lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I cannot understand why anyone would chose to spend valuable time policing and preventing a member from actively promoting socialism and the party Most of Vin's 'breaches' were petty and he has overly apologised, yet the IC and EC persist in attempting to stamp out his initiatives and activities and forcing him away from the party. I am amazed that the new mods have continued with this fiasco
moderator2 wrote:However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.Or our criticism
moderator2 wrote:It may have been forgotten by some but he was indefinitely suspended for persistently breaching the rules despite being subject previous sanctions against his behaviour on the forum which disrupted its operation for other users.This is not what I have found. I have found provocation from mod1 displaying an uneven hand and vin questioning this on threads set up for questioning moderation. I believe his penultimate ban typifies the cenarioMod1 's provocation is evident even now in his discussions with Tim. Accusing him of being undemocratic without apologyVin has made it clear on numerous ocassions that he will stick to the rules, unlike many others.What more do you require?It is a permanent ban of a party memberAnd I suspect there are moves afoot to ban another member. This is unacceptable in our movement
Mod2Are your actions in opposition to your principles? Your Honor,years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. Debs
moderator2 wrote:It would be misleading to deny that an individual case resulted in drawing attention to a very obvious breach of the intent of Rule 8, revealing a flaw in the purpose of a suspension – which is, naturally, to actually suspend posting privileges.But the wording of the rule was chosen to be applicable generally and be fit to apply in other future situations.It appear that you have already made the decision to permamently ban a party member from expressing an opinion on this forum while allowing left and right fascists to freely express their opinions, indeed the party invites them on.Why would a socialist do that?
Why is the banning of the member of the SPGB from party forums considered under 'website an technical issues?' When it is clearly business of the WSM?
moderator2 wrote: Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed. How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached. Linda wroteIt seems you are changing the rules to deal with one member and appear to have already decided that this member will never be allowed to express his opinions again on this forum. And as Tim has already indicated members of any other group whether left fascist or right fascists are free to express their opinions at any time.Why would you or indeed any socialist do that?
Why not give Vin his account back, act like a socialist party and treat him as any other member would treated? Only the Party as whole has the right to ban him for life. The IC and Mods have in the past went to extreme messures to prevent Vin from posting. On one occassion rather than let him speak on the forum 100s of messages disappeared with their tinkering. This has gone beyond crazy.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Mod 1 I completely disagree with you, further discussion should take place under this heading, as it relates to the functioning of the EC. This post is about the minutes of the EC. The Executive Committee is part of the democratic functioning of the Party. it is important that this is not seen as a technical issue about the website, it is about the function of The Executive Committee (and the sub committees of the Party). I would encourage members of the Party who have comments about decisions made by the EC to post their comments on this thread, rather than being sidetracked on to other threads. I have posted a link to the comments I have made to your comments on the thread that you created rather than posting them here. I did not want to be thought of as posting multiple threads:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/amendment-rule-8Couldn't agree more.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”Does anyone have any idea how such a rule would be 'policed'IC members at our home?'without prior permission of the moderators leaving no doubt that it is aimed at this account.as I am sure cdes on spintcom who are presently using someone elses email will not be closed down'It is easy to understand why the EC and IC don't want Vin's opinion because he tends to highlight the short comings of both.But now that other members are doing the same eg Tim, Gnome and AJ and myself – there seems little point in banning him.
Some useful definitions Glove Puppeta toy person or animal that has a soft, hollow body so that you can put your hand inside and move its head and arms with your fingers Cambridge Dictionary
These EC minutes need to be given serious consideration by the party membership Re 5 h Copyright of intro video. There are none. The music is paid for, I have the receipt, The rights to use background music obtained from its producer Andrew.The only 'problem' if it is a problem is the use of TV footage of Adam, Howard etc etc. But this was taken from the party's official Youtube site.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFZgYrHuoQfjE0JBkd_h57gWhich is full of TV footage. So copyright has already been infringed Resolution 5 (Thomas and Browne): “That cde Scholey be asked to contact Gorachand Paramanik pointing out that the video he is circulating has not been endorsed by the EC.” Agreed. But cde Gorachand Paramanik obviously thinks workers should see the video. does our 'administrative' committee have the power to prevent him? Three Companion Parties have made very positive comments on the video as have at least two branches and many members. The EC has no authority telling these parties and members what they can post and what they cannot. Res 13SPGB Youtube channel, facebook pages, twitter accounts blogs etc etc G 1 cde Vin maratty was nominated by a branch and accepted by the EC and produced a video which the EC now say is not officialItem E I have been associated with the SPGB since the 70s and will post messages for Vin so long as they do not breach the rules and they havent. They have revealed the ignorance of some members but that is not against the rules.As for using other peoples accounts, there are many on spintcom with email addresses that confict with names and are associated with deceased members. Is the IC or EC concerned about them? This EC is extremely misinformed
Re Resolution 5. Is this the video the EC wishes to prevent members from distributing?Because it is all over party sites and the EC should read the comments under it from our cdes in Companion Parties https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4
moderator2 wrote:I tried to point out in a comradely way that several posts could have been quite easily combined into one post as per the rule which is there for the convenience of other forum users.I apologise cde of course they should be in one post and I will do that. In retrospect I can see how silly it was to have so many posts. please delete the excessComradely
Vin said:I am in contact with a few cdes from WSPUS and they inform me that the NAC would be in favour of me producing a similar video, based on the World Socialist Movement.And still waiting an explanation from our legal advisor on why this video is open to legal action, while its source the official SPGB youtube channel is not? Or perhaps he has no explanation, If not then why not and why make the claim in the first place?Is this video for example open to legal action? If not then why not? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUCtS7LU0y4
