lindanesocialist
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin has received the message below after submitting his videos as per GEN SEC request uploading to youtube and sending link. He has now been accused of publishing his work without EC consent. He took them down immediately after being informed that they were not on the EC agenda. I informed the party via my facebook account as vin is blocked for some unknown reason, and I was blocked and my message removed. Explanations would be appreciated "The EC, at its meeting of 7th May, considered your response, dated 11th April, to the EC's proposal on the AV Committee as outlined in the April EC meeting (May EC agenda item 4vib.C). The EC discussed the videos as listed in your email and expressed concern regarding the lack of consultation with the EC prior to their being posted on-line (Rule 17). Other concerns were also expressed. The EC moved to disassociate itself on behalf of the Party from the clips off YouTube and elsewhere produced and published by you for reasons of lack of prior consultation with the EC and unauthorised use of Party emblems. I have to let you know that in light of the above the EC rescinds your appointment to the Audio-Visual Committee"
moderator1 wrote:. For obviously some participants may have an axe to grind – but what the heck so be it. And also there may well be some other members who wish to join in the experience of self-awareness?If only they could perhaps reply to simple questions. That would help. Well it would be a start.
moderator1 wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:Are we talking about your learning curve or mine?Reason for query: To resolve the issue of twitter account. If as I suspect, it is the IC that has the power to allow twitter outlets etc to speak on behalf of the world socialist movement then why didn't it simply allow NERB or Vin to do it. Would have save a lot of griefWe are not exactly bursting with volunteersRelationship to Vin's suspension? I have tried to post the 'reason' for vin's last suspension but you removed it.Neither, I was referring to our learning curve, which by default includes all those party members who are willing to learn from this episode.The IC does not have the power to allow twitter accounts to speak on behalf of the World Socialist Movement. Only the EC can do that. The IC manage these media accounts under its ToR.
Thanks cde
Are we talking about your learning curve or mine?Reason for query: To resolve the issue of twitter account. If as I suspect, it is the IC that has the power to allow twitter outlets etc to speak on behalf of the world socialist movement then why didn't it simply allow NERB or Vin to do it. Would have save a lot of griefWe are not exactly bursting with volunteersRelationship to Vin's suspension? I have tried to post the 'reason' for vin's last suspension but you removed it.
moderator1 wrote:Pleased to confirm that the authority for the IC to manage this twitter account on behalf of the World Socialist Movement came from the EC.But surely you have been aware that has never been an issue? Indeed I'm perplexed on your query and fail to see how it bears any relation to Vin's suspension. Clarification would be much appreciated if by chance it adds to the learning curve I've mentioned previously.Thanks for that clarification Mod. You dont happen to have the EC resolution appertaining to it? I very much appreciate you patience but I have not been involved in this issue as long and as much as mostThankyou in an advance
Just for clarification. Does this account speak on behalf of the world socialist movement?And in anticipation of a 'yes'; by who's authority? https://twitter.com/WorldSocialism Thakyou in advance, comrades
Fro Feb EC Minutes Email from Internet Committee regarding a Twitter account (@world_socialism).MOTION 14: The EC authorises the Internet Committee to contact the owner of the account and request that they specify that the account is not officially endorsed by the party (Craggs/Scholey) 5-0-0 EC instructions have been carried out to the letter. One problem solved https://twitter.com/World_Socialism
As a member is being attacked and unable to defend himself, I posted an example of his 'disruptruptive and abusive behaviour'On reflection Mod1 you were correct in removing it as it restores the balance of the thread.
May I remind members of Vin's last 'outburst of abuse and disruption' Vin wrote:Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion Mod1 (member of the Internet Committee) 1st Warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.Vin wrote:I am sure you are under pressure from committee but chill out and leave fun alone. Revolution will be fun or we wouldn't bother.People will turn away from boring strict bookworms and be drawn to positive things. Very early materialism I know but still intuitiveWhy remove jokes?2nd Warning: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.TopVin wrote:Brian Whywould you give a comrade a warning for that.? 3rd and final warning: 14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules.
lindanesocialist wrote:Cde vin maratty has no right to reply to the criticismsHe has been suspended by the three members making the criticisms; members of the Internet CommitteeDoesn’t this give credibility to the claim made in the OP?Make that four members of the IC:
Cde vin maratty has no right to reply to the criticismsHe has been suspended by the three members making the criticisms; members of the Internet CommitteeDoesn’t this give credibility to the claim made in the OP?
I believe NERB will be drafting a reply to the IC report at it's online meeting this weekend. I agree with Alan that the EC should appoint a small committee in an attempt to come to an objective conclusion.
Tristan, with respect, why have the Internet committee failed to inform the other twitter accounts – claiming to be official twitter accounts of the party – to declare themselves to be unofficial?There is also the question of Facebook accounts that use the Party's logo and appear to be 'official'Would it not be fair to say that the NERB twitter account is actually the only online account with democratic accountability as it is controlled by and has the sanction of NERB?When will the IC inform these accounts that they are unofficial? https://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocialism/https://twitter.com/OfficialSPGBhttp://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/https://www.facebohttps://www.facebook.com/groups/779523775463252/http://www.meetup.com/The-Socialist-Party-of-Great-Britain/In fact what is your objection to NERB running an official party account with the sanction and agreement of the party?
