Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
zeitgeistworker wrote:calling it waffle probably isnt the best way to win them over
I've been trying to win them over for 3 years by sharing links to socialist articles an providing a socialist response to many of the subjects brought up on TS 3. Although I've had some success many in zeitgeist find a political challenge a bit of a turn off or unnecessary.That aside I'm sure you are aware that TZM are in turmoil at the moment with this revelation from the Australian Chapter: https://www.piratepad.ca/p/Global_Core_Team which is absolute proof that a pyramid structure did exist, or does exist within TZM with Peter Joseph at the helm.The Australian, Columbian and NYC Chapters have all left the movement due to the undemocratic action taken by this Global Core Team. And the UK Chapter is split over the issue so don't be suprised if the movement shrinks to a rump centred around PJ and his sycophants.
I don't think that is possible given the present state of computer technology within the party. Also with an off the shelf product readily available at no cost I see no need for it. A link to the server would suffice for our present requirements. But there is still the problem and issues associated with a general lack of interest in such a product by socialists.In the meantime if you feel like a chat I can be found on the TZM server buzzing around spreading socialist understanding.
Yes. But only under topics. So the chances are the link would creep further down the postings and eventually disappear. Ideally, a Teamspeak 3 server link should be on the main menu bar. However, there would be a problem in ensuring the server is populated to encourage people to visit the server.What the party could do is give it a spin by holding a weekly meeting on a designated day and time with a set topic for a trial period of 3 months. But despite my efforts over the last 3 years few socialists are willing to use TS 3 for conversation purposes.
Alexander Reiswich wrote:But please do correct me if I'm wrong and the force of the state is not what actually prevents you from realizing a socialist society, as well as what makes all the economic abominations (i.e. the banking system, monopolies, debt, etc.) that we experience now even possible.You are wrong! Indeed, what actually prevents the world socialist movement from realizing a socialist society is the lack of a socialist majority. For without this majority we are in no position to take on the force of the state. With this majority we are transformed into the strongest army in the world where the productive class becomes a class for itself. In actual fact under such circumstances it wont be the world socialist movement who will realize a socialist society but the workers themselves who may if they so which use us as the vehicle to negotiate the revolutionary transformation.
gnome wrote:Brian wrote:gnome wrote:It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch.Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference.
You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."
Great news. I'm sure all present will have a robust and vigorous discussion on this topic, with the clear intention of ensuring improvements are put in place to attract non-party and party members to the forum.Tis a pity its not going out on Skype or TS 3.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:So I hope the EC do not drag their feet. It is an opportunity for the party, and I hope it isn't wasted.It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster branch.
Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference.
SocialistPunk wrote:Brian wrote:So you see no need for moderation in its current form and therefore no need for a 'committed locked thread' either. Which on reflection simplifies my suggestions even further and it also retains conflict resolution with the moderators engaging in a dialog with the offender. I can go along with that although it means a programme of quality training being established. Which should not be a problem.Hi BrianSorry for the delay in replying.That about sums it up. Current moderation clearly is not working. The moderation queue and post deletion seem to be creating more problems than they solve. I am also aware that the current system has no concern for communication that seeks conflict resolution, despite Admins' claim that the current system is "a human approach".For me communication, conflict resolution would be the key element. I also imagine if some form of training could be made available it may help to reduce the incidence of moderators inadvertently inflaming situations.I am a little unsure about your locked thread suggestion. Would it see an offender unable to contribute at all, on the forum?At the end of the day the EC has a number of suggestions to work with and I am sure they have some of their own. So there should be no excuses for not replacing the current mess with a more equitable, open and accountable system of forum moderation.
Hi Stephen,The locked thread changes nothing in regards to the present moderation procedure other than all communications are transparent and open to scrutiny.I hope that the EC reflect on the facts that this subject has generated 3 separate threads on this forum and one on Spintcom, resulting in hundreds of posts and thousands of views. These facts speak for themselves and is a strong indication that this is not the time for them to drag their feet by requesting further reports; etc. The EC need to take some positive action to resolve the problems and issues we have discussed here for several months. Which I'm sure has left many of us physically and mentally exhausted to such an extent that we desperately need 'that breath of fresh air' which accompanies the indication of a positive change in the right direction.
SocialistPunk wrote:For starters. No moderation queues or retrospective post deletion. Obviously, any spam that gets through or legally problematic stuff gets nuked. But genuine contributions stay. Off topic and a little heat need not be a problem. It happens all the time on this forum and only occasionally becomes an issue. To go around removing off topic and inflammatory remarks from the forum will leave the site looking like a declassified government document.So as most will by now know I am in favour of a warning and suspension system. Where I advocate time lengths, I will refrain from suggesting the actual lengths. I will leave that to the EC and Int Dept to decide. But before I start fully I must emphasize that I advocate communication as the overriding principle at work. Without effective communication conflicts will never be resolved. We should be aware that Socialism relies on communication and co-operation. We should never forget this.1) An initial non warning intervention by a moderator to call for calm. The opportunity should be taken for the moderator to asses the situation.2) If situation persists a 1st warning is issued to any offenders.3) Further breaches result in a 2nd warning.4) The next intervention becomes a suspension of set length.5) All reasons for warnings and suspensions are given openly with references to offences. As well as reference to penalties for further breaches. Events need to be recorded by moderator, for future reference as it will help in the delivery of consistent moderation and information being made available quickly in case of appeal.6) Moderators need to seek to engage in dialog with any involved parties at all stages, in an attempt to find resolution before further escalation. This could be done via private message or specific thread.So you see no need for moderation in its current form and therefore no need for a 'committed locked thread' either. Which on reflection simplifies my suggestions even further and it also retains conflict resolution with the moderators engaging in a dialog with the offender. I can go along with that although it means a programme of quality training being established. Which should not be a problem.
ALB wrote:Methodology, smetholodology. Don't complicate things. We don't need a complete scale of infringements and sanctions. It's simple. If you call someone a "fucking arsehole" twice, you're sent to the sin bin for a couple of days.And after coming out of the sin bin and they call some one else a "fucking arsehole" making it 3 "fucking arseholes" all told does that mean they get 3 days in the sin bin? Lol. A methodology can be simple or complex and I've made it plain in my reply to Matt I go for the simple one which provides for conflict resolution and is sufficiently flexible to fit the circumstances. Where a suspension is only used when an infringement is severe or a user is continually exhibiting anti-social behaviour. But if – like you seem to be suggesting – only a system of suspensions were used wont this go against the Conference resolution? Just suspending people is not exactly moderation is it?
ALB wrote:As everybody seems to be agreed, let's do it, i.e. revert to the original position on this forum where the only sanction was suspension. I'm sure the moderators too would be relieved if they didn't have to monitor the posts of anyone on moderation.Hey hang about its not about using moderation, but the use of moderation queues which is under examination. Even if the forum were to revert back to just applying suspensions it would just be reverting back to the same old problems where the degree of severity of infringements was immaterial because one size fitted all infringements. Such harsh methods of sanctions just drove people away from the discussion.Obviously, you could apply 2, 3, 4, etc, days of suspensions to reflect the severity but once the user returns to the forum very little if anything is learned from the experience. And it would possibly still drive people away. Whereas with moderation the user can if they so wish place themselves on a daily learning curve to reach an understanding on what standard of behaviour is expected of them.What really needs to be considered is how long the moderation can last, because even if the moderation queue is no longer used there is still the possibility of moderation carrying on for months rather than a couple of weeks. A possible solution is to allow the infringer only 3 postings to get into line and when the final posting fails to achieve this an automatic suspension follows. Which obviously would then reflect the severity of the infringement with a 2, 3, 4, etc days of suspension being applied.We really need to devise a methodology which attracts people to the forum by allowing them every opportunity to get to grips with the implications of 'socialist netequitte'.
Ed wrote:If I wrote an article for the standard and it was terrible not just bad but really really boring, ignorant, badly written, badly researched, objectively false. If the editors of the standard decided not to publish said article would that be censorship or quality control?Neither actually, imo more of a case of applying a certain standard. Which is the main reason its called just that: Socialist Standard.
Ed wrote:ALB wrote:What is it you want, SP? Would you be satisfied with the ending of "mod queues" and the only sanction against persistent rule-breakers, after due warning, being suspension (for, say, 72 hours)?After a couple ofd warnings sure you could start at 72 hours. If that doesn't work a week. If that doesn't work a fortnight, a month, 2 months, a quarter. In my personal opinion that's still better than moderation queues, especially for the length of time OGW has been in it. If you're suspended at least you're properly removed from the argument it gives time for the dust to settle and tempers to cool. If you're waiting for your posts to be checked every single time that's going to be more aggravating, for me at least. It also creates needless extra work and an extra reason to get pissed off with the moderators. I think for these reasons most forums I've ever been on don't use moderation queues.
Thanks Ed, I could not have summarised the argument better myself.
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:To summarise what is suggested in the Swansea Branch report: Initial infringements be covered by an 'Attention Notice' being posted.Continual infingements be covered with a First, second and final warning being posted.Where infringements are clearly of a more severe nature this process can be by-passed either by issuing a notice of moderation, or a suspension.All moderation to be carried out under a committed locked thread.Well you could have saved yourself a lot of time since what you are describing is the situation we have at present (minus moderation queues).FYI A 'locked thread' is a thread in which no-one can comment.
Not quite. Previous to the Swansea Branch report an 'Attention Notice' was only used on one occasion. Since the report its been used twice! To my knowledge first, second and final warning(s) have never been used on this forum, neither has a committed locked thread. What has been used and which is proving to be detrimental to the discussion of the socialist case is a moderation queue – that's turning into a never ending squabble over what in actual fact constitutes an infringment!Its time a line was drawn to bring this bickering to an end so we can move on and start discussing improvements and efficiency without the bothersome distraction of a cumbersome moderation queue hovering in the background.There is no problem with a locked thread, all the key holder has to do is to unlock it to post the correspondence. Of course no-one can comment on a locked thread other than the user under moderation and the moderator. Which means in effect both are under scrutiny and subject to all the implications this carries with it.
Matt wrote:Ed wrote:"Moderation queues is something I'm completely against. As I said to socialist punk the other day it must be like a slow torture. Very frustrating I imagine and only likely to get people's blood pressure up more than it already is. I think this tactic should be scrapped".It is hardly anything of the kind. A queue forms when mods are busy elsewhere. Some mods work from their desks all the time, or are super efficient, so can speedily deal with stuff. Others like me, are away for varying lengths of time so the queue can build up. Others have slow connections and so on so can't just login and on when they like or have a busy caseload doing website stuff so have to ration out specific tasks. It is not a big deal to modify one's behaviour in keeping with whatever list or forum you are in. I do it all the time on the BBC or the Guardian or individual blogs etc. and as a consequence have increased my acceptance posting rates; in fact many of my posts now go through immediately. The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.Mods don't want to deny anyone posting. It is not a perfect solution and never will be, but with good will it is no problem whatsoever for the majority of posters who follow procedures when agrieved and accept outcomes of appeals etc..
Matt we are all aware how difficult moderation can be but Ed was describing the effect a moderation queue has on the user, whilst you are describing some of the difficulties which can arise for individual moderators. Which plainly is not quite the same subject imo. However let's be honest the difficulties you describe are mostly associated with the teething problems we are getting pretty well familiar with and it can be expected these will be ironed out in the near future.Suspension is of course a 'big deal' and rightly so but the creation of a moderation queue has for some turned out to be an even 'bigger deal' in respect of resolving the issues and problems of anti-social behaviour in a reasonable manner.To summarise what is suggested in the Swansea Branch report:Initial infringements be covered by an 'Attention Notice' being posted.Continual infingements be covered with a First, second and final warning being posted.Where infringements are clearly of a more severe nature this process can be by-passed either by issuing a notice of moderation, or a suspension.All moderation to be carried out under a committed locked thread.Clearly a simple process which is transparent and designed for conflict resolution rather than prolonging the tiresome procedure of regulation which by definition includes the introduction of a moderation queue.Need I say more?
