[moderator1]

northern light wrote:

I appologise for the off-topic, but is there something wrong with the Forum? On post #29 following the words,"computer programming," there is a green part circle with an accompanying green arrow. Anyone else seeing this?

Its #30 actually.  Its a virus and apparently its been blocked.

[moderator1]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

There is a real question as to whether a member can be permantly banned from online party fora.  Members here have experessed disagreement with placing members under moderation (which I do favour, and believe the EC or Moderators could do) since that allows members to express themselves still.  But, realistically, if we're saying, as we would be wwere a member to be excluded from a party forum, that they cannot behave themselves sufficiently to do so, then really we should eb expelling that person from the party outright, not creating a second class member.If so, as per recent party discussions, the matter should be referred to the member's branch, and not the EC, per rule 29.

Rule 29 wrote:

29. Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused who shall be allowed 14 days to enter the defence.

if the branch declines to act, there may be a case for enacting rule 31

rule 31 wrote:

The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.

  A permanent ban (or even a sustained ban) is a different kettle of fish to a temporary "go calm yourself down" ban.

Problem is that the IC, or any other sub-committee of the EC, cannot under the rules make charges against a member.  Individual members – from any Branch can make a case – under Rule 29  and forward the charge to the Branch for them to deal with but not a sub-committee.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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:

The reason why this matter is in front of the EC is because we have to inform the EC, and provide the reasons why, we have turned down the appeal to an indefinite suspension.

There hasn't been an appeal. 

The facts are: Yes cde Maratty made an appeal against his indefinite suspension on the party forums to the IC.  This appeal was turned down and a report on the issue sent to the EC.  No appeal has been made by cde Maratty to the EC. The EC defered the issue to its May meeting.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

The evidence is available on all party forums to anyone who wants to read it

It certainly is, which is why I am surprised the IC wishes to take the matter to the EC. No socialism without free speech

The reason why this matter is in front of the EC is because we have to inform the EC, and provide the reasons why, we have turned down the appeal to an indefinite suspension.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

While I am on the subject. How long do you intend to ban Comrade Vin Maratty from all party forums without giving clear evidence of why you are doing it and by clear evidence I do not mean assertions and accusations ??Is evidence not required any more in the party? Or are just mumbles and lies sufficient?Socialists still require evidence?Or is it 'disruptive' to question?  

The evidence is available on all party forums to anyone who wants to read it and decide for themselves whether cde Vince Maraty breached the guidelines and rules.  The length of the indefinite suspension will depend on how long the EC takes to reach a decision based on the IC report now in front of them.  The EC has yet have not received any correspondence from cde Maratty on this matter.  The EC have defered this matter to the May meeting and if cde Maratty has not put his side of the case by then they may well request that he does so.  Which in effect means the indefinite suspension will still stand till at least the EC June meeting.May I point out cde Maratty has not made any appeal to the EC which presumes he's abiding by the decision reached by the IC.

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.

This in fact is not what occurred if by "censured" you mean suspended.  What actually occurred was a party member informed a member of NERB that the twitter account they owned contained a retweet from Labour and they should take action to delete it – otherwise it was in breach of the hostility clause.The NERB member took umbridge at this information and responded with an insult which resulted in an indefenite suspension.

That wasn't what I meant, what I meant by censured was they were told they should take action to delete it. The point I am trying to make is that re tweeting something that makes a similar point to ours Although from the labout Party) is not a million miles away from inviting a non Socialist to write in the Standard. I don't think either re-tweeting the Labour Party or getting non Socialist writers in the standard is something we should be doing. I am willing to accept that this might not be a majority opinion of those members of the party registered on this forum.As to the term momentous, I do think that it is a momentous decision to have a change in editorial policy where we regularly invite non party members to contribute, you may not, but that's your prerogative.

My apologies for misunderstanding your concerns reiterated above.  My kneejerk response to the re-tweeting incident was with hindsight clearly off-topic and should have been posted in a personal capacity and not as moderator. 

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Hello mod. Why cant all comments and opinions be out and open to scrutiny for all to see? Open democracy. Why not?Where is your right to censor opinions?   I have worked for many community organisations ', welfare rights, unions and age UK and they take in all opinions without censorship.

All comments and opinions posted on this forum are open to to scrutiny.  I do not censor opinions but I do take appropriate and acceptable action when there's a clear breach of the rules.  The introduction of the rules states: "Forum rules and guidelines  SPGB Web forums registration agreement (adopted by the EC 1st June 2013, amended 7th Dec 2013 and 6th July 2013) This agreement spells out the rules that participants in these forums are expected to abide by. These rules may be revised occasionally. The forum administrators will post a conspicuous notice of any changes on the forum, but it is the responsibility of participants to ensure they are familiar with the latest version. Forum aims and scopeThe SPGB web forums are operated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) and are intended to promote discussion of matters related to the SPGB, the World Socialist Movement, and socialism in general. Everyone may read the forums, and posting access is available to all registered users who accept and abide by this agreement. Registration is free. Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules."  From my own experience and knowledge all community organisations have rules of conduct which outline what behaviour is and not tolerated from the members who join that particular organisation.  We are no different here in that the moderator ensures the code of conduct is followed.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 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:

 I also find it quite surprising that a member of the NERB was censured on the grounds of the hostility clause for retweeting a tweet from the Labour Party, yet we are proposing to give space in our Journal to writers who are not members of our Party.

This in fact is not what occurred if by "censured" you mean suspended.  What actually occurred was a party member informed a member of NERB that the twitter account they owned contained a retweet from Labour and they should take action to delete it – otherwise it was in breach of the hositilty clause.The NERB member took umbridge at this information and responded with an insult which resulted in an indefenite suspension.

[moderator1]

Glad to hear you are interested in becoming a moderator.  Looking forward to your nomination going in front of the next NERB online meeting.If its not the 'off-topic rule' which you see as the 'main issue' but the way its being used to deal with "other issues" what actions do you suggest we take into consideration?   Not that I agree its the way the rule is used which is the main issue.  For me the main issue is:  At what stage do I decide to take action, and once I've decided to take action what action do I take?Like I mentioned any action I take has to be appropriate and acceptable.  It seems to me that any action I take under the rule will be for you inappropriate and unacceptable. Because I'm using the rule to deal with other issues.  Past discussions on the moderation of the rules have, I may add, resulted in changes to the protocols and procedures and not to the rules.  Hence the introduction of reminders, a 3rd and final warning, and last but not least removal of posts to the Off-topic or Rubbish section.  Perhaps you have something similar in mind?  If this is the case could you please post them on the 'Moderation suggestions' thread.On the other hand, if you are of the opinion a change in any of the rules is necessary, so its transparent that moderation is not being abused, the IC will gladly discuss them.  

[moderator1]

ALB wrote:

According to today's papers, in his interview on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday Duncan Smith let the cat out of the bag when he said:

Quote:

We need to get the deficit down, but we need to make sure we widen the scope of where we look to get that deficit down and not just narrow it on working age benefits. Because otherwise it just looks like we see this as a pot of money, that it doesn't matter because they don't vote for us.

That this was behind where the government chose the axe should fall, and why, has long been obvious to impartial observers.

Two points here:  1.  It was obvious from the start that the Tories would not meet their target for cutting the cost of benefits by purely focusing on those of working age.  2. Their promise of not to target pensioners only applied to the last parliament – not this one.So it seems with them nowhere else to turn too, other than the rich, the pensioners are going to be next in line for cuts, especially those on pension credit.Oops that includes me!

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I don't wish to criticise, and am aware that Mods are implementing the rules as they exist and that similar rules generally exist on other web forums, but is going off topic really a problem? Some of the most interesting conversations I have ever had have been ones that began with one topic and then spun off in other directions. I understand that there is the possibility of discussions being deliberately de-railed, however I haven't seen that as an issue here. In reality, it's not like we're being overwhelmed with posts at this point in time. Could we actually be stiffening interesting discussion in order to deal with an issue that doesn't exist? Should we look at the rules for moderation and adjust them to allow variations in discussion but allow mods to act when there is misuse of this facility?

The issues and problems associated with off-topic posts have been discussed several times over the last three years.  And each discussion eventually brought about changes in moderation.  Currently, I only take any action on off-topic posts when its blatantly obvious that some posts are deliberately going off-topic by their lack of serious discussion.  That said, I do allow some off-topic discussion when its opening up an item which is worthy of further discussion and provides insight on the human condition e.g. exploration of attachment theory on the 'Tories and disability' thread.The difficulty is deciding at what point do I need to draw the line?  And what action is appropriate and acceptable for drawing the line?  Presently any decision is mine to make but when there are two or three moderators involved in the decision making process then the deliberations and decisions become a shared process and proactive rather than reactive.If for instance I had some company on here then one of us would be in a position to devote some time laying out the welcome mat to new users.  And also make good use of the PM facility to increase awareness of the socialist case so old and new users are encouraged to engage with the discussion.

[moderator1]

Just a small nudge to keep this thread on-topic  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/graeme-ellis-tory-campaigner-quits-party-and-sabotages-website-over-disability-cuts-a6935371.html

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

So I am warned 3 times for nothing but YMS can be insulting and denegratining and mod does nothing. Well , I can tack the shite so why cant others. if only Mod could understand plain English.  NB Nothing I have said in this post is any different from what anyone else has said to me – I am defending mysself -NO? But I will be referred to as abusive. Well Hock dickedi shit. And 'hell' and 'jesus' 'christ' and all those other words that upset the revolutionary socialist on this site   

Suspension: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.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. 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. Despite have a 3rd and final warning, plus a PM from myself this user has continued to breach the rules. This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

[Author]

Posts