Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Mod 1I for one have no idea what teamspeak is or for that matter what TZM is. This is also part of the difficulty, that some members are more IT literate than others. Some members do not have the skills necessary to participate in non traditional formats and I worry that we may be excluding them in our rush to find solutions.
Young Master Smeet wrote:jondwhite wrote:If you've corresponded with someone by letter or e-mail, then would you say you had 'met' them? Probably not, hence why taking a meeting to mean a meeting in real-time only would solve all of the problems of quorum, electing, seconding and voting in non-temporal "meetings".The word 'meting' is a red herring, it is about communicating to achieve group decisions. But a correspondence meeting is just as plausible as a correspondence game of chess.
I disagree that the word meeting is a red herring, meetings are about more than achieveing group decisions, its about the process of discussion and the development of understandings whicih then inform the decisions. I think part of the difficulty is that communication and therefore the transfer of meaning and understanding is different in the written form that it is in the direct personal form. In the written form there are many nuances, meanings and intentions that are missed out on. I would say that online meetings do need to be available and we need to develop a better way of holding them, however face to face meetings are far more effective, less time consuing and achieve better consensus than using any type of written form.As hinted at in the thread, part of the difficulty also arises from the order in which contributions are made. in a personal meeting the chair can invite speakers and note requests to speak so that the contributions develop logically. In pn line meetings there is no such structure, terefore conversations may move out of synchronisation and what tends to happen is that longer more in depth contributions, that may take time to compose, are often superceded by shorter more pithy comments, which may be more prolific but are often less useful
[/quote]I have it on good authority SP, but am frankly incredulous, that the moderators do not have "jurisdiction over the NERB section". It seems that any intervention can only occur if requested by the branch…[/quote]I think you'll find Gnome, this is because there are two types of people in the world:1. Geordies2. People who wish they were Geordies
Jeez I didn't realise Steve Coogan was still in touch with the party, what with all of the Alan Partridge stuff. I thought he's be too busy
I remember meeting Frank in the mid 80s, it might have been during the Islington Parliamentary campaign. He was a really engaging and inspiring figure. He was the kind of socialist from his generation that engaged with the younger comrades coming through and made us feel welcome and at home, in contrast to some of the members who ended up in the Socialist Studies group. I have a memory of him with a electrical megaphone, creating all kinds of mischief on Upper Street in Islington and also telling the story of how he had recently been on a cruise where he had acted as a ping pong hustler. He had apparently spent about all week with his arm in a sling whilst the ping pong tournament had progressed, joining in at the final stages, having taken bets on his success at high odds and then demolished the opposition, he was apparently a very good table tennis player and his wining s had paid for the cruse, very sad to hear of his passing
Am I the only one who is a little curious about the current EC's attitude to the rule book. I personally would be grateful if a member of the EC could come on the forum and explain the logic behind the following from the April meeting of the EC:vi. Correspondence concerning the WSP (India) Application of GP (India)Motion 5 The EC agrees that rule 3 does not apply in the case of GP. We request the acting General Secretary to send a Form A to GP (CARRIED 6-1-1)Looking at face value at the minutes of the WSP (india), I think the EC of the SPGB owe them and the members of the SPGB a full explanation.It is interesting that this decision occurred during the same meeting where the EC appear to have gone "Ultra vires" with regards to rule 17 and nominations to committees.is the rule book there merely for decoration, or does it have a purpose?
At about the time of the Socialist Studies split, there was an acrimonious debate at either Conference or at ADM re homophobia. Terry Lawlor made a contribution which relied on an outdated copy of the DSM to back up his argument the homosexuality was a mental illness! (he was a retired psychiarist). I think it is fair to say that his contribution and point of view were shot down in flames.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Before others draw your attention to my message #31 message, Tristan, we have had a situation where EH and GW began and ran a blog without prior EC approval.And to those who may wish to use it as an example of double-standards i want to point out that the banner description when it began did indeed explain that it was a branch blog but this description was dropped when the blog was later re-designed. Members have had ample opportunity to object to any of its 6,500 posts blogged in the name of the PartyCertainly, as you say, Tristan, we can isolate and separate cases that have been brought before the EC but i simply don't consider that approach to be a permanent solution since the different issues very much over-lap and have a common cause.Like yourself, i hesitate in going any deeper into all the problems being highlighted. It has a very long history, going back years.The only new thing i have brought to the table is the possibility that we can seek neutral mediation as a way to resolve this dispute as amicably as possible. Because if we don't lance this festering sore soon, it is going to burst and the pus will splatter all over the Party.Alan I agree with most of what you have said. The present situation is a distraction to the real purpose of the party and should be dealt with as soon as possible. I also agree that if it doesn't get sorted soon it will continue to bubble under and cause more difficulty. I do disagree, however with your idea of neutral mediation, in this case. I think the time involved in setting that up and coming to a conclusion would be likely to lead to further difficulties. I would however suggest the following solutions:1. At our Meeting this weekend the NERB approve a formal motion to put the twitter account forward as the NERB twitter feed. (Cde Miller has already indicated that he would support this and it would seem to comply with the requests of the EC.)2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.3. That The EC action the nomination of cde Marratty to the AV committee and should the present members of the AV committee feel that they cannot work with Cde Marratty, that they resign from that commitee and allow the EC to appoint members to the committee in line with rule 15.4. That in future all members consider there actions on the forum, bearing in mind that this is a direct access point for non members to access party materials and party activity.5 We ALL (and I include myself)stop acting like a bunch of babies.I have no dopubt that Comrades who are not invloved in this dispute find it excrucating to watchYFSTim
Tristan Miller wrote:[ Responding to comradely criticism with abusive insults and rules-lawyering is probably not the best course of action.Just to reiterate, Tristan, I have not responded to any criticism with any form of abuse, however I must take up your point of not using "rule lawyerism", if rules are being invoked, for example the IC's referral to rule 11, or if guidelines are being used to take action against members of the party, for example mods using the guidance on moderation, why would what you describe as "rule lawyerism" be inappropriate? Surely how we use Party rules and the interpretation and implementation of guidelines are crucial to the democratic organisation of the party? if members of the party have actions taken against them using the rules and guidelines, what other course of action do they have but to refer back to the rules and guidance, I've got to say, and I am responding with comradely criticism, that I'm a little puzzled by the use of "rules lawyering"YFSTim
Tristan, with respect, the report fromt he IC to the EC that I quoted reads as follows:"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11"Just to clarify the report doesn't request the EC to reiterate it's decision to ask the operator to "rebrand" does it? It asks the EC to enforce rule 11 or go to Twitter to have the account closed down.However given the information above, would I be correct in saying that if the branch request the operator to "rebrand" the account as the twitter feed of the NERB of The SPGB a companion Party of the World Socialist Movement and the operator complies with this request, the argument over this twitter account is resolved and the IC will be happy to recommend to the EC that any atttempts to close the account should stop?
MattWithout trying to go all Paxman on you, you stated that "My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed." Yet the report by the IC to the EC shows that the IC clearly objected to the branch's twitter feed. So your original statement of there never having been an objction cannot be correct, as I have quoted from the report raising the objection.The Cambridge Dictionary definition of never is:"not at any time or not on any occasion" do you still stick to your statement that there was never (i.e. not at any time or on any occasion) any objection to the branch having a twitter feed?YFSTim
SocialistPunk wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTimTim,You seem to suggest that some kind of delay was taking place, yet when Steve contacted HO a paper copy was sent to him in reasonable time.
Hi SPSorry that wan't my intention, just making the point that within the party there can be understandable delays in getting all information out. No slur intended on anyone.Tim
Matt wrote:My comment stands. There was never any objection to the 'branch' having a designated Twitter feed.Hi MattSorry to contradict you but the following is an extract from the report by the Internet Committee, to the EC re the ongoing dispute about Twitter etc. and is dated 26-03-16"whether or not that account is being operated with the consent or NERB as a whole we urge the EC to take urgent action to enforce Rule 11. As a last resort the IC could file another brand impersonation dispute with Twitter"I am aware that you have probably not seen that report, it has taken our branch a while to get hold of it.YFSTim
jondwhite wrote:Sky launch 'The Pledge', reported by the Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/06/sky-news-to-launch-question-time-rival-the-pledge) as 'a rival to BBC Question Time'Episode 1 is herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZOx54cSr34Quote:Chosen for their strong views and range of experiences, a pool of nine high-profile panellists – Emma Barnett, James Caan, Michelle Dewberry, Greg Dyke, Nick Ferrari, Rachel Johnson, Graeme Le Saux, Michelle Mone and June Sarpong – have each made a pledge: to talk straight and tell it like it really is. And, in the absence of a presenter or moderator, there will be nothing to hold them back.Sounds twatful
ALB wrote:ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:Whatever happened to Richard Cummings, BTW? Does anybody know?He's rumoured to have converted to Anglicanism
Actually, it's worse. He's actually become an Anglican priest, joining two other ex-members, the Rev Toby Crowe and the Rev Andrew Wilkes. If we are to be an Anglican seminary who's next? Mind you, as churches go, that's the best as in it anything goes and you don't even have to believe in god. The Rev Wilkes voted for us in the 2014 European elections and actually applied to rejoin (hope Robbo isn't following this thread).
We did get one back the other way, the Late Comrade Kevin Lennon, used to relate how he left a catholic seminary when he was on the verge of taking holy orders after he had come into contact with the party and joined us soon afterwards,
