moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:I am about to be suspended by mod despite the new protocol. Most comrades have gone off topic on numerous occasions but have not recieved warning. I feel as if I am being targeted perhaps because of my 'previous'Shouldn't the users that responded to my off topic be warned too?Am I alone in believing this?Is a suspension warranted?in a couple of minutes I have found that Posts #588 586 573 552 555 556 558 560 546 are off topic and received no warning. There are many more. Which is why I started this thread How mod rules can be used
"Despite a 3rd Final warning and a PM this user continued to breach the guidelines and rules and is suspended for an indefinite period." 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.
Vin wrote:How about this for the front cover of next standard3rd 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.
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.
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.
twc wrote:I request moderator1 to move my post #512 (which was a reply to an earlier post) to become the start of a new topic, under General Discussion, called Socialists Outside the Socialist Party.Please note because I've already issued you with a 1st Warning if I was to do what you suggest and delete #512 this would cause a disconnect in the thread. In light of this I suggest you copy and paste #512 to the new thread "SPGBers- Socialists – Non-Socialists and Anti-socialists" which in my estimate covers what you wish to discuss.
twc wrote:So socialists outside the Socialist Party apparently comprise Derek Wall and the Anarchist Federation.Derek Wall is unknown to me. I sought out his wikipedia entry, and assume its content enjoys as much of his blessing as he is able, within the constraints of wikipedia integrity, to bestow upon it.I ask you to read through the wikipedia section headed Propositions which outlines for calm objective consideration his solutions and measures, stripped of vehement rhetoric.Show me how Wall’s propositions are nothing but another shade of Paul Mason’s.Derek Wall’s obvious disagreement with us is over the identical issue that Eduard Bernstein disagreed with us. Bernstein, like Wall, considered himself an authentic socialist. We, alas, didn’t.Both take the same anti-scientific stance that Rosa Luxemburg anathemized as repudiating the necessity, the determinism, the predictive force of Marx’s scientific socialism.If there’s no necessity, determinism, and predictive force in Marx’s scientific socialism we’d all better pack up.This was Popper’s key line of attack. If you demolish the deterministic essence of Marx’s scientific work his whole enterprise collapses and is exposed as thoroughly misguided.The point for all socialists is to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base–superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.Now one thing is obvious. Wall and Bernstein along with the 50 or 50,000 shades either deny or fail to comprehend the unfolding, working out, development of the base-superstructure determinism of Marx’s scientific socialism.They raise themselves above scientific socialism, dismissing it out of hand as an oxymoron, unworthy of serious consideration, even though they unconsciously rely on the very same predictive mechanisms to negotiate every second of their waking lives without dismissing them out of hand.The intellectual instinctively defuses, annuls, renders impotent in his mind the power of deterministic science once it’s directed at society.Whenever the dynamics of society enters his mind as a thought, he imagines it in voluntaristic fashion. But that is his illusion necessarily bred out of all he’s left himself to go on—the mere appearance of social things—since he has repudiated the dynamic essence of social things.That society will not let him do just what he wants to scarcely, if ever, crosses his voluntaristic mind. Consequently the stream of supposedly ‘socialist’ subsystems desired to coexist and survive within an obligingly accommodating capitalism.The intellectual false consciousness that denies society is a necessarily self-generating system is the very philosophical mindset that Marx and Engels devoted their entire theoretical lives to demolishing. It is not our stance.The noteworthy intellectuals who cling to such illusions stand in need of learning socialism from us, not we from them.Advocating democratic methods, making rational criticisms of capitalist society, or even advocating a moneyless future is not socialist if there’s no necessity, determinism, scientific force in getting there and, once there, in maintaining socialism as a self-reproducing social formation.This won’t happen by voluntarist chance in a social formation driven by necessity, if that social necessity to which all must submit, remains uncomprehended.Our Object and our Declaration of Principles remain to this day, after a century, the only practical scientific way of achieving just that. The rest is anti-scientific day dreaming, i.e. utopian!No, Derek Wall is not a socialist outside of the Socialist Party, any more than Eduard Bernstein, Paul Mason, etc.I may continue on to the anarchists, if you are willing, but their position on the substantive issue is similarly tainted.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.
With this thread morphing so dramatically since Corbyn was elected it would be appreciated if users consider moving the current discussion on 'Communicating the socialist case effectively in a positive direction' to a new thread.I've already issued two reminders on Rule 1. and issued two suspensions and numerous warnings on this rule being breached. Time to move on and also provide ample discussion, on an item which is far more important in my estimate than any further discussion on what happens next now Labour has a new leader. Especially when we already know the answer to that question.
Vin wrote:I see the forum rules on off topic are being used selectively on the Corbyn thread. Has there been a meeting exchange of emails of the IC? Or is Mod1 acting on his own?You are correct the recent issue of warnings on the Corbyn thread was selective, especially in respect of – in this instance – you receiving a 2nd warning when technically it should have been a 3rd and final warning after you received a 2nd warning some weeks back. Nonetheless, I'm always selective when issuing warnings, I have to be.So the answer to your question is no there's been no exchange of emails between me and the IC in this instance.
Ozymandias wrote:What you mean total WSM membership is only 75? Oh shit. We've been living in some form or other of private property society for some 10,000 (?) years now plus we are brainwashed from day one of life into believing this is the only way of running things and all this allied with the fact that the 1% own every possible organ of the media makes me think there's no way out of this. I can't help it.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.
gnome wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:At tonight's meeting you stand up and declare that the Green Party is the exact same as the Tories, that Caroline Lucas is no different from Iain Duncan Smith, that the Greens and she are fakes, not deserving of any sympathy or support from the working class and we will see if the SPGB are given any sort of hearing in the future from the membership of the Green Party or their voters in Brighton. On the other hand, you can stand up and tell them that we share their aspirations for new society based upon egalitarian principles, of a sustainable steady-state economy based upon industrial and community democracy but we find we cannot agree their policies will achieve such a just world and suggest they listen to an alternative that we believe is the only real solution to the problems that they and ourselves wish to end. Your choice, Gnome.No need to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs, Alan. I've probably been around the party a darn sight longer than you have and introduced quite a few more workers into membership.At tonight's meeting we'll do both. We'll declare that all reformist parties are deluders and pretenders not deserving any sympathy or support from the working class AND we'll tell those present that we share their aspirations for a new society and suggest they listen to our alternative. No incongruity there.
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Quote:we'll tell them that we share their aspirations for a new society and suggest they listen to our alternative.So, do you do agree that those outside the party cannot all be tarred with the same brush because we do not share the same aspirations as the Tory Party (or do you say we do, because a case can be made that we do understand and sympathise with why workers sometimes vote for them although we don't agree with it) and also that no one size fits all when it comes to propaganda and we should shape our campaign in various different styles and levels of emphasis to achieve a hearing and an audience. Which has been my point all along. No doubt you may say i ignored your remark
Quote:We'll declare that all reformist parties are deluders and pretenders not deserving any sympathy or support from the working classSuch a statement is made in the explanation of our alternative, it is all a matter of how it is expressed and the context it is made in… nuancedI'll pay no attention to your other remarks because when i entered the party there was no hierachy of members – the observation and views of all members were treated equal, even if they were saying the obvious, regardless of time served within the party or the degree of any personal contribution made by them. Anyways, i hope tonights meeting is fruitful and we do get a receptive audience for our ideas. I hope that for all our public meetings.
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.
SocialistPunk wrote:gnome wrote:No need to teach your Grandmother to suck eggs, Alan. I've probably been around the party a darn sight longer than you have and introduced quite a few more workers into membership.OMG! This is priceless.I've been a member of this forum for three years now and this is the second time I've heard someone banging their own drum about how many socialists they themselves have created.Strangely enough, or perhaps not, the other person was a hardliner as well. Anyone remember JC?
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.
Vin wrote:Ozymandias wrote:Global membership of WSM = 350(?)Average age of membership = 75 (?)= Atrophy…The are clear and obvious reasons why the party is small and they can be found in this thread'When we refer to people calling for revolution as clowns etc and hold the belief that we are at war with 99.9999999% of the working class. Absolute insanity. I introduced my son to our facebook to find out more about socialism and the open democratic party I belong to and his first post was censored and he was blocked. WE must remain pure.As I I say, it is blindingly obvious why we are so tiny.
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. 1st
The block function is applicable to facebook but not here where all arguments and disagreements are transparent and in your face as part and parcel of the democratic process. Also from my experience of blocking on facebook the flow of participatory democracy is disconnected with the blocked user unable to reply to any criticism posted by the person who has blocked them. Another strong argument against blocking is that where the function is available it can in extreme circumstances be used as a form of bullying with some users doing a gangbang on a particular user they dislike.
