[moderator1]

moderator1 wrote:

Sat, 22/10/2016 – 7:41pm#15Tim KilgallonOfflineJoined:17/11/2015Send PM Just out of interest, I know it's slightly off topic, but do warnings expire like driving licence points? I've had a few of those in my time. It would seem fair that posters can reduce their culpability by prolonged good behaviour.  

That very question is on the moderators agenda for discussion.

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

We're not supposed to feed trolls, Tim, but your approach might tempt him into getting a second warning. And then we only need a third and he's out.

The procedure for applying a suspension is usually: A reminder is posted; then a 1st, 2nd and 3rd warnings are issued; followed by a PM informing the user that a further breach of the rules will incur a suspension.  The period of the suspension, and whether or not it becomes an indefinite suspension, will be determined after the moderators have issued the suspension.Which means in practice before a user is suspended they go through 5 levels of actions by the moderators.  I emphasise this is the usual practice, however all moderators have the autonomy to bypass the reminders and directly issue a warning.  When this occurs the warning is discussed by all the moderators then: confirmed; or retracted; replaced with a reminder; or a suspension.In short, all warnings and suspensions are discussed then voted on for a majority decision by the moderators.

[moderator1]

mcolome1 wrote:

We do not need a computer to distribute leaflets,( we need a computer to design it,before they used mimeograph,)   it is done by hands, you have to walk to do that., and talk to the peoples, it is a very good physical exercises, in some places it was a good way to be killed by the police. Talking to the workers is more  effective than mailing them, that is the reason why the Jehovah Witness has been able to obtain so many memberThat police  was trained at a torturer place founded by the US in Panama known  as the School of the Americas( Like the Gestapo or the KGB ) , before Saddam Hussein and Bill Laden, or ISIS,  were considered as terrorists, the US government was already training terrorists in that school, they were not Muslim, they were Catholics, and the Vatican has signed Concordato with them Terrorists supporting terrorists Most of the Argentina, Chilean ( Augusto Pinochet, Johnny Abes  and Videla )  criminals were trained by them. More than 99.9 of the US citizens  do not know that, they think that the government has been blessed by Jehovah, and Jesus, the Indians were not blessed by god

1st 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.

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

You missed this one from our self-styled "UserExperienceResearchSpecialist":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/events-and-announcements/free-kittens#comment-35841

No I deleted the survey details from that post yesterday.  The link to the 'postcard' are still there but that's ok and so is the text.  

[moderator1]

DJP wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

This is not acceptable. This man is using the name of the Socialist Party of Great Britain for his own personal use, and running  a stupid survey on the SP thru Google. He says one things and later one say ssomething else. He is taking us as bunch of fool

I agree. I have no idea why this "questionnaire" has been composed or why the creator thought the need to do so, seeing as he clearly has not understood the WSM case for socialism. Is he trying to pitch for work?

Rather than issue several warnings due to the survey breaching Rule 3. the moderators decided to delete all the survey details from the main discussion sections on the forum.  However, in line with the principle of freedom of expression the survey was removed to the Off-topic section. The user has been made aware that all surveys require the moderators permission to appear on the forum.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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.

[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:

We already know what Vin said. Already pointed out by ALB and accepted.Where is the copy sent to the EC?

That is the email sent to the EC as requested by Vin.  I repeat its the original email from Vin and not a copy of the message posted here on the forum.  May I remind you the EC had requested the IC to forward all communications from Vin.I think an apology is in order.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Many suggestions have been made over the past few years to improve openess and democracy on  the forum and make it more 'communist'. None of the suggestions were taking seriously. 

I strongly disagree.  It may have passed your notice that due to measures I've taken the forum is much more open and democratic.  I refer you to the 'Moderation suggestion' thread for an example of this.  Curently the Internet Committee is discussing a 'Users guidelines' which if adopted will improve the democratic moderation of the forum.May I assure you that all suggestions to "improve the openess and democracy on the forum" is taken very seriously.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

ALB wrote:

Comrade Browne read this statement in full which he said was among papers before the EC:https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban#comment-33854

The statement in front of the EC and read out by Browne to the ADM was not sent by Vin. It was a joke posted on this forum, a 'chat room' . Whoever sent this as a statement from Vin to EC as an apology from Vin  owes Vin an explanation and a reason for doing so. It is scurrilous to say the least and has lead to an extension of Vin's suspension.Furthermore, the EC should not have accepted this statement, if it was not signed off by Vin or in an email from Vin.Vin sent a simple request to the EC to have his suspension lifted and was informed by the general secretary that his suspension was the responsibility of the forum moderators. No 'apology' was sent to the EC by Vin. 

—-Original Message—-From: vinmaratty@googlemail.comDate: 19/08/2016 0:30 To: "Alan Johnstone"<alanjjohnstone@yahoo.co.uk>Cc: "SPGB Internet Committee"<spgb.internet@worldsocialism.org>, "Brian Johnson"<gravediggers@talktalk.net>, "Stephen Davison"<punksnotdead83@talktalk.net>Subj: Re: Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum banCdes you have requested an 'act of contrition' Would the attached be acceptable to the EC or do you have something else in mind. If it is a little too close to the bone I can lie but that would be breaking one of the 10 commandments and possibly result in more acts of contritionOn 18 August 2016 at 02:19, <alanjjohnstone@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.  Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conduct Agreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)  Act of contrition: Please father  forgive me for I have sinned. It has been two months since my last confession List of sins since my last confession 1.      I have gone of topic more times than most but not all, see for example LBird (Venial Sin)2.      I have challenged moderator’s decision on more than one occasion. In future  will assume the divine right all moderators  and promise to never question their decisions  again , regardless of how ridiculous they seem (Venial Sin)3.      I apologies for referring to a moderator as ‘acting like a prick’ even though the evidence was overwhelming in my favour. He issued inappropriate and biased warnings and bans(Mortal Sin)4.      I will never again refer to a comrade as a ‘little Hitler’ even  if he or she does act in a petty dictatorial manner. (Mortal sin)  For my penance I will say six Hail Mary’s and six of the Lord’s Prayer and wear a hair shirt for three months.As per the Order of  St Benedict, I will maintain a complete silence for a period of one  Calendar Month

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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.

[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]

It appears Holacracy is another top down management structure, albeit with a form of goverance which filters feedback through a circle of roles where meetings are in reality brainstorming sessions so that roles are continually adjusted with the dynamics of changing circumstances. "Holacracy defines the organization as ”an entity that exists beyond the people, with its own purpose to enact and with work to do beyond just serving the people doing that work” (p. 148). This is also why Holacracy isn’t a governance process ”of the people, by the people, for the people”, but ”of the organization, through the people, for the purpose” (p. 34). Holacracy differentiates ”between the human community and the organizational entity” (p. 149)and between the ”role and soul” (pp. 42–46). To summarize, ”Holacracy’s systems and processes are about continually helping the organization find its own unique identity and structure to do its work in the world, while protecting it from human agendas, egos, and politics.” (p. 199). Still, the organization needs human beings to energize and enact all its roles."https://www.amazon.co.uk/Holacracy-Management-System-that-Redefines/dp/0241205859/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=8-2&qid=1425395875In a socialist society there will be  no differentiates ”between the human community and the organizational entity” (p. 149).  Indeed without the human community the organisation is a non-entity.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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.

[moderator1]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

is there a critique of how the new website compares to the old website on the basis of encourging or discouraging socialistic interactions in the community.  It still seems hierarchial in organization and has a class based structure with moderators existing as an elite class of people right?  in terms of informing actual users about communism by using it, how does this website work compared to other websites. . .  As a comparison here's a link to Holocracy, which is an Operating system for business that I judge more consistent with the practices of socialism. http://www.holacracy.org/constitutionIt's interesting to note that a lot of the phrases and ideas of communism are echoed in the holocracy constition.  The Holocracy system is designed to encourage communistic thinking by the practice of using it.  Is your website doing as well at encouraging communistic thinking and facilitating it as Holocarcy? 

---

on the plus side, I can see a lot of improvements, and keeping with my meta analysis here's a review of the video vs the current site.1) free association:  Does the new website offers more ways to associate with different topics and seems to offer more relevant associations first? yes  In principle everything is freely associated on the website and a person can go from any page to any other page.  But since the pages are hierarchial in organization and in the information architecture, the default and easiest mode of associating one article with another remains heirarchial.  information at the top of the hierarchy (top level links) are most easily associated with.  So there's some behavioral economics at work in both websites that enforce a "information class" based hierarchy of information.  Information is classified as top level or second level etc.  And the ideas of editors and contributors are likely ranked by the information class they're editing.  Who controls the top level class and do they contribute equally to bottom level classes? The effort, or behavioral economics effort, of associating with all information is not equal.2) Each according to their needs:does the new website better serve each member of the community according to their needs?  yesMost notibly it serves everyone better with more graphics and better information.  But the distribution of better has probably changed too.  this is kind of like that question about capitalism that might make everyone richer on average, but also increase income innequality.  Does the new website serve the needs of party leaders first and NOOB's second?  Or does it serve best the needs of established long term members best?  I can't really tell from the video for sure, but the inclusion of social media icons is promising in the new website. the facebook link shown in the video is nice because it gives users an alternative way of accessing information and one that's been highly refined to serve the needs of different types of users as best as possible.  the way information is accessed and used and contributed to on facebook seems communistic to me in a way that websites in general rarely achieve.  3)  Each according to their ability:Does the new website better facilitate each person according to their ability?  Probably.  It seems to me, based on the video, that this will improve the ability to contribute of all people as any general upgrade should. It's not at all clear to me how it will affect the ballance between different types of users.  It's using responsive design and seems to be an update to more modern web design and implementation practices which suggest it will be more egalitarian.  the principles of modern web design have progressed from being exectutive driven where some CEO tells the chain of command how the site should work and towards crowdsourcing where website usage studies are done to decide how the site should work.  There once was a time when a CEO chose the top level menu names, but today, it's usually done by user research. this has eliminated a lot of bad menu structures for the users that served the CEO's vested interest.  I'd suggest that any website using the more modern design practices and principles for it's creation is on average much better at supporting communistic type interactions because that's been the trend in the industry.  The question remains as to the balance between power user contributors who are a class of users that use the site frequent, and NOOB users who are a class of users that are new to the website.  Also class distinctions between general computer savvy and social media savy users need to be considered for equity in a formal review and critique.in conclusion. . . This looks like a welcome upgrade.  Consider implementing Holocarcy for the next generation revision in the future.  Start making a list and discusing the new vs old.  Maybe run them side by side for a while?  Maybe run a test Holocracy site for evaluation?  Consider creating a communism centric user experience review format and form for surveying your users (a google form would be quick and easy and open and communistic). 

The good news is the moderators have been aware for quite a long time of the concerns you have outlined here. Just a few points.  There are no leaders on this web site.  The moderators do not enforce the rules we apply them. Currently, a set of users guidelines are under consideration by the Internet Committee which will formalise the current interaction between the moderators and users and enable improvements via a process.  The theory of Direct Participatory Democracy or Direct Delegated Democracy is in practice by the SPGB. Nevertheless, unlike a public meeting where democracy is face on and transparent to implement DPD on the internet is proving to be a bit more difficult.  However, as you can tell from some of the postings some users here are on a learning curve in this respect.  And we welcome your input on this.The moderators will be looking at Holacracy to see if they may have some solutions to making this site an example of democracy in practice on the internet.

[Author]

Posts