Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:The job of the moderator is not to micro-manage posts or to give a running commentary on what is or is not acceptable about each individual post. The job of the moderator is to contain disturbances so that the forum can be a pleasant and useful place for all of it's users. This is the reason that such things as the pre-vetting of certain posts or the deletion of abusive messages happen.It is the responsibility of forum users themselves to ensure that they stay within the rules.
Nobody is in disagreement that this is the role of moderation. What is under the spotlight is the effectiveness of a moderation queue when its compared to straight forward moderation. A queue by definition is placing a deliberate brake on the process whilst moderation ensures the flow continues with the minimum of disruption. In short, a queue minimises effeciency whilst moderation maximises it by ensuring any disturbances are contained within agreed parameters.A queue should only come into operation when the human resources are under pressure and not be used to apply further sanctions by deliberately keeping the poster on hold, for ever and a day. Moderation is not about a battle of the wills, is it?
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Moderators are not baby sitters, probation officers, prison wardens, or even behavioural scientists who are caught in a time warp of administering continual reinforcement. Like Skinner highlights "continual reinforcement is counter productive" because it becomes accepted as the norm and therefore fails to stimulate the recipient into changing their pattern of behaviour.Yes you're right about moderators not being baby sitters …… …..
If you don't see the role of moderating as 'baby sitting' how come the sanction of a moderation queue is still being applied? I'm not complaining just highlighting the fact that obviously in this case the moderation queue is not producing the desired result, is it?
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Moderators are not baby sitters, probation officers, prison wardens, or even behavioural scientists who are caught in a time warp of administering continual reinforcement. Like Skinner highlights "continual reinforcement is counter productive" because it becomes accepted as the norm and therefore fails to stimulate the recipient into changing their pattern of behaviour.Yes you're right about moderators not being baby sitters but you've fudged on your Skinner. A suspension could also be seen as a kind of 'negative-reinforcement'.As it stands on-topic comments are reinforced as they are allowed through the queue. Off-topic comments receive no response, they are not reinforced, so in theory the behaviour should become extinct.But as both positive and negative reinforcement is also taking place outside of the forum it is of course more complicated than that.
I agree a suspension can be seen as a positive and a negative reinforcement and I would argue it depends on the context on how a negative is turned into a positive and whether or not the moderator has the time and patience to continually issue rewards or sanctions. You have a choice to say: Enough is enough; or I've stuck you on the moderation queue whether you like it or not. The first choice is saying come back when you are in better frame of mind. Whilst the second is saying the sanction will continue for ever and a day.Moderation is only a temporary measure whereas a moderation queue can become permanent if the moderator deems it to be necessary.
admin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I would appreciate an answer to the issue of how many "correct" posts does it take for a mod queue to be lifted?If you're looking for an answer in the form of "after x posts" you're not going to get it. Moderation does not and should not work that way; it's not some sort of by-the-book operation where there are incredibly specific penalties and time limits prescribed for every conceivable circumstance.We've got a very general set of guidelines which we try to apply in as fair and sensible a manner as possible to specific situations. Whist trying to be as consistent as possible, every situation we encounter is different, and we need to take these unique characteristics into account when making judgments.Moderation is not a binary process but rather a human process.
Which in effect means 'different strokes for different folks' serves as a justification for moderation to continue for ever and a day. In truth a moderation queue is following the application of 'continual reinforcement' where both parties become stuck in circular arguments over what constitutes anti-social behaviour.Surely if a user is unable to get their act together after 3 or 4 posts they need a spot of time out? Once this period of suspension is finished and they continue to exhibit anti-social behaviour instead of further moderation they are given a further period of time out.Moderators are not baby sitters, probation officers, prison wardens, or even behavioural scientists who are caught in a time warp of administering continual reinforcement. Like Skinner highlights "continual reinforcement is counter productive" because it becomes accepted as the norm and therefore fails to stimulate the recipient into changing their pattern of behaviour.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Come across a website offering advice on moderation. I think the SPGB should have a look at it. Here is an example: Forum moderators are not police officersThe biggest mistake forum owners make when taking on forum moderators is expecting them to police the community. Many see the main role of moderators as enforcers of the site rules, as people who delete posts they don’t like and lock topics the moment they run off-course. If these are the priorities of your moderators, you are doing it all wrong.Exactly what the problem in the Swansea report tackles. Vin the link to this website would be appreciated. Could you post the above quote and the link to the Internet Dept. and the EC for their information?Make sure you put FYI in the subject box followed by the heading. Pity I had not come across this site during my research.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Bugger, just lost my reply. Try again.Short version: socialism isn't a thing. Socialism is us applying the capacity and co-operation we use in our daily lives now. If workers don't think they can run their own lives, they won't create socialism. We run capitalism from top to bottom in a co-operative fashion, and socialism is just about extending that workplace co-operation. There is no chart, no method, no algorithm, just free co-operation. The evidence is in your own life, before your very eyes every day.There is however a subtle difference between 'thinking' and 'knowing' and I suspect Alaric would be insistent on confirming that actually knowing is the conclusive clincher in this discussion. Which effectively means that this confirmation can only be revealed in a socialist society.
I wish you all the Best (pun intended) on your journey of discovery and hope you find it enjoyable and interesting. If you do happen to discover something of interest please let us know. We are always eager to learn if only for the heck of it!
Alaric wrote:Ed, Brian, ALB and Master Smeet, Have you all disengaged from the discussion. I am not particularly interested in pursuing the line of discussion that twc seems intent upon as he/she doesn't seem to want to discuss the actual topic of this thread or respond my points. However, eveyone else seems to have disengaged.When I think of people to whom I have put the party case the two main responses have been variations on "It will never work" and "It will never happen". I believe this post is about responding to the first type of response that people make: "It will never work". Now we can convince people that socialism is a possibility but I suspect that people want more than this — I think they want to know that it will probably work. But Ed, Brian, ALB and Master Smeet have claimed, I think, that people do not need strong evidence that socialism would be feasible or that it would make society better for those people to reasonably support it. Do you really think this? Or have I got it wrong? If you do think that people do not need strong evidence that socialism would be feasible or that it would make society better to reasonably support socialism then I would like to ask an earlier question to which no-one has answered: If I have got it wrong and you do think that the evidence is important I would like to discuss the evidence. I know there has been some discussion of evidence already but I feel like the surface has barely been scratched.I've not lost interest in this discussion, but due to my involvement with other party business there's been no time to make any meaningful contribution. Basically, you are asking for evidence which is impossible to provide without a blueprint or a lab model. The 'evidence' which is out there and what we use is based on comparing like with like on the production of human need.Thus the alternative we offer is based on reaching the conclusion that the present system is incapable of addressing the problem of meeting these needs. Mainly because of the fact that when the means of living are owned by a wealthy minority there can never be a democracy!Granted, the case for the socialist alternative is based on theory and needs to be tested but like I have mentioned previously this testing can only take place once capitalism is abolished and a true democratic system is in place. Once we have arrived at that stage of human development then we are in a position make a start on: self-assessment; reviews; performance; standards; etc.If after all this evidence gathering we then reach the conclusion that things are not working out as envisaged the democratic system is there to ensure other alternatives are on the agenda.Finally in reference to your question; "Why should anyone support socialism if they don't have good reason to think that it will make their lives or the world better?" The key term is what is meant by, "good reason". In my case there is good [enough] reason to give socialism a try even though I have not got the conclusive proof that its going to make my life or the world better. Because I'll at least be in the position to say 'Stop I've had enough of this' and what do you think of this alternative?
This needs to stop! Get onto the producers of the programme asking to be considered next time they intend discussing Marxian subjects. Also a request directly to the BBC for consideration of inclusion on their list of Marxist spokepersons would not go amiss.
Alaric wrote:My response to (1) would be: I think that we can have more evidence that socialism works. I think that this can be done by carefully considering the problems that socialism would have to face and work out ways of solving these problems. The viability of these solutions can be investigated by testing the assumptions upon which they rely. It may be the case that these solutions might rest on assumptions not testable within capitalist societies; I would avoid relying on solutions that contain such assumptions.Seeing that you have consciously decided to paraphrase and summarise my initial response to this thread I have to assume that you also are a member of class (1)? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Here is the part from the 1st article which relates to this discussion: "Once decided democratically that we are heading for a socialist world it becomes a much simpler matter. Quite how this will happen is open to conjecture. As expressed on numerous occasions, we have no blueprint. Depriving the capitalist class of the state and its functionaries is the first objective. Once the decision is made, then it becomes a matter of organisation.Suffice it to say there will have been a period of planning and co-ordination by mass organisations in work places, in neighbourhoods, in educational establishments, in organisations with international links and in civic organisations, which will culminate in the collective and proactive decision of the people to take control over the direction of their lives immediately and for the future. The decision to turn their backs on the system that has failed them over and over in favour of one for which they are ready to work to make happen, ready to work to continue its progress and which will work for them, not against them. With ever-increasing numbers, discussion and debate will have begun to determine the direction of the path to be taken."
For the purpose of discussion I'll tend to agree that given the current magnitude of evidence we have available there is no certainty or any guarantee that socialism will either be feasible or even better than present capitalist society. But in fact there is no such model available which meets the criteria you are suggesting or even anywhere near it! And if even if such a model were available it would be impossible to isolate the model from the dominant capitalist mode of production. So even that would be defective and still be subject to some of the horrors of capitalism.The truth is that we don't really know if such a mode of production is possible until its under trial and also in situ, and therefore subject to review and assessment so that any unintended problems, or consequences were identified and possible solutions considered and also tested for their viability in reference to meeting human needs e.g. shelter; food; clothing; education; medical care; and leisure.But nevertheless, when we take a look at the subject from the perspective of a growing socialist consciousness then it could be argued that the (possible) problem can be inspected, assessed and examined in a much different light so we are aware what is impossible and possible given the current level of technology and global resources.Of course, and obviously we will only be able to reach such a judgement once a socialist majority have done the necessary planning and preparation in respect of the research, data collection, run computer stimulations and other essential work, etc. In effect what I'm suggesting is that the closer we are to a socialist society the closer we are to providing an answer to your questions.May I also suggest, and purely for discussion purposes, we use the series of articles on this subject covered in the last 3 issues of the Socialist Standard as a reference point? They may well provide a clear framework where we can discuss this subject more thoroughly and hopefully investigate whether or not the problem you have outlined is in fact relevant to the case for socialism?Because you have yet to convince me it is.
Hi Alaric, My advice would be to start a new thread on the General Discussion section with the title: Evidence for production for use in socialism? I say this because its become obvious this thread has run its course. If you do decide to take that course of action – and in order to stay within the guidelines and rules – you would need to copy and paste your last post to this new thread then replace the post here with a comment directing users to the new thread.Whatever course of action you decide to take, once I have time to digest your concerns, I shall be responding to them. I think its a very interesting topic, but first of all we need to establish whether or not it is in fact a problem for the workers in general and not just for yourself.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The job of the party isn't to persuade people to want socialism, but to find socialists, to find people who are already thinking this way, and coalesce them into a force for class struggle.If we are not here to persuade people to want socialism what the heck have I been doing wrong for the last 30 odd years? Tut, tut! Admittedly, we also try and find socialists but when participating in that process we also try and make socialists by convincing (and not converting) them through discussion that socialism will make a *difference for the better*. Particulary in reference to the democratic control of the means of living so that the needs of humanity are met.Nonetheless, because the revolutionary transformation itself is going to be different from any other which has taken place – in that the next social revolution will by default be a conscious revolution – we are only in a position to draw a basic outline on how that difference will be better. To do otherwise would not only be undemocratic but also ignore historical materialism in that its not our job to project the future in a broad outline when the dynamics of class struggle will determine when that struggle reaches a successful conclusion.Therefore the prospect of inevitability only becomes a certainty when and only when a majority have become persuaded enough is enough and to give socialism a try. Having reached that stage of social evolution society as a whole if it so wishes can then democratically decide that although socialism has made a difference its not been for the better in respect of meeting human needs and move on to a society which will make a difference for the better.When looking at the problem from this angle – if indeed it is a problem – it means that only socialism can provide the democratic framework whereby society as a whole can decide a better future.Hope this helps.
