[lindanesocialist]

northern light wrote:

I can hardly believe I am reading posts from thinking reasoning adults. The Moderators are Party volunteers, for goodness sake, doing valuable Party work.Rather than sniping from the sidelines, if any member of the SPGB thinks they can do a better job, let's have you volunteering formoderation duty.

I am not sniping, cde. Vin is banned and entitled to answers. I am simply asking for clarification. I too, sometimes feel this is all a little surreal. We are taking about banning a party member for life or reinstate him and treat him as others, The mods are volunteers as are we all, noone know better than Vin for having years of hard work trashed in a few vindictive remarks. I agree with you on this and your previous post why cant they all stop playing games and act like intelligent adults. Treat Vin as they would treat other members, as LBird has said there are a lot worsecomradely

[lindanesocialist]

Well cdes mod1, mod2 and mod3,  what do you do now? Adam Gnome and Tim have done what Vin is suspended for. Do you act?  or ignore?  

[lindanesocialist]

gnome wrote:

 without prior permission from the moderators.”

Thanks Gnome.More power to mods  

[lindanesocialist]

For clarity Comrade Mod3This account is the property of Comrade Linda Maratty. Are you accusing me of operating more than one account?Or merely informing me that I cannot express the opinions of another cde on my account?I do believe it was  SP AKA Mod3 that first suggested Vin use my accountMy how things have changed OK I formally  request that the MODS kindly allow Comrade Vincent Maratty to express his opinions (within the rules ) via Comrade Linda Maratty's account.I feel this to be fair as he is freely discussed and misrepresented on this forum  and is in a better position than myself to defend himself.I would also request clarification of Comrade Vincent Maratty's comments in my previous post.I suppose if you prevent him asking questions then it saves you having  to answer.

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

Regards the EC, Cde.Maratty possesses the option of urging his branch or any other branch to bring the matter of his indefinite suspension to conference and ultimately a Party Poll of all members. That is the supreme body which over-rules all committees and rescinds all prior decisions. Albeit, perhaps a cumbersome form of democracy, but eventually it will resolve any disputes and grievances to the satisfaction of the Party as a whole, if not to an individual or perhaps a group of individuals. 

Vin saidJust to clarify: the three Mods have decided to indefinately suspend me (or  continue with the suspension) and it will take a party poll of the membership, a confernce decision or an EC resolution to force your hand and give Vin the account backHaven't you got that the wrong way around? Shouldn't you have received EC instructions, Confernce decisions or party poll to impose the (in effect) permanent ban of a member from taking part in online discussions?Mod 1 says that he would willingly reinstate me if the EC allowed I have requested a copy of the EC decision to ban me: NoneMod2 says he will not reinstate me unless someone forces him to do soMod 3 says I should follow 'normal procedures' .  I have rquested evidence of the 'normal procedures' and in particular the procedure that involves an act of contrition to the EC.It is open to you Alan, Brian and Stephen to allow me my  account.If not, then correct me with some supporting evidence. EC decisions EtcWhat is preventing you. 

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.

Vin said:Most of my suspensions are for openly discussing and  challenging moderators' decisions suggesting that they should be discussed openly on the forum and in line with our Party traditions of openness. Indeed after one suspension I had to assure the IC that I would never again question moderators decisions on the forumAt the moment secrecy surrounds the decision making of mods.I have made these suggestions myself and I wish you luck in achieving some form of transparency. You have mine and Linda's  supportoops Your off to a bad start, then 

[lindanesocialist]

moderator1 wrote:Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything. Moderator2 wroteThe moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so – to request that the EC over-rule the moderators.  I am sure you can understand my confusion? 

[lindanesocialist]

moderator3 wrote:

 Fair enough, you are under no obligation to answer my enquiry. I can only assume during previous suspensions, of which there have been a few, Vin has been informed of the procedure for challenging moderator decisions.

Quite.   but he has never had to write to the EC: nor has anyone else 

[lindanesocialist]

moderator1 wrote:

Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.

Thanks for the clarity comrade, just for confirmation can you refer me to  the EC resolution suspending Vin from the Forum. It is something I have missed or overlooked and would clear up a lot of the confusionTho it is still a little confusing as Mod2 uses the term 'EC overule the mods'  decision to suspend him.  What does that mean?thanks

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded. Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conductAgreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)

Vin said:Can I ask why the EC is mentioned in this OP? Surely it was Mod1 that suspended me?  

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

 to request that the EC over-rule the moderators.

This is news. I was under the impression that the EC had banned Vin and the Mods hands were tiedSo the existing 3 moderators  have the authority to reinstate Vin but refuse to unless their hand is forced by the EC?So what is it.?Mods refusing or EC refusing?     

[lindanesocialist]

moderator3 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appeals

Would you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.

He has been informed that he must make an act of contrition to the EC.Where are these procedures written down? I have never heard of a forum member having to appeal to the EC against an indefinite but I stand to be corrected if you can refer me to the relevant documents regarding such procedure. How many other forum members have appealed to the ECComradely

[lindanesocialist]

It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appeals

[lindanesocialist]

moderator1 wrote:

 If indeed Vin has made an apology it would be appreciated if you could PM the moderators with the evidence.

 Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum ban#21 Tim Kilgallon wrote:On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.Vin said:Remove the word very and I will support every word. But then I have admitted all this in the past.  And have been left humiliated There is more but this is probably the latest  

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

Darn…should have posted in my own account —apologies….

Oh dear! Using two accounts without permission from the moderatorsForgot you are a moderator. Guess some are more equal than others

[Author]

Posts