[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago. 

StephenWhat you actually said was and what I object to was that "Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it."I have demonstrated clearly that I haven't just make sarcastic comments, and that in the past, contrary to what you have posted, I have made contributions which pointed out where I think you have gone terribly wrong and made suggestions about how I think the mods could have hamdled the situation better. So I ask again, are you, as you are keen to get others to do, willing to withdraw that remark?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have referred to it in a previous message but i will repeat it…the present moderators are discussing proposed amendments to the guidelines and as i have already indicated one of the difficulties in designing a guideline fit for purpose. There are others which we are addressingThe moderators are subject to a process by being a SUB-committee and that EC approval is also required for new guidelines to be adopted. My suggestion that we act as benevolent dictators was fortunately for the forum users not accepted.I suggest some patience. Unsubstantiated speculation about what amounts to, imho, a shadow EC operating via the IC is damaging to the Party's reputation and will not bring forth many new members. Members should be prudent in the way they express themselves. 

Hi Alan, I asked a question in a previous post, which I think kind of got lost in the deluge of posts, but I'll pose it again.As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it.

You state that I just come out with sarcastic comments, however I believe you read my contribution #58, as you replied to it. But just in case, here it is again:"I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.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.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a separate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB"I have also pointed out previously that I think that in line with common dispute review procedures,  Mod 1 should not have taken part in the review. I have made the point that the use of the term contrition (which still keeps cropping up) was unnecessary. I have also posted on several occasions that I think the idea of an indefinite suspension was too strong a response to Vin's behaviour, behaviour which I have also publicly and privately criticised.I have clearly not "just come out with sarcastic comments". I have come out with some comments that are critical, some that are constructive and some that are sarcastic.In line with your comments asking other poster to back up what they are saying or withdraw it and in the light of the above, will you withdraw your comment that I "just come out with sarcastic comments"? Or does that principle only apply to others and not yourself? (N.B contrition not required)

[Bijou Drains]

Brian wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 that's really interesting. A quick edit for the WSP US would n't be too difficult, would it?They would probably hav to provide their own voice over, but again that could be done quite easily with a script and a sound file from a US comrade who was ok to do it.Are you going to contact them and sort it out?Interestingly, if you posted it as an official WSM video, who would make the decision about that, the WSM has no EC.YFSTim

Whoa just before anybody reaches any hasty conclusions (again) just consider this is a suggestion from an individual member of WSPUS.  He's only representing himself not the US companion party.Caution is the watchword here in all due respects.

I thought contrition was the watchword. It seemed to be yesterday.I was merely suggesting that Vin contacts a comrade who is keen on his work and enquires as to whether the WSP US want to use it. As to caution, we've had 112 years to be cautious.

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

 Vin said: A member of WSP US commenting on the my video on Youtube. They are a companion party aren't they? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4 Samuel Morales Jr.1 day agoIt's too bad the graphic isn't a World Socialist Movement graphic and instead says Socialist Party of Great Britain. That hurts its usefulness for the other companion parties.Reply  View all 5 replies  Reply    Samuel Morales Jr.1 day agoIn the World Socialist Party US, our capacity is so limited, it would be great to have material like this that wasn't SPGB specific. vin singer8 minutes agoAnd that's ironic because the SPGB don't want it. It's Executive Committee has disowned itReply   Samuel Morales Jr.4 minutes ago+vin singer I saw mention of that in the forums. Maybe you can produce a version for the WSP US? We don't have the skill set to make things like this.Reply  

that's really interesting. A quick edit for the WSP US would n't be too difficult, would it?They would probably hav to provide their own voice over, but again that could be done quite easily with a script and a sound file from a US comrade who was ok to do it.Are you going to contact them and sort it out?Interestingly, if you posted it as an official WSM video, who would make the decision about that, the WSM has no EC.YFSTim

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

You keep peddling the same distortion regardig Vin's last suspension. It wasn't for off topic, it was for breaching rues 7, 14 and 15.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14

Your post is disrespectful and contadictory, I am 'peddling' only a bike. Your link show Vin being banned for challenging the unfairness of moderation.Which moderation do not like to hear. I am leaving this subject, it has been flogged to death but I will ask quarterly if the ban still stands.Vin repeats he will follow the forum rules but will not make an act of contrition, This is a revolutionary organisation, some members need to stop treating it as a religious sectquia nunc  vale

Benedictum tibi, filia. Pax moderator esse teum. Vale et ampilus iam noli peccare.I knew a catholic education would come in useful eventually!!!!

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Tim, a truly contrite person make amends that involves demonstrable, consistent better behavior – behavior that can be observed.Otherwise, it is mere words…token apologies… an apology of an apology…

I accept what you are saying Alan, I assure you that I am a truly contrite person. I will try my utmost to avoid offending. I accept that I have been unkind in implying that L Bird might be a friendless fuckwit with issues around self esteem. I also accept that it was unkind to say that I thought L Bird should be used to having the piss taken out of him at this stage of his life.Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.Thinking about it I may have also posted that the EC don't appear to know the difference between their collective arses and their collective elbows, believe me Alan, contrition has now become my watch word. I am sure on most days in a good light the members of the EC are generally able to distinguish between those two parts of their collective anatomy.yours contritelyTim

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.

And yet you don't engage.Empty vessels, Tim…

If I was to engage with you about your pet subject, Birdy, I would be going off topic. As this post is about Moderation, that would need to be the topic. As I am discussing the nature of moderation in this post, I am fairly confident that I am not going off topic. In addition, given that I have pointed out why you failed logic 101, my reluctance to engage in fruitless dialogue with you is clear.However in line with the current trend for contrition, and staying on subject as contrition was one of the issues raised by the mods,  can I apologise for any of my posts that may have implied that you are a witless, one dimensional, clueless, narcissistic clown. I am truly sorry if you have inferred from my postings such a message.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I think you miss understand my motives…What my too few thoughts … are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking.

I knew that, TK, you don't appear to have the wit or education to engage seriously with questions about democracy in science.But at least your words display to all, the inability of an SPGB member to answer political questions, and also your personal motives for constantly sidetracking and trolling any attempt to push for sensible answers from the wider SPGB.Why the mods don't treat you much the same as Vin, and give you warnings about your 'piss taking', I don't know.

Questions about democratic science? I should engage seriously with the idea that we should campaign to have a vote of workers re whether zombies exist?The reason I don't engage you in argument, and I guess other forum users feel the same way, is that you do not appear to be able to engage in logical argument, you commit the following logical falacies, to name but a few, with rapidity:The Strawman FalacyThe False Cause FalacyThe Black or White Falacy (if you do not agree with L Bird that science should be democratically controlled you must be an autocratic elitist)Proof by Asserttion ( If L Bird says it often enough it must be the case)Afferming the Consequent (e.g. Lenin was a materialist, therefore if you are a Materialist you must be a Leninist)False DichotomyI would also add to that regular use of sophism.Your usual response to any poster who attempts to point this out to you is to question the educational status, intellectual ability and motives of your opponent. (as you have done here) I find it strange that a person who claims to be so vehemently anti-elitist, should so regularly resort to asserting their intellectual superiority.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?

How else would 'facts' be established?I know that you won't answer this epistemological question, because that is at the heart of our disagreements. I'm a Democratic Communist who seeks to give a democratic political, philosophical and scientific basis to the social production of knowledge by class conscious workers. And you don't.

TK wrote:

As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

Yeah, it's always the 'method' of the 'elite' who can't account to workers why workers can't politically control their production: to question the 'psychology' of dissidents who question the so-called 'scientific' basis of 'elite knowledge production' and 'expert control'.I'll leave you to your all too 'few thoughts'.

I think you miss understand my motives, I'm not part of an "elite" questioning the psychology of a dissident (you) who is questioning the so called scientific basis of elite knowledge production and expert control. In fact to do so would elevate you to a position of importance in my mind that you do not hold.What my too few thoughts (hint of elitism there Birdy) are directed towards is just plain and simple piss taking. I'm sorry if I confused you, I just assumed that having the piss taken out of you was something that you were probably quite familiar with.As I now have a vision of you shut up in a basement waiting for the zombies to attack, hopefully our little discussion has been helpful. As Max Brooks says in The Zombie Survival Guide, "In a long and seemingly interminable siege, boredom can lead to paranoia, delusion and hopelessness. It is important to keep your mind in good shape."

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

I hate to point out the falacy of your comments, however you originally made the comment that it was good to see that zombie's not dead, when I point out that a zombie couldn't be dead, you state that its "undead" which as you point is neither (presumably by this you mean it is neither dead or alive). This actually backs up my statement that a zombie couldn't be dead ( Ididn't say it was alive, just not dead). You then claim that this proves that my logic in pointing out that it couldn't be dead, is flawed. You can't even construct a logical sentance about the nature of zombies, and you expect other readers to take you and your "logic" seriously. Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie. (p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37209664The soccer (possibly the fourth best football code in the world) English Premier League has spent  £1.165 Billion on player transfer deals.  This is thanks to a £5.1 billion television deal.  The clubs have to spend this money in a player arms race, there are fine margins between success and failure, and the rewards are massive (so that's why Championship clubs are getting invovled in this inflation).There is also a restricted pool of players, so an increasing amount of money is chasing a fixed pool (more or less, even on a world scale).Obviously, this isn't a net spend, since teams that bought also sold, those that sold may have sold at a profit, and some are selling players they have not bought.Of course, that £5.1 billion means someone thinks they can make more out of broadcastign (alone) of soccer than that amount.  That is through advertising, so football is a means of building an audience and a product to sell to companies: consumers.  We do that for free, we provide oiurselves and our cash.

That still doesn't explain why Spurs were stupid enough to pay £30 million for Sissoko. There aren't many happy moments following Newcastle United, but this really cheered me up!!!

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.

I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.

Good to see that satire's not dead

[Bijou Drains]

I am often, with very good reason, accused of being the most pedantic man in North East England. Therefore I would like to point out that a lifetime is a definite period of time in as much that all lives come to an end, whereas an indefinite period may possibily be longer than a lifetime.

[Author]

Posts