[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 Ok, thanks that clarifies things somewhat. 1) So what does it take to get moderator permission. because they just ignored my requests.  2) Who determines if somethign is relevant to SPGB and socialism?  Can I talk to the judge who is not a special class of persons.  Or maybe I need to write to the person who appointed that judge?  can I review and upvote or downvote that judge or petition for a different judge? Can I look at the judges ruling history and upvote or downvote my agreement with the judges ruling?  or is that not allowed for someone of my standing to judge somoeone of a moderators standing. Or is it allowed, but not supported, so technically, I can comment on a persons judgment but there's no place I could actually find the judgement history and no there's no way for me to comment on my approval or dissaproval?  (is it technically allowed, but practically impossible for me to do what I'm asking to do here because I do not possess the means and ability. if so can you give me a link to the right discussion location which seems to be the means required for producing an acceptable discussion of these questions ) Can you give me a link on where to discuss this if this is the wrong place for the question? 3) How do you distinguish between a survey question and just a question?  I assume it's allowed to ask any questions I feel are relevant to socialism here and ask for a reply.  I assume I can ask 3 questions here and ask for a reply from anyone who reads it and wants to reply.  I guess I've been calling that a survey.  What do you call it? 

1. To get the mods permission the survey must be relevant to the socialist case.  The mods have not received a request from you to conduct a survey on the forum.2. The mods determine what's relevant to socialism on the forum.  When you join the forum you agree to abide by the guidelines and rules.  You are free to comment on the rules in this thread or set up a thread on a specific rule you wish to comment on.  All moderators are appointed by the Executive Committee and the record of actions taken by the moderators are all here on the forum and part of the historical record.All users can complain about the mods decisions by PM, however do not post any complaints on the forum.  The rest of your questions are more rambles than questions3. A question is a question whether its in the form of a survey or a query.  You are allowed to ask any number of questions here which is relevant to socialism and request a reply on this fora.  You are not allowed to post "a survey" on the forum without the mods permission.

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I could spend some time making a survey that's easier to use and reaches a conclusion faster with less people minutes spent arguing and being surveyed. But I think surveys have been prohibited so that's a policy and and forum law that's imposed on the members without their consent. 

You are wrong in thinking surveys have been prohibited and that's the party policy or that its a "forum law that's imposed on the members without their consent".  This clear assertion is based on a pure assumption, followed by a false conclusion.The truth is the party have had several surveys over the years, but the fact of the matter is we run a yearly survey under the heading of, 'Conference voting paper' where the full membership of the party have an opportunity to agree or disagree on the various issues and problems of class struggle.What this means in practice is the party membership can as a whole conduct and organise its own surveys.  On the other hand, socialists welcome members of the working class conducting their own survey on socialist issues of the day.  But having said that, you will find that socialists are not keen on the presumption that we are willing participants in any such projects, when they obviously reflect little understanding on the socialist case.

I have asked to post surveys in my discussion comments and been stonewalled by moderators who simply ignore my request.  So not really a pure assumption on my part and I'm still not sure of the conclusion.  It sounds to me like only a priveledged class of people can post surveys here on your board.  How do I become part of the priviledged class?  It seems like your saying I can post a link to surveys but you expect everyone will ignore it.  Am I understanding you correctly? 

There's no priviliged class on the forum, however all users need to seek permission from the mods for surveys under Rule 3. Do not use the forums to send spam, advertisements, charitable appeals, solicitations, or other messages primarily intended to promote a particular product, service, campaign, website, organisation, venture, or event, unless it is relevant to the SPGB or its companion parties, without first obtaining permission from the moderators.Your posting are primarily about conducting a survey which you are assuming "is relevant to the SPGB".  I suspect you are finding that socialist are ignoring your links to the survey because in their opinion they are not relevant to the socialist case. Although you are seeking willing participants you are not actually conducting a survey on the forum.  If however, you start posting survey questions without seeking the mods permission you will be breaching the rules and be issued a warning.

[moderator1]

Reminder: Rule 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]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

 I could spend some time making a survey that's easier to use and reaches a conclusion faster with less people minutes spent arguing and being surveyed. But I think surveys have been prohibited so that's a policy and and forum law that's imposed on the members without their consent. 

You are wrong in thinking surveys have been prohibited and that's the party policy or that its a "forum law that's imposed on the members without their consent".  This clear assertion is based on a pure assumption, followed by a false conclusion.The truth is the party have had several surveys over the years, but the fact of the matter is we run a yearly survey under the heading of, 'Conference voting paper' where the full membership of the party have an opportunity to agree or disagree on the various issues and problems of class struggle.What this means in practice is the party membership can as a whole conduct and organise its own surveys.  On the other hand, socialists welcome members of the working class conducting their own survey on socialist issues of the day.  But having said that, you will find that socialists are not keen on the presumption that we are willing participants in any such projects, when they obviously reflect little understanding on the socialist case.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[moderator1]

Thu, 24/11/2016 – 9:41pm#39JamesH81OnlineJoined:07/12/2014Send PM  spgb policy on trade unions is unique…. and just read a online swp pdf version on trade unions and could notice the difference…. Topreport editdeletequotereply

[moderator1]

Reminders: Rule 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). 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]

DJP wrote:

I think the purpose of the "off-topic" rule is not to make the forum into an equivalent of the word association game "just a minute", but to enable a means of preventing individuals and groups from turning every post into one about their pet topic, gripe or obsession. It's one thing for conversation to naturally progress, it's another to continually force the same topic upon people.

Good point but a tricky one to moderate, has we are finding with the LBird conversations on idealism-materialism.  Especially when users other than LBird introduce a topic which is clearly inducing him to make a comment, albeit from another angle.  So who is actually forcing who?On the other hand when LBird pushes in on a topic, which is clearly a deliberate attempt to derail the topic, he's allowed only one bite at the cherry and all further responses by him are moved to the Off-topic section.If mods where to enforce the rules on the LBird conversation the solution is to simply delete all such posts or titles and possibly be accused of being censors.  On the other hand by applying the rules, despite the repitious conversation it does allow users like robbo to introduce new material which can be slightly Off-topic but nevertheless stay within the topic of the main title, i.e. idealism-materialism but from a different angle.

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

I think the point is Mod1 we have a fundamental difference of opinion about what the purpose of a thread is or should be. .. I see the title of a thread as indicating only the starting point of a conversation that can lead to all sorts of unexpected twists and turnings and new terrains of thinking.  To me, the concept of "derailing a thread" is meaningless – or should be –  because it it implies the direction of the debate should mechanically go along fixed tramlines regradless whereas  in real life conversations don't  develop like that.  We are grasshoppers by nature! One thought can lead to another and then another until eventually we are talking about something that is wholly unrelated to the original thought.  That is what I am sating the forum should be more like You however see the title of a thread more as a kind of straitjacket that serves to restrict the discussion in the thread along certain lines through the duration of the life of the thread  –  though admittedly you want to loosen this straitjacket  a little. I don't think this is helpful to you guys as hardworking Mods or beneficial to the  forum in general.  I would seriously urge you to rethink your approach and think of the title of the thread as a merely a kind of opening gambit.  There is certain logic in the way a thread progresses, moving away from the contents of the original post.  Its not just random.  And I think if you start imposing cut off points where posts come to be considered to be "off topic" you lose a lot of the richness of the argument that comes with just letting things flow naturally and take their course

You may not have noticed but we do allow Off-topic discussion within a thread.  Quite a lot in fact. Indeed, our guidelines advise this non-action.  The title of the thread does not serve as a straitjacket but a guide on the conversation.  There's more than sufficient scope on the forum for any of your "grasshopper" conversations to take place.The logic of your argument is we would end up with only one title and only one section.  Unlike grasshoppers we choose to categorise our subject matter.What we can not allow is deliberate Off-topic posts which intend to derail the subject of the title.  You seem to be of the opinion this will alleviate us "hardworking Mods", I only wish that would be so.

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Hmm.  Massive claim to make imo.  "This will help to significantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?

 Well yes I have been active in fora where the off topic rule is not enforced.  The  tendency is for members to stick to the topic themselves in most cases even if they sometimes wander off topic.  My point is that it does not really matter if they wander off topic.  People who feel disgruntled about it being off topic will often start up threads to steer the conversation in the direction they want, I think this is worth considering Mod1 for 2 reasons1) some of the most interesting and significant debates are those that tend to veer off topic.  Sometimes debates should not be straitjacketed by some artificially imposed limits2) It significantly reduces the scope for tensions to arise between members and moderators over moderator decisions, and allows Mods to focus on the things that really matter such as trolling and flaming which spoil the atmosphere of the forum and generally reduces the workload of the mods themselves I thinks this suggeston is worth considering , guys, even if only for a while as an experiment to see what happens….

Thanks for that but this "evidence" relates 'to fora which are not enforcing the Off-topic rule.  Your original suggestion was to abolish the Off-topic rule.  As for your claim ".. … that it does not really matter if they wander off-topic".  I strongly disagree.For instance, this very conversation originated on the 'Moderation warning' thread which you started.  Although I issued a reminder it was Off-topic this was ignored and I had to issue warnings to stop the conversation derailing the thread until I had the opportunity to remove all the Off-topic posts to this thread.Now just imagine it I had ignored the Off-topic rule and just let this particular conversation continue on the 'Moderation warning' thread?  The thread title would be directing users to a conversation on warnings yet they would be reading a conversation on abolishing the Off-topic rule which was clearly Off-topic.It may have passed your notice but rather than rigidly enforce the rules the moderators approach is to apply the rules.  In regards to Off-topic discussions this entails:1. Initially allow Off-topic discussion to continue if it is not a deliberate attempt to derail the topic.2. Deliberate attempts to derail the topic are removed either to a) A proper thread title. b) The Off-topic section. c) Or the user is requested by PM to start a new thread. 3. If after taking this action there are still deliberate attempts to derail the topic we issue a warning.4.  If the conversation is not a deliberate attempt to derail the topic e.g. your original posting on the 'Moderators warning' thread; we'll remove the postings to a proper thread title.In effect this approach of applying the rules means deliberate Off-topic posts are only issued warnings as a last resort.  And this is entirely in line with the fora which you suggest is "evidence" for not applying the Off-topic rule.

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.

 Thats good to hear.  Personally I think the off-topic rule should be scrapped and debates should be allowed to develop organically,  Individuals are  always at liberty to start new threads if they want to steer the conversation closer to what interests them,  This will help to significantly  reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will  find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent

Hmm.  Massive claim to make imo.  "This will help to signicicantly reduce tensions arising over moderation and I think you will find in any case members of the forum coming to moderate themselves to a greater extent".Have you happened to come across some evidence to back up such a claim?

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

I think the Socialist Party or the moderators of this forum should give to Vin the opportunity to  present his own side of the story.This forum has too many bureaucratic rules, and it is not a very flexible forum.Frankly, I feel that I have more freedom at the WSM forum than in this one.  Like Robbo said. We should adapts rules to the peoples.Simple rules make things easier

Vin has been requested on several occasions "to present his side of the story".  He has however disinclined "to present his side of the story" because that would involve producing evidence which confirms "his side of the story".  Therefore, it must be assumed his repeated assertions, allegations and accusations have no foundation or justification.Whether or not the forum "has too many bureaucratic rules" is a matter of opinion.  Nevertheless, all the rules of the forum can be changed or abandoned if the party membership so wish.  However, those who support amending the rules have failed to produce any alternatives.  Until they do everything stays the same.In regards to the opinionated accusation that the forum "is not very flexible" I beg to differ.  In the last three years, mainly due to the introduction of this particular thread and others like it, a more flexible approach to moderation has taken place.  For instance, previously only warnings and indefinite suspensions were issued.  Now with a transparent process of moderation in place there's a step by step approach for applying the rules.Firstly, when the rules are being continually breached the mods do not issue a warning but a 'Reminder' quoting the rule breached. Warnings now only get issued when: 1. The reminder is ignored; 2. Or when user has breached the same rule on a previous occasion. Secondly, we now have 1st, 2nd and a 3rd final warning with a suspension only being issued after the 3rd and final warning has been breached.  Thirdly, when posters have deliberately gone Off-topic rather than issue a warning the moderators have removed the posts to another thread. Fourthly, besides a issuing a reminder we also PM users requesting them to desist from breaching the rules. Finally, we are now withdrawing warnings when its felt they were inapproapriate and unacceptable to best practice. In effect, the rules are being adapted to the users either directly or indirectly.The mods make no secret that any suggestions on a more flexible approach to moderation are always welcome.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

I posted them. I have  posted  comments for him, if that's what you mean. Like Robbo, the SPGB ADM and the SPGB Executive Committee I oppose indefinite suspensions and  I believe he should be allowed to speak on the forum and be treated as an equal.Despite the fact that you have been instructed by the EC to allow him to speak on the forum you issued warnings when I allowed him to speak. Your actions are  grossly undemocratic.. It also seems like you have been fiddling around with the forum again. I am unable use 'quote'  

What I mean is you have posted 'Vin said' comments and ignored Rule 8. on the posting of such messages by not seeking permission to post them.  I'm unable to "fiddle around" with any of the function boxes.  Try again.

[Author]

Posts