moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lindanesocialist wrote:Just to clarify, all warnings have been removed?
All warnings relating to Rule 1. have been removed. Rule 15. still applies.
moderator1 wrote:Sun, 20/11/2016 – 3:01am#12lindanesocialistOfflineJoined:28/03/2016Send PM ALB wrote: Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks. "He is not allowed to post through my account and he didn't open a second account. I have explalined this to on a number of occassions but you are obviously not listening. "A correction is in order here. If this is the case how do you explain #45 and 47 on the 'Suspension of Cde. V and L Maratty' thread for which I issued a 1st and 2nd warning for breaching Rule 8. ?Moderation noticeWill users please note I've removed the Off-topic # 6, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12, 13 and 15 to the 'Moderation suggestions' thread which is their correct thread. Consequently the warnings issued on the breaching of Rule 1. have been withdrawn.I apologies for any inconvienence this may have caused but despite me posting a reminder on Rule 1. posters ignored this and continued to post Off-topic.You are not making moderation any easier.
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 9:44am#13gnomeOfflineJoined:14/10/2011Send PM Well done, Moderator1. I too am withdrawing from the forum until such time as suitable personnel changes have been made to the Internet Committee and those 'entrusted' with 'laying down the law'.Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 3:01am#12lindanesocialistOfflineJoined:28/03/2016Send PM ALB wrote: Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks. He is not allowed to post through my account and he didn't open a second account. I have explalined this to on a number of occassions but you are obviously not listening. The wording of the EC resolution was so therefore they lift your suspension and you are invited to enjoin this does not require any action from the IC. Vin's account was blocked 10 months ago by the IC so he did not have an account. He opened an account with the sanction of the EC and he was blocked by a moderator as a 'sock puppet' account. By definition a sock puppet account requires two active accounts by one user to 'support' and talk to each other. As usual the IC distorted and used the rules to suit their purpose and to prevent Vin from posting.The account was a pseudonym to avoid continued persecution from the Internet committee. Many members including yourself, gnome and Robbo use pseudonyms. Like you he is entitled to anonimity.We are all off topic now but only I will be blocked by the Mods. Wonder why? Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 2:55am#11moderator1OnlineJoined:03/11/2013Send PM lindanesocialist wrote: robbo203 wrote: I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. As does the SPGB 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting and the SPGB November Executive Committee. Dear Vin, – Your Forum suspension – The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”) by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee. YFS, Oliver Bond Acting General Secretary The Internet Committee is acting in flagrant breach of party democracy and displaying disrespect and contempt of the decisions of the membership. Like a leadership it knows what is best for the rest of us. But this will be hidden and swept under the carpet because I will now be permanently banned from this forum as was Vin for expressing the same opinion. 3rd and final warning: Rule 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.This user will be inform by PM that a further breach of the rules will result in a further suspension.Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sat, 19/11/2016 – 10:55pm#8gnomeOfflineJoined:14/10/2011Send PM robbo203 wrote: The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary, Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd, even if I can understand the frustration behind it. I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated.Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades. Kiss and make up. This is just ridiculous falling out like this Spot on Robin, and the stifling of free speech by the moderators' constant and increasing interventions is merely fanning the flames. A classic case, sadly, if there ever was one, of power corrupting.Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sat, 19/11/2016 – 5:41pm#6robbo203OfflineJoined:06/11/2011Send PM The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary, Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd, even if I can understand the frustration behind it. I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades. Kiss and make up. This is just ridiculous falling out like this
lindanesocialist wrote:robbo203 wrote:I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated.As does the SPGB 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting and the SPGB November Executive Committee. Dear Vin, – Your Forum suspension – The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”) by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee. YFS, Oliver Bond Acting General Secretary The Internet Committee is acting in flagrant breach of party democracy and displaying disrespect and contempt of the decisions of the membership. Like a leadership it knows what is best for the rest of us. But this will be hidden and swept under the carpet because I will now be permanently banned from this forum as was Vin for expressing the same opinion.
3rd and final warning: Rule 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. 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.This user will be inform by PM that a further breach of the rules will result in a further suspension.
Reminder: Rule 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.15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Reminder: 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’).
lindanesocialist wrote:ALB wrote:yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.I would say that that amounts to the end of his third chance that the ADM delegates voted to give him and that the least messy way out of this would be for Vin fo follow Alan's example and withdraw completely from this forum.Vin saidIt seems Alan's tantrum is paying offAdamThis was not a sock puppet account. The Internet Committee have acted undemocratically and refused to take into account the recommendation of ADM and the EC. They have been constantly provocative. I could see they had no intention of allowing me back on the forum so opened up an account – which is my right . I opened ONE account. I did not have an existing account. My previous account was permanently blocked. Mackiavellian defies the definition of a sock puppet account. A sock puppet account requires TWO active accounts.The problem was criticism of the party. The IC will always find a rule to apply against me. I moved a resolution to have them removed for undemocratic behaviour and they have had it in for me ever since.TIMALL of my responses were effects of a cause, not saying they were correct but they were provoked. Are you saying that calling a member a little hitler should result in a permanent suspension. Is it any worse than telling someone to stick his head up a bears arse? Read Alan's very abusive comments about me , he also tells people to fuck off. You may say that you understand his frustration and forgive him. Shame he has to leave etcIf I am forced to leave this forum it has nothing to do with being abusive, it is because I criticised the party and the Internet Committee. Which some people seem to object to for some reason.That is blatant censorship. ADM and the EC knew Vin broke rules but believed that the suspension had been too long. Both of you were there. Do you think the party would go along with a permanent on-line ban of a party member? When you consider future democratic organisation will be online.Our democracy is beginning to look a sham. a committee has decided it knows better than an Annual Delegate Meeting and an Executive Committee. The membership makes the decisions not a self appointed leadership.As democrats we should be demanding the implimentation of our democrtically arrived at decisions. If you or anyone else do not like those decisions, we have democratic procedures to change them. Write to your branch, bring a chargeUntil then I would appreciate an account. as decided by the ADM and EC. And as I informed the EC I will work with rather than against the Internet Committee for the good of the movement. The past will be the past but it takes two sides to make an agreement. The next step is reinstatement.The first time I break that undertaking I will leave the forum and the party myself. In the meantime I have things and ideas I would like to be getting on with. I would love this to come to an end.
2nd Warning: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
lindanesocialist wrote:Vin said: I thank ADM and the EC for these very positive comments and hope we can move on. I look forward to the invitation from the Internet Committee to rejoin the forum and I hope I am allowed the same priveleges as other members vis a vis the right to use a pseudonym and maintain a degree of anonymity. Hopefully this will prevent me from being constantly under a microscope. – Your Forum suspension – The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”) by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee. – Your request to the EC to reconsider your nomination to the AV committee The EC considered your request and viewed your video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production during the EC meeting. I'm afraid that after due consideration the EC re-affirmed the rejection of your nomination to the Audio Visual Committee, but encouraged you to reapply for the forthcoming year (Motion 3 page 2 of November EC minutes)1st Warning: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:I also think that this dispute is a clear indication that the current rules are not functioning appropriately (which the Mods have openly agreed). It is to be regretted that the time taken up with this dispute and with point scoring on both sides, has meant less has been available to be used more productively and cooperatively creating a better set of rules Can I suggest a way forward would be for the Mods to reinstate Vin, as soon the EC minutes are published. For the Mods to issue a warning to Vin re the use of duel accounts. For Vin to accept this warning and undertake not to use a duel account again. For the "Machiavelli" account to be closed. For Vin to publicly withdraw the comments made on the Machiavelli account. For Vin to abide by the rules as they currently stand and thus we free up the Mods time to get on with amending the rules.The mods have never said or agreed the current rules are not functioning appropriately. There are concerns over the non-existence of an appropriate 'users guidelines'. Which we tried but failed to get included on the 'Please read menu' but we feel we can carry out our role within the current set of rules.If any party member is of the opinion that some of the rules need amending or altering I advise them to get their branch to itemise it for conference. For that is the only way the rules are going to get changed, or for that matter any users guidelines included..Has for your suggested way forward. May I point out that the mods do not enforce the rules by eliciting conditions for unblocking an account. That role can only be carried out by the EC. In the meantime the mods will continue to apply the rules.The IC are of the firm opinion that the way forward given the history is for the EC to reach a decision on how they see the way forward.
Interesting comment here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38000580Quote:There are those who argue that we would be better off outside the single market or that we should try to stay within the customs union, but I have yet to see anyone argue that it does not make any difference.
