moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:So Matt (member of the internet committee ) – as you told me – get this sorted!
The twitter account you are reffering to @worldsocialism has not yet been activated. The David Ike promo must be on a similar named account. Would appreciate a link.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyone can write to a branch, NERB chose to host their branch meeting place on a party site where anyone, member or not, could post, as opposed to a closed invitation only list. We have to accept that different meeting formats have different rules, in a physical meeting, you'd have to wait for the chair.I was under the impression that a non NERB member had to introduce themselves and be welcomed by the members before posting?Once welcomed onto the meeting by NERB members, the guest is free to contribute.An important reason to be welcomed into the meeting, is to prevent unwanted bullshit plaguing the branch meetings. It was agreed early on that if needed the NERB would request the forum moderator/s assistance in dealing with disrupters.This is how I understood the NERB system to operate. Of course, I could be wrong.
The NERB section on this forum is open to any user on this forum. The section includes topics and Branch meetings. I assume any contributions by non-members of NERB to Branch meetings would have to go through the chair via a PM to the secretary.However, to set the record straight, Matt did not disrupt a Branch meeting but posted a topic in reference to the twitter account held by the Branch. Which he's entitled to do. In fact if you go through records you will see that I've contributed to a topic which didn't at the time create any queries on breaching party rules, simply because it was a topic and not a Branch meeting.
steve colborn wrote:Well Vin, I,m off this thread. As usual, the usual has happened. Before I go Vin, have you seen any "reminder" for post 12? Thought I may be missing something!Well, may see you on the Branch meeting thread.All the best to you and your's.Steve.Reminder are not posted for any particular post or user, but for all posts and users.
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.
/02/2016 – 11:16am#93VinOfflineJoined:03/12/2011Send PM The power to silence other comrades and prevent them carrying socialist activity has gone to your head. You are not like a comrade, you ar like a fucking robot. An automated answering machine.
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:Sure I'll explain, but not on this thread. Please duplicate and place it on the Moderators suggestion thread.So why didn't you say that to other users? Why am I different?
2nd warning: 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.
Vin wrote:Hello modcan you explain to members and sympathisers who may be thinking of joining why I am the only one to receive a warning. What have I done differently? As far as forum rules are concerned.?As a socialist who believes in open and free discussion I am sure you will explainDo we have a multi tier member system? Or does our rule book ensure we all have the same rightsSure I'll explain, but not on this thread. Please duplicate and place it on the Moderators suggestion thread.
Vin wrote:Matt, are you a member of the IC? It is important because some members have more than one IDs or accounts which contravenes rule 8such as 'admin' and 'mod1'1st warning: 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.
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.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.
Reminder: 11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.
Vin wrote:Mod1, 2 of my posts have been flagged for no reason. Do you intend to post a reminder. Or do you believe there were good reasons for them to be flagged?Rule 11You continue with your uneven hand where I am concernedThere is always a reason for flagging. However, once a post is flagged I have to decide what action if any needs to be taken. Usually, I just delete the flagging and take no action, unless its obvious that the flagging function is getting abused on a regular basis. Then I'll post a reminder.Currently, I have a backlog on flaggings, which require my attention. However, there are no posts currently which require any action other than reminders. Which I'll post later today when I make a start on the backlog. It seems the new protocol and process has made life far more relaxing.
LBird wrote:mod1 wrote:Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot…Well, I thought it was a reasonable way to break the logjam, which gave others some say.But I think your tone tells me everything that I really want to know about the SPGB.
People usually break logjams by voting with their feet. Which I suspect is going to happen here. Unless of course you do some serious re-assessment and come up with proposals which address your critics concerns in a fashion that is less dismissive and more explicit when responding to their questions.
LBird wrote:moderator1 wrote:LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban.
No, I wasn't suggesting it would be considered in anyway a 'ban'.I'm suggesting that, if five posters have had enough, then I'll voluntarily withdraw from the site. Your role of moderator would be just to meet my wishes to have my account closed.That is, the decision to leave would be mine, not an imposition by the SPGB, which is what the term 'ban' would otherwise suggest.
The decision to leave will be yours but the action to close the account will be mine. Which amounts to a ban on my part. And like I said that only applies to spammers and psychopaths.Anyways nobody is going to participate in your silly ballot because it amounts to voting for no platform for free speech. So you either close your account or leave it open.Alternatively you can do a Marx and Engles – take a step back – and re-assess.
LBird wrote:I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban. That action is reserved for spammers and psychopaths only. Indeed, unusually you don't even warrant a suspension on this occasion.However, I mentioned in an email many months ago the key to the door are in your hands. When put into practice this in effect means: you either continue to face your critics by providing them with the answers they are requesting – a re-assessment of your theory perhaps – or you walk away by keeping the door locked?May I just mention that both Marx and Engles were continually re-assessing their thinking on political economy and how it related to the material conditions of class struggle. This, as they found out after the events of the Paris Commune is crucial to refining their methodology and openly admitting they were mistaken – viz Preface 1888 Communist Manifesto..
gnome wrote:moderator1 wrote: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.Er, I always had the impression that a 3rd warning followed a 2nd (see #181) but maybe the maths is far too advanced for a forum that more and more resembles a kindergarten. I dread to think the effect all this infantile behaviour is having on those visiting our forum for the very first time…
There were so many reported/flagged posts and breach of rules I got confused and inadvertedly started handing out warnings on this tread from the bottom up instead of from the top down. My apologies.
