DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:Gueses on the back of a Penny Black please. Closest answer wins!
The answer is pretty much summed up here:
ALB wrote:The trouble with continually harping on about moderation on a thread is that it creates the impression that this is really what someone wants to discuss and criticise rather than the subject of the thread. Personally I find this not just a diversion but irritating, not just here but on other forums too, and normally avoid getting involved in such discussions like the plague, so I don't know why I'm posting this.You can talk about moderation as much as you like in the correct place, but to continually do so across the whole forum is just anti-social.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Apparently if/when we leave the forum we then become eligible for personal attacks:-(Seeing as posts on this forum are probably subject to libel laws it is probably wise for forum users to not write posts that are personal attacks on anyone.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:But are we – woops I mean the socialist party – a little inconsistent allowing capitalists in the party and not workers who join the police or the army? It is true that the role of the army is to kill workers but the role of the capitalists is not much better (if not worse)Actually even if a member of the police force wanted to join I'm not sure if they could, legally anyhow. I know members of special branch are not allowed to be members of any organisation which wants to change the status quo. If this applies to bobbies on the beat I don't know.I might see if I can dig up the original resolutions where these where decided, could be interesting.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Slightly off topic but if Coleman joined this forum would members still be able to call him a class taitor? Or would that be considered an offence under forum rules?I would have thought that if one forum user where to call another a "class traitor" it would break Rule 5. "Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated."But then if the "class traitor" in question was a capitalist and also a socialist this could be taken as a compliment!
ALB wrote:an ex-member who becomes a UKIP councillor and spouts anti-working class stuff about "too many immigrants" and "defend Britsish sovereignty".David Ramsay-Steele went from being a member of the SPGB to being a founding member of the Libertarian Alliance presumably because he was bowled over by the "economic calculation argument".However, what rational train of thought can lead one from being a socialist to becoming a exponent of nationalism? The mind boggles!Is Ramsay-Steele's book kept by the library department? I've also noticed a reel to reel of a debate between him and Hardy which should be an interesting addition to the site.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I started a new topic and admin has removed it without any explanation! Did anyone receive it via email?It's here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/information-request-party-policy
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Are all people who leave your party class traitors.No, of course not.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:So to clarify – your forum is a free for all for attacking past contributions from fellow workers but if they will not be allowed to defend themselves ?The forum rules are quite clear. The forum can be used to discuss pretty much any topic in general. It is however not to be used for the discussion of matters concerning the behaviour of individual forum users.The procedure for reporting offensive or off-topic posts is explained in the forum guidelines and rules."No personal attacks. Neither post nor respond to incendiary material. If a post elicits a strong negative emotional response it may be best to wait a while before commenting. Nothing requires an immediate reply. Re-read the post and your response before sending."
ALB wrote:Seriously, if someone did this properly with weighting for the answers, would it be possible to put it on this site?Bristol anarchist federation have a nice and simple quiz on their website:http://bristolaf.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/the-great-british-class-calculator/
The battle for a normal working day of 12 and then 8 hours was a long a bloody battle between capital and labour. As individuals and as members of the working class socialists take part in these struggles to increase the amount of the pie that goes to labour.But the purpose of the socialist party is to make these struggles obsolete, by organising politically to bring an end to the mode of production that gives rise to such struggles in the first place. Participating in reform movements is not the business of the socialist party.Here's a bit of history on the Chicago Martyrs and Mayday: http://libcom.org/history/1886-haymarket-martyrs-mayday
ALB wrote:We've been sent a pamphlet by Kurz to review No Revolution Anywhere. I don't if the pamphlet or the review will deal with his theory of economic collapse.Kurz briefly touches on his theory of collapse in the pamphlet. The rationale is that with each revolution in the means of production the concentration of constant to variable capital increases, and that it is impossible to go back once a stage has been reached eg. early factory production was more labour intensive then present day computer controlled robot production – it seems to be the standard 'automatic' collapse argument with a few extra bits added…Was going to give the Fragment on Machines (pg 690 – 712 of the Grundrisse) a proper read before writing the review. Perhaps this could be discussed on here?
jondwhite wrote:No disputes committee thankfully.Sorry I'm being a bit slow today. What has this to do with a disputes committee?
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.
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.
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.
SocialistPunk wrote:Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?The 'censorship' that occurs on the forums and on the mailing lists is of the same nature that occurs at physical meetings and in our physical publications.Any topic of discussion is allowed but if a contributor continually makes personally abusive remarks, repeatedly makes irrelevant and distracting comments or otherwise disrupts the meeting or conversation they are asked to desist and if they fail to comply are eventually asked to leave the meeting.Likewise, the Standard letters page would not be allowed to be used for attacking individuals or as a substitute for internal appeals.
