lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin said Talk of outsourcing the production of an introduction video would be folly and in my opinion a wast of money. The last 'professional' video we produced was based on a 'green screen' background and 'talking heads'. It is easily reproducible by ourselves Or if an outsider is paid perhaps they should have a proven record and portfolio eg Spencer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipe6CMvW0Dgand his channelhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-qSbRLINXvZBZM6CpUMDzQ
SocialistPunk wrote:It's time to put up or shut up!One thing you are not and that is blind. Just look at this thread for proof . Not a single warning. Get your old report out.
So……Vin is banned from the forum for going of topic. Care to point out the on-topic posts? What an absolute farce
Oh bugger, I will. By Mod1 Before he was Mod 1 Draft report on forum moderation Author: Brian Johnson Swansea Branch Working Purpose: Drawing attention through a key line of enquiry to: The form of moderation on theparty forum is seriously flawed in respect of applying a coherent policy on moderation procedure andthis lack of a coherence is at risk of bringing the party into disrepute in respect of its commitment tofreedom of expression and Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD). Please note that when italics in boldare used this is to draw the reader's attention to cause for concern and possible recommendations toaddress these concerns. Party Forum Background: Internet forums are unique in their particular form of communication andare generally open for public discussion and scrutiny and subsequently require moderation to ensure theGuidelines and Rules (G&R) are not breached to the detriment of the discussion. The party forum wasset up by Cde Darren Poynton when it was decided that the party required its own website rather thanrelying on the WSM Forum which was found to be wanting in many respects regarding content ofpostings, trolling and abuse. It should be noted that when the party website went live Cde Poynton had insufficient experience offorum moderation. And although it was several weeks before other members stepped forward to helpout in this role they too also lacked sufficient experience of this role. Another handicap which was notyet apparent was the moderators lacked a written code of conduct and the current brief description ofthe role of a moderator is ambiguous to say the least (see below). And although the G&R are prettyexplicit concerning infringements, in the absence of a code of conduct there is the danger of an overreliance on the G&R and this over reliance developing into the only point of reference for resolvingdisputes. See here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelines In short:Discussion by the moderators can tend to become centred on the G&R and not on how a moderatortreats, mistreats or ignores infringements Part two to follow A document from Mod3 before he was Mod 3
Who wrote this? Guidelines & Rules: Unfortunately, currently infringements of the G&R are dealt with in an ad hoc manner leading to inequality of treatment and a string of queries and complaints to the forum Admin/Internet Dept. challenging our commitment to DPD. This ad hoc approach then inflames and escalates the situation leading to acrimony and threats of resignation. I could post the whole document if necessary
645 views in less than 5 days. We have to take advantage of this technologyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4 Vin is preparing a video presentation to all members on this subject. He would appreciate contributions
LBird wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Good to see that satire's not deadGood to see that zombie's not dead.
Well cdes Mod 1 and 3 surely LBird needs to make an act of contrition
Paddy Shannon said "Frankly I'm a little disgusted that these slurs keep reappearing. As regards rules, I think we have one about casting aspersions on the integrity of other members, that some members might want to keep in mind."
Mod1 has declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to call him a comrade. How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderate
LBird wrote:.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.Well you have been fairly treated, Lbird. so you think Vin's long term permanent ban is justified?
SocialistPunk wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.It is not regulated by members, but by moderators and as I have pointed out most members do not follow the rules. Nor do they 'behave themselves'. Rules are constantly broken.If you were elected chairperson at the next NERB meeting would you allow the EC to decide who you allowed to speak or attend that meeting?It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.
SocialistPunk wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:The choice is yours, not Vin'sHow so? I don't get the logic behind Vin thinking he can bypass forum protocol and then claim it's the moderators who are at fault?
No mention of 'protocol' 'contrition' or 'EC' in your post. Has all that rubbish been put aside?You are the Moderator and you decide who speaks or posts on this forum. The party is controlled by its membershipAnalogy would beRule 16. The members of the EC shall not be eligible to act as chair to the Delegate Meetings or Conferences, nor shall any member act as chair who has been on the EC whose work is under review. Such members shall have the right to speak thereat. The EC holds no sway here, it is an administrative body. This is the unit of organisation. If we wish to follow the 'chairperson' and moderator analogy (of wich I completely disagree with) then the EC could not turn up at a meeting and instruct the 'chair' or direct the chair. Only the members present could do that You are in the 'chair' Vin requests the permision to speak. You cannot blame 'protocol', EC or forum rules. Moderators are in the chair
HollyHead wrote:"The Socialist Party of Great Britain is going to have to work on its YouTube presentation before anyone checks them out, let alone take their videos seriously. Maybe more time doing courses on making videos and less time at Speakers Corner, eh. "That was his reference to the videos on youtube before Vin's contributionBut it Sounds like a plan Judging by the comments received on this Video Ian would be pleased https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HemZYkiXz4 Howard Moss for example described it as 'excellent' Wonder what Ian thinks of it?
