[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Agreement at last…

I hope you are holding your breath.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Bob, I can't say that I blame you for your obsession with me,  I am a hard act to follow.I have a  University degree and studied at  Durham University.  I am singer in a rock band with an illustrious solo career behind me; I have held executive posts ;  I am famous in the north east for my unusual good looks and to top it all I am the most well known SPGB ‘rOh almost forgot I am working on the party’s first introductory video with my fat but strangely good looking Magpie friend.It’s  not surprising that I have  many bitter jealous stalkers like yourself. It is a burdon I bear.Now what about you?  You are afraid to show us who you really are. Don't be bitter like the others in the Socialist Studies group. Get yourself a life

And that is how you turn a negative into a positive.  Which is reason enough to lock this thread.

[moderator1]

Not sure whether or not this link has been posted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZxkHIdfOIg

[moderator1]

Reminder: 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.4. Do not use the forum to send any material that you know or should know would expose the SPGB to criminal or civil liability. This includes but is not limited to material which constitutes libel, harassment, or violation of copyright. You may, of course, quote portions of third-party publications for ‘fair dealing’ purposes such as criticism or review.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.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 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.

Just for clariification, which post is this referring to?

Reminders are not issued to any post in particular, but in line with good practice they are posted to inform all posters that if this particular rule is breached on this thread I will be issuing a warning in response to the breach.  

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account 

 That is a lie. I have never held more than one account. Move on. 

That is not a lie.  And I intend to move on by not replying to any more of your questions.  You know the process for making an official complaint.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Because you used a sock puppet account and Bob Andrews account is not a sock puppet.  And therefore he is not breaking the rules, but you did.  

I am not asking if I broke the rules in the past.You are not answering the question. Does the IP address of 'Bob Andrews' match the IP address of any other user?If you have not checked this, then how can you say he is not a 'sock puppet' account? By your own admission you don't know nor care who he is.

According to Admin the IP address of Bob Andrews does not match the IP address of another user.  Therefore, its not a sock puppet account.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

No I can not publish his IP address.  That information is with Admin just contact them.

But you published MY IP address. Why publish mine and not 'bob andrews'?So you were not really sure when you said you knew 'bob andrews' was NOT a sock puppet account? It may be and it may not be. 

Because you used a sock puppet account and Bob Andrews account is not a sock puppet.  And therefore he is not breaking the rules, but you did.  

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account 

So admin have checked that his IP address does not correspond to the IP address of any other member? If so can you publish this information  as you published mine and cde Linda Maratty's? If not, why not?

No I can not publish his IP address.  That information is with Admin just contact them.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

TimSome time ago I expressed concern to moderation that 'bob andrews' was a 'sock puppet' account set up to provoke me and requested that admin use the same expertise on him that they used to discover my alleged 'sockpuppet' account. I was assured that this had been checked.  Mod2 resigned when I accused moderation of bullshitting. Lo and behold! But now mod1 informs me that he neither knows nor cares who 'bob andrews' is. Haddyway n shite man

Bob Andrews is not using a sock puppet account but like many other users here he may well be using a pseudonym for whatever reason.  So far has I'm concerned he's just another user and his real identity is immaterial to my moderation role. 

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Could mods deal with abusive trolls and spammers BEFORE other members are forced to respond??? 

This is part and parcel of good practice which I do has a matter of course.  Perhaps you have failed to notice but several spammers had their posts deleted and their accounts blocked in the last couple of months. Abusive trolls are always issued warnings and when necessary issued with an indefinite suspension.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

 Agreed but to be fair, Vin, the thread on Fresco which I set up was seriously derailed and some of the posts there should not have come under " general discussion"  at all  but rather the "website/technical" category. I think that was fairly obviously the reason for the Moderator locking the thread but yes perhaps a formal explanation might be appropriate when a thread is locked as you suggest.  I am not a big fan of the off topic rule as you might know but I think while the rule exists, the Mod was carrying out his functions as per the rules….

I have to respectfully disagree. He ignored attacks, trolling and off topic posts by LBird, 'Bob Andrews' and many others. I could have respected him if he had acted earlier. He only jumped into action when I responded, which will result in a party member being suspended for the next year while trolls and adverts run free. There is no democratic control of these online meetings.A chairperson is for ONE meeting,  a moderator is for life and cannot be questioned or removed. He has the power and he has used it –  to silence any opposition to his 'moderation'. It is an embarrasment to our movement and cannot continue. We need a party wide discussion on this.Bob andrews is allowed to attack me behind his pseudonym. Why? I am not allowed a psuedonym. Why? Who is protecting 'Bob'  and why? Can you explain why he has been abusive to me, gone offtopic and broken many other rules yet received NO moderation??Are we not a party of equals? Or are some more equal than others?But then 'Bob Andrews' is not a party member. He was expelled along with others for gross undemocratic behaviour

If there's an issue with moderation you are fully aware what the procedure is.  PM me with a complaint and I'll pass it on to the I.C.  no problem.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Vin wrote:

Could I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

?

The reason why threads are locked are for one reason only – that is the thread has run its course on the OP and diverted from the subject in its entirety.  It does not prevent any user from answering an accusation on a thread specifically set up for that purpose.  However, I would advise any accusations on moderation issues be dealt with on the 'Moderation suggestion' thread.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Moderator As I have done no different  compared to many other members I do not understand this warning.  Other members have done exactly the same but received no warnings? Many members break the rules as I have already pointed out. They go off topic to abuse me and they speak directly to me instead of a PM. They request clarification from admin and mod. Are you suggesting that in order to avoid suspension I need to act differently? 

You are well aware of how the Off-topic rule works in practice and the reasons why it was relaxed.  You are complaining about users not using the PM facility yet you have persistently not taken advantage of it by sending me a PM.  Yes many users have breached the rules which is only to be expected.  However, the present protocol of moderation is to issue a reminder and then issue a warning when the rules are breached.Yes I've always suggested that in order to avoid suspension you need to act differently.  So nothing has changed in that respect.  I further advise you that if wish to continue this conversation you either PM me or conduct it on the 'Moderation suggestion' thread.This thread will be locked shortly.

[Author]

Posts