[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Any assertion to the contrary needs to be backed up with evidence and facts, besides proposing a suitable alternative.

 You said that the Internet Committee was considering when to allow me to return to the forum. Do have minutes of those deliberations and conrtibutions from the various members? You also said that you move my posts to off topic after receiving emails. Do you have a public record any of this?  

There are no minutes of deliberations and contributions by the I.C. of when to allow you to return to the forum, because none took place.  It was my decision and mine alone.  I do keep copies of emails questioning my actions or urging me to take action.  Nevertheless, like flagging, I can only reveal the author(s) after gaining their permission.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

At the moment moderation decisions are carried out in sectret. A few members email each other and the mod acts. I would suggest that decision making process should be transparent in line with our organisation and object.

At the moment all moderation decisions are carried out by myself, and will remain that way until another member joins me.  I've made no secret of that and I've also stated its not a comfortable position to be in.  Nevertheless, with the tools at my disposal, I have opened up my actions to scrutiny and transparency by agreeing to this thread and other threads so that my decisions are questioned and challenged.When it becomes obvious my actions are in need of refinement I've introduced new protocols to accommodate the users wishes. The decision making process of moderation is transparent and in line with our organisation and object.Any assertion to the contrary needs to be backed up with evidence and facts, besides proposing a suitable alternative.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 The task of the moderator should be limited to curtailing clear cases of personal abuse and removing spam. I dont know of any other forum that takes such an over zealous view of  the role of moderator as this one

 My thoughts, too. At the moment an off-topic post has gone to the off-topic section, yet a personal attack remains. Upside down moderation.Surely we all agree that personal and abusive comment serve nothing and should be removed.?  

Does that include your own posts comrade?  Or would you rather delete them or remove them yourself?

[moderator1]

Sun, 11/10/2015 – 2:53pm#46VinOnlineJoined:03/12/2011Send PM Bit late with that one

[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.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:

 This is the way a physical meeting of the party would be conducted. For some reason the mod is appointed centrally, which basically contradicts party rules and standing orders. 

Comrades if you disagree with the off-topic rule despite the changes to protocol get it changed by drafting a resolution to Conference.  With the new protocols now in place it is only under extreme circumstances that the off-topic rule be implemented.Indeed, you only have to look at some of the posts presently being posted on the forum to see for yourselves that I've not taken any action in the slightest with those which are undeniabley off-topic.This relaxation of the rule was suggested by me and agreed to by the I.C.. But like its said give an inch and certain people will want a mile!  The moderator is not appointed centrally.  The post of moderator like any other committee appointment is filled by any member willing to fill that post. This procedure does not contradict or breach party rules or standing orders.I most certainly look forward to the day when another member steps forward and helps me with the task of moderating a very lively forum.

[moderator1]

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

stuartw2112 wrote:

I will no longer be contributing to this forum due to the moronic moderation. I don't suppose anyone will care in my case, but assuming you care about your party's ongoing reputation for competence in debate, I'd get someone with some intelligence and discrimination to do the moderating.All the bestStuart

 I agree stuart and would go further. I do not recognise this forum as being worthy of being part of the world socialist movement.

 I think thats a bit harsh Vin but I do largely go along with your criticism of the moderation procedure on this site and consider the suspension of Stuart to be quite apalling and utterly short-sighted.Ive increasingly come to the view that the problem really centres on the abritrary ruling on what constitutes off topic posts.  I propose a radical break and that this whole rule be scrapped completely. If the drift of the discussion moves well away from the original title of the thread so be it.  What's wrong with that?  There is usually some kind of underlying dynamic steering the direction of the thread, anyway and it is far better to let the conversation flow naturally than railroad it along narrow rigid  lines. Where is the harm in doing this.  Let the contributors themselves / not the moderators – remind each other if the conversation is seemingly getting a bit too off topic in their judgement – they can always start up new threads if they are that unhappy. This will immediately and dramatically reduce the scope for conflict between moderators and contributors  and reduce the workload of the former.There is too much control freakery in the Party as it is and this is perhaps part of the reason why it is languishing.  Dressing it up in the name  of democracy is all very well but you do need to balance that with other concerns – like freedom of expression, for instance

Robbo please look at #76&78 on the 'Moderation suggestions' thread in this section.  If you have any further comments to add please make them in that thread.  Skip #77 it lacks sincerity!

[moderator1]

imposs1904 wrote:

From Paul Mason's Facebook page:"Notes for my Newcastle University "Lord Patten Lecture" on Postcapitalism. 600 people turned up and despite two overflow rooms they had to turn people away. Next up is Sheffield, Saturday afternoon, Ilkey Lit Fest Sunday and then Manchester 22/10. My big LSE lecture will be on 18/11. Oh and St Paul's Cathedral on 3/11 and Leeds on 6/11."It might be worthwhile members getting along to his meetings, if they can.

Full text of lecture here:  https://medium.com/@paulmasonnews/lord-patten-lecture-2015-15924a18d5de

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

No one answered this question. So I assume most SPGB members believed it is ok to censor opinions that question the moderators decision. If you are ok with that then you have no right to refer to yourself as a socialist

Unfortunately comrade it seems you are in favour of structurelessness. A socialist follows a structure which embeddes certain rules, procedures, processes and protocols.  You decided to ignore these to your own detriment. You were not suspended for questioning my decision but for not following party procedures appertaining to this forum.In short comrade you were out of order, nothing more and nothing less.  If you have decided to continue down this path that is your decision.  Nonetheless I will continue to enforce the guidelines and rules.

[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]

Vin wrote:

So why are posts sent to the rubbish bin? For simply questioning moderation of a democratic and open organisation. More importantly, why are members suspended for simply questioning suspensions and warnings? 

Your post is in the off-topic section not the rubbish bin.  Please use the PM function when you complain about moderation.

[moderator1]

I've decided to take further measures when users successively breach the guidelines and rules. When such incidents occur instead of issuing a warning to the post in question I may remove the post to either the Off-Topic, or Rubbish section.  Nonetheless, depending on the number of times and how frequently I have to take such action I will consider implementing the protocol above if deemed necessary.What these changes means in practice is I've stretched the guidelines and rules – plus my tolerance – as far has they can go so that a suspension will only be issued in extreme circumstances.  Hopefully, these changes will encourage users to stay within the guidelines and rules and also ensure the flow of discussion is maximised. 

[moderator1]

steve colborn wrote:

 Hi Adam, I wasn't sure where to place this thread, Website/Technical or General. So I opted for this section of the Forum.As for "Off Topic", well, either we have no leeway for "any" and I do mean "any" post/posts or, have it stated categorically that there is a purely ad hoc approach to site moderation. This would be the simplest way to address the issue and would have the added bonus of letting everyone know where they stood/stand.

I moved this thread to this section where it belongs. May I remind you of #76 on the Moderation Suggestion thread. "After much deliberation on the issues raised in #73 above and on other threads within this foru, plus many PM's, I've decide to introduce some slight changes to the moderation protocol. Firstly, I intend using the Reminder Posts more frequently.  Rather than posting one reminder per rule, per thread, then weeks and perhaps months down the line – especially on long threads – issuing seemingly out of the blue a warning quickly followed by a suspension, I will post a further reminder rather than a warning so the flow of discussion is not interrupted.    Secondly, instead of a 3rd Warning followed by an automatic suspension I would issue  'A 3rd and Final warning' and also PM the user breaching the guidelines and rules making it plain to them that if there is a further breach of the guidelines and rules they will be suspended.  Thirdly, each notice of suspension will be worded, "Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period."In effect these changes will provide an opportunity for the user and myself to deliberate over a positive outcome so that the flow of discussion is not interrupted and continues to benefit all users of the forum.  I would like to thank all users who have contributed in this discussion and helped me in resolving this issue. I've also decided to take further measures when users successively breach the guidelines and rules. When such incidents occur instead of issuing a warning to the post in question I may remove the post to either the Off-Topic, or Rubbish section.  Nonetheless, depending on the number of times and how frequently I have to take such action I will consider implementing the protocol above if deemed necessary.These further changes will be posted on the Moderation Suggestion thread shortly.What this means in practice is I've stretched the guidelines and rules – plus my tolerance – as far has they can go.  Hopefully, these changes will encourage users to stay within the guidelines and rules and also ensure the flow of discussion is maximised. Please excuse the formatting.

[moderator1]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Not bad…front-runner until others get busy with their own imaginative inputBut historically… how many Old Labours has there been? 

It depends on: their style of delivery – which always changes, their decision making process – which has gone through several historical changes, and their projection of opposition – which depending on the circumstances can be consensual or confrontational.   However, historically, other than Blair, this is the first time that all these changes have converged in one fell swoop.So in that respect its Old Labour MkII.

[moderator1]

Old Labour MkII?

[Author]

Posts