[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]

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]

Vin wrote:

How come you can abuse me but my reply is removed. You are being a right arshole, ffs grow upExplain how calling me silly is on topic?Send your own abuse to off topic or are their 'grades' of members.

First 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]

moderator1 wrote:  Stop being silly!  A reminder is for no one in particular.  sillyˈsɪli/adjective 1.having or showing a lack of common sense or judgement; absurd and foolish."another of his silly jokes"synonyms:foolish, stupid, unintelligent, idiotic, brainless, mindless, witless,imbecilic, imbecile, doltish;   Now that is something that should be moderated. I can hardly be described as such as you have susended me on numerous occasions for silly reasons.I have no problem suspending users who use personal abuse in place of rational argument and debate; but -hey- you can;t be suspended.Now that is silly, literally 

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

Reminder in post #10 forbids me to reply so continue without me.

Stop being silly!  A reminder is for no one in particular.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Evidence please that "other members are off-topic more than me and receive no warnings".

 I have given you evidence. It is all over the forum see for eg Are physical meetings the best form of democratic control in 2015? A thread started by myself and recieved no on topic posts, well almosrst none  no members warned.

No comrade you have not given me the evidence.  In fact all you have provided is one assertion after another that there are more users off-topic than yourself. And then you have the audacity to imply that I should gather this evidence based on your hearsay?  Surely you don't take me for a fool?   And for what pupose I ask myself?  Sorry but I'm not into playing games of this nature.  And its not the first time I've requested you to prove your point.  Once you find the evidence which will stand up to scrutiny you will most certainly have a case.  Until then any further assertions made by you will not be taken seriously.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

Comrade if I was to comply with your request it would mean me facing charges of being detimental.  You are actually asking me to be ultra selective with your posts and discriminate against other users.  Obviously, your typical knee-jerk reaction fails to consider the implications and consquences of what you are putting to paper.

I don't think you get the message, you are too focused om my posts. I will repeat: other members are off topic more than me but receive no warnings. This has been pointed out to you by another member. I don't ask that you ignore the rules. but stop applying them selectively, simples. Alb, gnome, Alan etc etc have all been off topic . Is it action detrimental to ignore this? Why would it be action detrimental to treat me as you treat other cdes? Either suspend the lot or stop suspending me otherwise that could be deemed action detrimental

Evidence please that "other members are off-topic more than me and receive no warnings".

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Once more, i suggest Vin (or anybody else) to take on the task of moderation. Rather than be an antagonist with the present Mod1, time for some to co-operate with him so he can concentrate upon other issues more to his liking. 

I think you represent most people's perception of this situation: I have nothing better to do than be antagonistic with the Mod.This is untrue.If he gave up suspending me and dumping my posts, I would just get on with it and concentrate on more important issuesWhy doe these problems only occur on this forum? And not just with the current Mod. It seems to be in the mindset of members

Comrade if I was to comply with your request it would mean me facing charges of being detimental.  You are actually asking me to be ultra selective with your posts and discriminate against other users.  Obviously, your typical knee-jerk reaction fails to consider the implications and consquences of what you are putting to paper.Or on the other hand you are being deliberately antagonistic?  Either way, I can assure you I refuse to even consider such a suggestion.

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I once a long time ago suggested to you, Vin, that you should volunteer as a moderator. I still think that you should. We should applaud Mod1 for not standing down and weathering the criticisms of himself when he could easily have said …fuck this for a lark, i don't need the hassle but i think he thought that if every branch officer could not take and respond to criticism, the Party democracy in the long run would suffer. Once more, i suggest Vin (or anybody else) to take on the task of moderation. Rather than be an antagonist with the present Mod1, time for some to co-operate with him so he can concentrate upon other issues more to his liking. I actually believe that in this particular duty, a non-member can accept the duty as moderator, if willing, since it is an open forum. Is there anything against that in any of our rules (looking at you YMS, our unofficial Party lawyer)?

My thoughts exactly Alan regarding taking the hit on democracy.  When I recall the many times this has occurred I'm constanly drawing the lessons from the experience. OK I might have been in error to take the action I did, but on reflection the party and myself have learnt from it and adjusted accordingly through the democratic process.I – and others – have been thinking for many months on how the role of moderation can be improved and made more transparent and efficient. For instance the PM function is under utilised imo.  Again I have little time to welcome new users to the forum. Unfortunately, they can only be put into practice once some other party member joins me.  Fortunately party positions are only open to party members who are accountable to the party as a whole.  A non-member is at the end of the day are only accountable to themselves.Read your rulebook.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

My post did not attack anyone, comrade.  I was referring to the attack on the integrity of nerb members.  Should be binned.But I let that go. My point is a general one: personal abuse and putdowns should be taken more seriously than off topic when considering suspensions 

All breaches of the guidelines and rules are taken seriously. Thankfully, as moderator I have guidelines to follow which expressively state all actions must non punitive.  If on the other hand I were to apply your opinion above and start making distinctions on the seriousness of the rule breached there's no doubt that I would be overwhelmed with accusations of being a dictator, stalinist, judge and jury, censor, discriminator, etc, etc. Which would all be true would they not?  Sounds familiar by some of the posts I've received from a certain quarter.I've explained on several occasions on the factors which drive my deliberations on what action is appropriate and acceptable in any given situation.  

[Author]

Posts