moderator1
Forum Replies Created
-
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.
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.
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.
Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:northern light wrote:Thanks for that, ALB. I must have missed that somehow.And the Branch it seems!
Are you excited about that Mod1? That I may have missed something really important? Confirms your prejudices about me?During February I was probably suspended from the forum, being pursued by you or distracted by yours and the Internet Committes's constant harrassment. Warning, posts dumped etc. Another self fulfilling proficy. Are you one of those members that just love to say 'I told you so'?Well you have a few to keep you going. It is not fair on the branch that the secretary misses something so important – for whatever reason – so I will resign as secretary.Enjoy.
May I suggest you read #426? You are being too hard on yourself.
northern light wrote:Thanks for that, ALB. I must have missed that somehow.And the Branch it seems!
Vin wrote:moderator1 wrote:you are well aware of the procedure for enacting your above suggestion – put it through your Branch – I'm easy.So have you put it to the Internet Commiittee? How did they respond? We can only assume that the committee is opposed to the suggestion.And frankly the old 'Take it it up with your branch' is insulting and dismissive and downright plain arrogant.Why should I have to go to conference to have meetings open and minuted?
It seems you are unaware of party procedures in relation to the committees of the EC. To explain: 1. The I.C.. is a committee of the EC. 2. The Rules and Guidelines of this forum come under the administration of the EC. 3. They are not altered, or amended by the I.C. but by the EC. 4. Any suggestions for a change in Rules and Guidelines must come from a Branch for the attention of the EC.This is the democratic procedure for the day-to-day administration of the party. In practice it means individual suggestions on a change in the Rules and Guidelines carry little weight. Such suggestions need to be discussed at a Branch level and voted on before it will be considered by the EC.
Vin wrote:While the IC discuss Norther Light's suggestion – a discussion of which the rest of the party will remain ignorant of – perhaps the committee can consider my earlier suggestions.Will the meeting be minuted and can other party members be present during the deliberations. If not then why not.Vin wrote:At the moment the moderator and Internet Committee carry out their deliberations behind closed doors. 'We have received your complaint or appeal, we will get back to you'. Such deliberations should be held in public on a designated area of the forum, thus bringing our forum in line with our proclamations. "We are a completely open and leaderless organisation. All our meetings are open to everyone without exception. "Suggested rule changes. Changes are in bold. 16. The moderators will discuss and deliberate on moderation decisions openly and transparently in the moderation section of the forum.Then the forum will be as open as the rest of the party.You are well aware of the procedure for enacting your above suggestion – put it through your Branch – I'm easy.In the meantime I can only do the next best thing:Hi Brian, Two months does seem a long time for warnings to be counted for. But personally I don't think we need to formalise this too much, as every situation is different. As far as I'm concerned it's your call…On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Brian Johnson <gravediggers@talktalk.net> wrote:Hi,The following message has been posted on the Moderation suggestions thread on the forum: Recently a Forum member received a suspension and I noticed that there was a 73 day time lapse between his 1st. and 3rd. warning. It might help some of our more "passionate" Forum members avoid a suspension, if it was noted in the rules, how long a warning remains live.I would appreciate some discussion and feedback on this suggestion. If implemented it would make life easier for the flow of the discussion to continue and instead of issuing a final warning – after say 60 days has lapsed since the 2nd warning – I would just issue a further reminder quoting the rule which has been breached. YFPSABrian
northern light wrote:Recently a Forum member received a suspension and I noticed that there was a 73 day time lapse between his 1st. and 3rd. warning. It might help some of our more "passionate" Forum members avoid a suspension, if it was noted in the rules, how long a warning remains live.Noted and passed onto the I.C. for discussion.
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.
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.
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.
