Branch(I can't use the word comrade) took it upon herself to ring the employers of this new member from Liverpool, in order to check that he "wasn't infiltrating the SPGB!The lesson of that time cannot afford to be lost. New comrades will join the Party, some will have ideas from their generation which those of us may find odd, however it is vital that we recognise that we are a truly democratic party, there is no elite who know better than others, yes there is experience and knowledge. What the members of these two branches didn't understand was that you gain respect and influence, you don't demand it.

[Bijou Drains]

So how old are you Brian, I would have put you in your mid 90s, are you even older than that?

[Bijou Drains]

Thanks for your clarification BrianYFSTIM

[Bijou Drains]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator3 wrote:

Forum rulesYour 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 rules.Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.Reminder: 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.

Thank you comrade for providing yet another example of just how unfit for purpose (that is the purpose of demonstrating how a socialist society would operate) the current rules (which look like they have been copied and pasted from a "World of Minecraft" chat room) are.

having re read my post, I decided I would paste rule 12 into google. The first two results were the SPGB forum (not surprisingly) number three and a very close match was the forum rules for a chat room about Planet Calypso. Considering the amount of discussion that has taken place on this forum about copyright and Intellectual property, perhaps the "author/s" of our forum rules have some explaining to do?Perhaps even more when you examine what Planet Calypso is about?"Planet Calypso features a Real Cash economy and can be explored on all levels as an explorer, entrepreneur or in a number of other professions and roles.While hunters go after the indigenous species or the ubiquitous Robot menace that from early Calypso history on have threatened the planet, miners look for precious resources using seismic investigation methods and more.Some choose to craft tools, weapons and other items for the open market where Calypsians can both trade and invest."Seemingly some people don't experience enough of real capitalism, they have to also have a virtual capitalism, for their spare time.Wonderful thing google!

[Bijou Drains]

robert.cox wrote:

Hello TimRegarding your post #216  regarding “a set of guidelines for the production of party Videos”, I for one think that is a great idea.The EC can agree it, they should check it is compliant with any rules or conference decisions etc.If you have not heard back from the acting Gen. Sec. I can assure you that you are  a member (currently the only member) of the AVC. There is a link to  list of officers and committee members put out now and then on SPINTCOM (Files section).As for funding for advice (or anything else), the EC would have to agree this.  Most Committees (see their terms of reference), should have reported to the EC by now on its plans and financial requirements for 2017, which then go  in the EC report to ADM. But don’t worry about that, the EC can deal with it later on an ad-hock basis. However, committees have the authority to make a one –off payment up to £250 without EC authorisation.Actually if you have time its not too late to submit a report to the EC (for ADM). Basically you could repeat what you said on the forum post, and if you have any more information (like on costs or any progress) you could add that too. If you get it up to Head Office at least a couple of days before the EC on 1st October (mark it Urgent – EC/ADM report) it could get submitted as a late report to ADM.Another reason your idea is welcome is that all committees in the Outreach and Products Dept. should provide a ‘how to’ manual and  job description (obviously to keep a historic memory and help new/prospective committee members), so this would go towards that. It could also go on SPINTCOM files and be available for all members/Branches to access (see for example the Media Comittee folder there). If you are able to get your finished guidelines ready in time for the 5th November EC, it would be best if you can submit it to the Assistant Gen Sec (who does the agenda) by the Sunday before the meeting, to make sure it gets on the EC agenda. If you are in a hurry to get it adopted, you may find it useful to share a draft in advance with an EC member (as well as on the Forum?), in case there are any obvious questions or technical issues they are likely to refer back to you for further information.Hope this helps (from one EC member who does visit The Forum). NB  I am assuming you have login access to SPINTCOM files and have the committee TOR’s etc.

Hi RobertMany thanks for your encouraging and helpfl response, I will try and put a brief report together for ADM and follow your kind adviceYFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

moderator3 wrote:

Forum rulesYour 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 rules.Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.Reminder: 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.

Thank you comrade for providing yet another example of just how unfit for purpose (that is the purpose of demonstrating how a socialist society would operate) the current rules (which look like they have been copied and pasted from a "World of Minecraft" chat room) are.

[Bijou Drains]

gnome wrote:

ALB wrote:

Best to leave things as they are.

It's a further example of rules being amended 'on the hoof'.  First we had the rewriting of Rule 17 by the EC without it having received any authority from the membership, now we have this latest 'can of worms'.  Then at it's August meeting the EC managed to contravene one of the Terms of Reference of the Head Office Organiser AND a Conference ruling, both at the same time.

As I said in an earlier post, it is a classic example of the Legal Maxim " Hard cases make bad law"I have posted on several occasions stating that this is not about Vin it's about how the forum should operate. Vin (sorry to say this Marra) is irrelevant, the important issue is how a democratic party, that has prided itself on over a century's history of free speech, to the extent of enduring physical threats and actual violence, manages a situation like this. I am still of the opinion that the principle of anyone, let alone a member of the party, having an indefinite ban from expressing views on this forum is an absolute travesty. I wonder how Moses Barritz would ract to a situation like this, you can't overwhelm the internet with an oboe.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.

This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC.  I've no idea how long that will take.

As part of a process of consultation with SPGB members, will you be posting the guidelines for comment/feedback before sending them to the EC?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.  

Mod 2, are you seriously suggesting that because a decision has previously been made that this topic is closed for further debate? It's a bit like saying "the issue of captialism or socialism was decided at the last general election and there is no point debating it anymore as the issue is now settled". Surely the point of the forum is to generate debate and the purpose of moderation is to moderate that debate, not to lay down which topics can be discussed and which cannot? Am I not as an individual member, within my rights to discuss any issue about the running of the party on this forum, without recourse to my Branch?So taking on that right to discuss these issues, I will!I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.

[Bijou Drains]

I wasn't wishing to be provocative, Adam. Just thought Kilgallon's law might catch on and I would get that covetted wikipedia entry, (shuffles off enviously)

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Here, Timhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/september-2016-ec-minutes#comment-34461Message #6We are not trying to police private e-mails. We are not trying to impose censorship. A rule already existed but it could be and was being purposefully disregarded.  If in the context of your own message you cite a banned person's view or opinion, that is permissible. But if you are deemed to be deliberately posting on behalf of a suspended user so as to deliberately circumvent the suspension then that is not allowed. Certain suspended members may be in the unique and fortunate position of having a person to act as their proxy, but there will be others who will be under a suspension who will not have this advantage. But if they possess a legitimate and valid reason to communicate with the Party through the forum, our rule permits ourselves, the moderators, to temporary lift the sanction in the interests and benefit of the Party as a whole.  

thanks for the link, I had overlooked it. I blame Messers Woods and Co and their 57% abv rum (my current tipple of choice).So you are saying that if a poster who is banned can post if s/he has a "legitimate and valid reason to communicate….  " presumably it will be for the Mods to decide what is valid and legitimate!As I have said on numerous occasions, and I know you disagree with me, this is not about Vin, it is about the principle of control of what is or is not discussed on what has become an important part of democratic discussion within the party. I know it's a little ironic considering my post about "Kilgallon's Law" but the idea that what is judged as valid and legitimate for discussion should be decided by a Party sub committee, appears to have more in common with Leninist Parties than ours. I am not for one minute suggesting that the mods are acting like Leninists, however there is always the law of unexpected consequence. I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum. Be careful what you wish for.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed.  How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached.   

Hi mod 2 I have overlooked this post, and to be honest I still can't find it, could you be a dear and point it out to me, I genuinely can't find it.It seems from what you say that in this instance, Linda would need to get the Mods permision for every posting, as opposed to an overall permission to post, is that what you are saying your interpretation of this rule would be?The questions I asked ( I won't comment further on Mod 1's uncomradely remarks) actually, in my opinion demonstrate how unworkable the whole rule would be. To take it further, if Vin were to send me an email about an issue, are you seriously saying that I would have to seek Mods permission or I wouldn't be able to quote from his email as part of a posting I made? To test the rule to its logiical extreme, what if a banned contributor wrote a book about his or her expereinces of being banned from the forum, are you suggesting that no quote from that book could be used on this forum? Are you seriously saying that the views and thoughts of a member of the SPGB are forbidden from being discussed on this forum, whilst the views of everyone from Saddam Hussein to Leon Trotsky, can be? I thnk this is an example of the legal maxim, "difficult cases make bad law"

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

Mod 1, I object strongly to your saying that the postings I have made are in any way undemocratic and I politely ask for you to withdraw them and apologise. I think that you have made a completely uncomradely remark.Not only that, you are factually incorrect. I have made no suggestions, I have merely asked two questions. I am surprised that you do not know the difference between a question and a suggestion. I would also ask you (this is a question by the way, just in case you get a littel confused) how can a question be undemocratic?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?

It would have been better for further discussion if this part of the message had been posted on the Website/Technical section.  I shall duplicate this particular post and post it on the Website/Technical section under the title of 'Amendment of Rule 8.'.  

Mod 1 I completely disagree with you, further discussion should take place under this heading, as it relates to the functioning of the EC. This post is about the minutes of the EC. The Executive Committee is part of the democratic functioning of the Party. it is important that this is not seen as a technical issue about the website, it is about the function of The Executive Committee (and the sub committees of the Party). I would encourage members of the Party who have comments about decisions made by the EC to post their comments on this thread, rather than being sidetracked on to other threads. I have posted a link to the comments I have made to your comments on the thread that you created rather than posting them here. I did not want to be thought of as posting multiple threads:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/amendment-rule-8

[Author]

Posts