[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Pleased to confirm that the authority for the IC to manage this twitter account on behalf of the World Socialist Movement came from the EC.But surely you have been aware that has never been an issue?  Indeed I'm perplexed on your query and fail to see how it bears any relation to Vin's suspension.  Clarification would be much appreciated if by chance it adds to the learning curve I've mentioned previously.

Thanks for that clarification Mod. You dont happen to have the EC resolution appertaining to it? I very much appreciate you patience but I have not been involved in this issue as long and as much as mostThankyou in an advance

Sorry not having access to the Yahoo files I'm unable to oblige with your request for the EC resolution.  Seeing that Vin has an account with Yahoo its no problem for him to find the information you require.  Or failing that email HO.Nevertheless, I note you are somewhat hesitant on joining the 'learning curve' by not divulging the reasons for this query and explaining how it relates to Vin's suspension?

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Just for clarification. Does this account speak on behalf of the world socialist movement?And in anticipation of a 'yes';  by who's authority? https://twitter.com/WorldSocialism Thakyou in advance, comrades 

Pleased to confirm that the authority for the IC to manage this twitter account on behalf of the World Socialist Movement came from the EC.But surely you have been aware that has never been an issue?  Indeed I'm perplexed on your query and fail to see how it bears any relation to Vin's suspension.  Clarification would be much appreciated if by chance it adds to the learning curve I've mentioned previously.

[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]

Mon, 25/04/2016 – 9:32pm#43lindanesocialistOnlineJoined:28/03/2016Send PM May I remind members of Vin's last 'outburst of abuse and disruption' Vin wrote:Thanks for the confirmation of my assertion Mod1 (member of the Internet Committee) 1st Warning: 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.Vin wrote:I am sure you are under pressure from committee but chill out and leave fun alone. Revolution will be fun or we wouldn't bother.People will turn away from boring strict bookworms and be drawn to positive things. Very early materialism I know but still intuitiveWhy remove jokes?2nd Warning: 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.TopVin wrote:Brian Whywould you give a comrade a warning for that.? 3rd and final warning: 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]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 2. The Moderators return to Cde Marratty his right to use the electronic systems of the Party on the understanding that he accepts the Mods' role is to moderate the forum and that if he has any disputes with the Mods that he uses the appropriate PM system to discuss these, if they arise, and that Cde Marratty agrees to consider his use of langauge and not to engage in personal attacks on any other forum member.

This suggests that cde Vin Maratty is to blame.  He maybe at fault but he's not to blame! As you well know Tim an apology goes a long way.  But when that apology lacks an explanation its meaningless.  In my experience its the explanation which actually counts for it provides that essential reflection on how, when and where and thereby reassures all parties the lessons have been learnt and absorbed so that the relationship – in the future – is more fulfilling, enjoyable and interesting.In effect the explanation and reflection means all parties have acknowledged they are on a learning curve and have a direct interest to ensure that learning curve continues to the benefit of all participants.  In short they are not part of the blame game and scrutinise all possible reasons why what happened did happen.This scrutiny includes: structure; guidelines and rules; protocols and procedures; standards; communications and competence.  And if its found that there's a fail in any of these factors all parties work as a team to ensure mechanisms are put in place so there is no re-occurrence of past failings.This is what occurred three years ago and since then I've taken every opportunity to engage with users to improve the role of moderation.  Hence the introduction of: Reminders; a specific thread on 'Moderation suggestions'; a sensitive approach to 'Off-topic' discussions; and to only issue a suspension once the 3rd and final warning has failed.Whatever the outcome of this latest upsetting disturbance I intend to keep going along this path despite the possibility it may well lead to challenges between the IC and myself when the time comes to review the guidelines and rules.  But like I've mentioned previously I love challenges because it means I'm firmly focused on that essential learning curve.However to complete that essential learning curve all participants must acknowledge that although the present structure; guidelines and rules; protocols and procedures; standards; communications; and competence are experiencing faults and are in need of improvement that improvement can only come about by working with them. Albeit for now, so the scrutiny is completed to everybodies satisfaction. This unity of purpose and a common understanding of the task ahead will ensure the essential learning curve and improvements continues.Its when a participant deliberately disregards these factors of conduct outlined above, that our focus on the essentials starts to wander and we tend to point the finger in the direction where nobody learns anything of substance.   

[moderator1]

imposs1904 wrote:

Interesting article by a Labour Lord – Fred Montague – who quit the Labour whip because of its reformism, that was reprinted in the February 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard:Link: Why I Quit

Wrong link.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Linda,You don't seem capable of grasping that the IC don't do requests. They report to the EC, so I guess once the EC get the report it's open for the public, on request from HO.Like I said Steve contacted HO for the report. I've no doubt if he'd contacted the IC his request would have been turned down also.

Its been standard procedure and in line with good practice that all requests for information dealing with current EC business and which is not yet in the public domain go through HO.  HO can only divulge this information once its been discussed by the EC.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 5. Do not use the forum to send any material or links to material that you know or should know contains or exposes readers to malware, computer viruses, trojans, and so forth.

[moderator1]

Panic over.  Message from admin:  It would be premature to think that the cause of this is a virus. Either way there is no threat to the forum or people using it from this, it is just a link to a non existing index point on the page. Nothing will happen if people will click on it.

[moderator1]

Yes its on your computer.  I have no idea on its origination.  Best do a thorough scan.  I suspect its a phishing virus, but not sure.

[moderator1]

A further virus has appeared on the NERB section on the Meeting Agenda thread.  Don't click on it.

[moderator1]

There's absolutely a huge amount of information on here in the Publications and archives.  I also suggest have a read of: The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics, and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party. David A. Perrin, ISBN 1-872424-80-5.Also have a read in the dropdown menu above on 'What makes us different'.  Finally, myself I would deconstruct the meaning behind "proggresive".  For leftist it means reformism and not revolution and consequently its rendered meaningless.  Which is the reason why we don't use the term.Hope this helps and all the best.  If you require further advice or information we are always available.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Where in your terms of reference are you allowed to keep party documunts from the public domain?All party meetings and documentation are freely open to the public on request.I request a copy of the IC document referring to the suspension of Cde Vin Maratty. 

Please direct your request to the EC who will deal with it at its next meeting.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

The document should be available from a request from any member of the public. The IC are in contevention yet again, of our basic priciples. Vin has been refused a copy by the Internet Committee

The IC are a sub-committee of the EC and as such we have to abide by our Terms of Reference which stipulate we report to the EC.  With the report now in the hands of the EC its down to them to consider all requests for it to be released to the public domain – not the IC.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Nothing on my computer Linda, that doesn't mean to say that it isnt something on the forum

The virus is on the 'Party Forum Fiasco' thread #30.  It looks like its been blocked but I'll get it checked out.

[Author]

Posts