[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Well cdes mod1, mod2 and mod3,  what do you do now? Adam Gnome and Tim have done what Vin is suspended for. Do you act?  or ignore?  

1st Warning: 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.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

Mod 1, I object strongly to your saying that the postings I have made are in any way undemocratic and I politely ask for you to withdraw them and apologise. I think that you have made a completely uncomradely remark.Not only that, you are factually incorrect. I have made no suggestions, I have merely asked two questions. I am surprised that you do not know the difference between a question and a suggestion. I would also ask you (this is a question by the way, just in case you get a littel confused) how can a question be undemocratic?

It appears an apology is in order due to a failing on my part to realise that Tim was raising a question and not making a suggestion that I alone partake in an undemocratic decision making process.  May I assure posters that the mods make collective decisions on the moderation of the forum.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.

This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC.  I've no idea how long that will take.

As part of a process of consultation with SPGB members, will you be posting the guidelines for comment/feedback before sending them to the EC?

That decision is not mine to make and neither is it for the IC to make.  We have to report firstly to the EC under Standing Orders and party rules.  However, I can assure you that the guidelines are purposedly designed to engage with constant comment, complaints, feedback, etc; in a positive fashion.  And as such can be amended, altered and are subject to change as and when needed.  And for all we know that process of Direct Participatory Democracy could start on the day when they are published?  But like I've mentioned previously we are some months away before their are posted for your thorough assessment and application of a perculiar kind of critical thinking.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.

This particular objection will not arise once the draft guidelines are accepted by the IC and the EC.  I've no idea how long that will take.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

 to request that the EC over-rule the moderators.

This is news. I was under the impression that the EC had banned Vin and the Mods hands were tiedSo the existing 3 moderators  have the authority to reinstate Vin but refuse to unless their hand is forced by the EC?So what is it.?Mods refusing or EC refusing?

Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 If indeed Vin has made an apology it would be appreciated if you could PM the moderators with the evidence.

 Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum ban#21 Tim Kilgallon wrote:On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.Vin said:Remove the word very and I will support every word. But then I have admitted all this in the past.  And have been left humiliated There is more but this is probably the latest  

Thank you for such an early response.  I strongly advise Vin to inform the EC that he wishes to make an appeal to have his indefinite suspension lifted on the grounds of the above statement.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

I cannot understand why anyone would chose to spend valuable time policing and preventing a member from actively promoting socialism and the party Most of Vin's 'breaches' were petty and he has overly apologised, yet the IC and EC persist in attempting to stamp out his initiatives and  activities and forcing him away from the party. I am amazed that the new mods have continued with this fiasco

If indeed Vin has made an apology it would be appreciated if you could PM the moderators with the evidence.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?

It would have been better for further discussion if this part of the message had been posted on the Website/Technical section.  I shall duplicate this particular post and post it on the Website/Technical section under the title of 'Amendment of Rule 8.'.  

[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’). 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]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

This being the case would you care to retract the allegation of bias and prejudice?

 To suggest you may be a little overzealous in you moderation with a member because of 'previous association' is no reflection on your inegrity of which I do not doubt, only to suggest that perhaps now that there are other mods available to remove unwanted posts perhaps you could take that well deserved break

Thanks, but no thanks!Fortunately, as you well know there's no pause or break in the class struggle.  Indeed, those who know me are well aware that I find pursuit of the class struggle enjoyable and interesting.  Therefore, I see no reason to take a break from a challenge I actually thrive on.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Mod 1 in no way do I question you integrity but it appears that you removed my posts at around 9.30pm but at around 10.30pm in a PM to me  MOD3 apparently had no knowledge of this removal, I have yet to here from Mod2. Do you have a copy of the emails in which the 3 mods agreed to remove the posts.?I am sure there is a simple explanation and in no way do I doubt your claim but just for clarity I would appreciate an explanation for this anomaly

The 3 mods do not need to agree to remove posts just a majority.  All mods are emailed for their views before any action is taken.  However, if for some reason their response is delayed any mod can take a relatively minor action on their own initative i.e. deletion of duplicate posts, posting reminders or removal posts to another section.  Not all mods are available at any one time neither can we cover the site 24/7. Therefore, in respect of minor issues actions are consensual. No such minor action is cast in stone due to its consensual nature and can at a later date be rectified if a complaint is made and the mods agree its valid.A full consultation, on the other hand, only takes place when one of us are of the opinion that a warning or suspension needs to be issued.  And if a majority agree such action is necessary a warning or suspension is issued.  If you think this particular issue warrants a complaint please use the PM function.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 If another moderator was available they would have taken the same action.  All such actions are agreed by a majority of the moderators. 

 If another mod is not available then how did you come to a majority decision? 

Another mod was not available to carry out the action.  The majority decision was reached by email.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

Suggestion: Mod 1 would step aside. He is the only Mod continually sending posts from myself to offtopic. He is clearly bias and prejudice

 If another moderator was available they would have taken the same action.  All such actions are agreed by a majority of the moderators.This being the case would you care to retract the allegation of bias and prejudice?

Is this thread for moderation suggestions? If so then I am making a moderation suggestion

You are making a suggestion based on a false allegation which has no validity.  If you wish to make a complaint on the action I've taken please PM all the moderators.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Could I suggest that when posts are removed the mod gives notification and explanation?  

Rule 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.

[Author]

Posts