[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What's the betting if there were any other volunteers, Brian would be rushing to the exit and happily standing down in an instant. I'm pretty sure he would love to be devoting his internet time to some other purpose. It is not because he is on a power-trip that he is moderator of this forum (or become the admin for Facebook of which i know nothing about) but the fact that he thinks someone within the Party has to take responsibility of filling unwelcomed positions. I have suggested non-members can help out on the forum but from the responses of fellow members, it isn't going to happen anytime soon, if ever. But I have also proposed Vin put himself forward as a moderator which he has declined in the past but i hope he can re-consider. 

I'm pleased to say Alan you would lose your bet!  Indeed any company would be most welcome either from any member or any non-member.  And that means even the likes of Vin are welcome and why not?  When you think about it whoever is thinking of giving it a crack they like myself would still have to follow the guidelines for moderating and also be accountable to the I.C. and if the mod's are unable to agree on what specific action to take we push it up stairs to them. All the work I've undertaken within the party has been a challenge but what the heck they have all been part and parcel of a particular learning curve and I say bring it on and the welcome mat is already out and waiting!Nevertheless, even if someone else were to take on this enjoyable and interesting task and I was thinking of finding pastures greener, which I'm not may I add at present – but you never know – I would think I'd be obligated to mentor for a period and only leave on their sayso.Just imagine that:  Comrade Johnson I've/we have decided your services are no longer required.  Now f*** off!  Love it.Which in my book encompasses the whole essence of sharing common ownership of a particular role within a social structure. 

[moderator1]

Reminder: 11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Vin wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Three flaggings in less than twenty four hours Vin. Perhaps we're seeing a misuse of the flagging function?

We certainly are. Wonder which idiot flagged your post? Surely a reason for flagging should be given.

I noticed Vin. I also noticed Gnome has been flagged on the "Brighton Discussion Group" thread.I was hoping the moderator might be able to let us know whether or not he can see who is using the flag function?I thought the flag function was meant for problem posts. The impression I'm often left with is of a petulant child blabbing to teacher over something trivial or as a trolling aid.

All flags (so far) as you can see do not identify their author and I have no means of identification unless I ask Admin.  I have never bothered to go down that road simply because it means quite a bit of work his end and with the site restructuring ongoing he's got enough on his plate.As for using identity as a trolling aid there is no need for flagging in practice usually means its tit for tat.  When this misuse goes over the top I will post a reminder that its in breach of the rules.  Hopefully, once the new site is up and running there will be a box for 'Reasons given' which would be helpful in some ways but nevertheless unless its a serious and also an obvious breach its not going to affect what action I take.  My role is to keep the discussion going and to ignore the occasional off-topic post.By that I mean minor breaches are noted, whilst with persistent minor breaches action is taken on those posts flagged.  Nevertheless, because I'm unable to identify an anonymous user this means I'm also unable to take any action when the flagging function is misused.  This anamoly hopefully will be taken into consideration on the new site.Hope this helps.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

As a member of the party I wish to register my objection to Brian Johnson moderating this forum and  to him becoming administrator on the party's facebookHis persistence in deleting my opinion gives me no confidence in is objectivity.

Until I have the evidence, like I've said repeatedly, such assertions, allegations or accusations being made by yourself will not be taken seriously.

[moderator1]

YMS wrote:Ultimately, though, all lengths would never be resolvable to all measurements.LBird replied:But for any society to act, there has to be a social and historical (and thus temporary) resolution of 'length' and 'measurement'.And if this resolution is a social act, and the society doing the resolution is a democratic society (as a socialist one would be), then this necessary socio-historical resolution is amenable to a vote.The alternative is that an elite 'tells' us. We have that now.

[moderator1]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Hmm, what we need perhaps is an amendment to rule five:

Rulebook wrote:

5. Members have the right to attend at meetings of Branches other than their own, and speak with the permission of the Branch, but shall not have the right to vote thereat. Central Branch members, however, shall be informed of a party vote and forwarded a voting paper and shall be allowed to vote through the post or at any one Branch meeting on production of membership card. All members may attend the meetings of the Executive Committee, Delegate Meetings, or Conferences, and with permission may contribute to the discussion.

After "Delegate meetings"  insert: "Authorised online party forums,".Backed up with a conference resolution to the effect that a member may only be remopved pernmenantly from a forum via rule 31 and also enshrining the current forum standings orders at the same time (with an additional description of the appointment of moderators).

You seemed to forget that the I.C. ToR and the complaints procedure ensure that its the EC and not the I.C who enforce a permanent suspension from the forum.  And if it did come to that the probability is such a decision would entail a call for a special party meeting.Further you are failing to address the OP:  the election of a moderator.

[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]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Surely more than one moderator would be preferable?

Exactly, then the structure remains intact if for some reason party members start registering their disapproval.  Without structure democracy is meaningless.

[moderator1]

May I remind posters of the action I'm currently taking after issuing a 3rd and final warning are detailed in the Moderation suggestion thread #76&78.  Now I've issued the 3rd and final warning any replies to these posts will automatically end up in the Off-topic section.  If however, a poster persistently responds to the Off-topic discussion in this thread I will issue a warning.The Off-topic section is available for those users who wish to carry on the Off-topic discussion and is not usually moderated to the same extent as the rest of the forum.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

Actually you'll just stick with LBird's 'wind and piss' …

You wouldn't know what I'm saying, gnome, because you've never read Marx or Engels.If you had, the differences between them, and the impossibility of Engels' 'materialism' being the philosophical basis of workers' power, the changing of circumstances to suit the revolutionary proletariat, would be obvious to you.You just continue to add nothing whatsoever to this discussion – 'empty vessels', and all that.

3rd and final 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.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Please do not try to divert attention yet again from these questions otherwise we will be compelled to conclude that what lies behind your assertions is just a whole lot of hot air signifiying nothing of substance whatsoever

The materialists, including you robbo, have already 'concluded' that there is 'nothing of substance' to 'ideas'.That's the whole point of Engels' 'materialism'.The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from its considerations of 'nature/being', to reflect their removal of 'society' from 'property'.They supposedly 'discover' an 'external static reality', whereas Marx argued for the 'changing' of a 'malleable relationship between consciousness and being'.I'll stick with Marx's dynamic 'hot air'; you stick with Engels' stationary 'cold matter'.

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.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

You are missing the point arent you? Its still a matter of counting – even by your own admission – and so therefore involves a quantitative aspect as well.  I mean how can you exercise democracy without such  quantitative "counting"?

Y'know, sometimes I wonder at the childishness of all this.I say 'theory and practice' – the materialists say 'what about practice, LBird'.I say 'subject and object' – the materialists say 'what about object, LBird'.I say 'ideal and material' – the materialists say 'what about material, LBird'.I say 'mind and matter' – the materialists say 'what about matter, LBird'.I say 'consciousness and being' – the materialists say 'what about being, LBird'.I say 'quality and quantity' – the materialists say 'what about quantity, LBird'.I just know that if I said that 'I love cheese and onion crisps', the materialists would complain about my hatred of onion.I have to believe that you're all doing this on purpose, because the alternative is that 'materialists can't read'. It's so circular and depressing – we never take the discussion forward.

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.

[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]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

I thought I heard that the SPGB used to invite audience members to take the chair at physical debates.

Don't think so. Could be wrong though..

You are definitely wrong.  Most of the debates held in Swansea are chaired by a non-member.  Its down to the Branch to decide who chairs their debates.

[moderator1]

Why not?

[Author]

Posts