[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: 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. 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]

ALB wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

Good. About time. Why don't you now lock this thread and transfer any further discussion to the technical section where it should be and have beeb.

Thanks for the suggestion, but while there is still a conversation going on between SP and YMS it would be unwise to lock this thread.  They are after all discussing how censorship can be applied intentionally and unintentionally.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.  

I have emails from the IC that states 'the IC has decided….'If you don't hold meetings how do you decide when to allow a suspended  user back on the forum for example?An exchange of emails within a discrete group of individuals resulting in a decision that affects others is  a secret meeting? Don't try and pull the wool over my eys, I am too long in the tooth for that.

I have replied to this post on the 'Moderator suggestion' thread on the Website/Technical forum.

[moderator1]

This is a reply to a post on the 'No, No Platform' thread.Vin wrote:  moderator1 wrote: I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.    I have emails from the IC that states 'the IC has decided….'If you don't hold meetings how do you decide when to allow a suspended  user back on the forum for example?An exchange of emails within a discrete group of individuals resulting in a decision that affects others is  a secret meeting? Don't try and pull the wool over my eys, I am too long in the tooth for that.  We don't hold meetings in the sense that a meeting is called and an agenda set, chair appointed, etc.  When a user is suspended they are informed by me how long their suspension will last.  In most cases this is my decision to call.  If however,  I'm uncertain on how long the suspension should last I'll consult with the I.C. and the user is informed of the decision reached.How is this decision making process discrete or secret when the party concerned is informed of the decision reached?If however you favour an open meeting to discuss such issues be arranged here on the forum I advise you to take it up with the I.C. to find out if such a proposal is practical.  If it is a practical suggestion then take it up with your Branch and if they agree contact the EC with your proposal.Its no big deal from my side.  But like I said most decisions regarding suspensions rest with me.  And all decisions on suspensions that I make have gone through the process of a reminder being posted and 3 warnings issued.  There is nothing discrete or secret about that process.You may very well have a case for open and transparent meetings when a complaint is discussed by the I.C. but even that process is fully recorded and the files kept on record for those who wish to view them or to pass onto the EC if the complainant is making an appeal.But this is all old ground we are covering here which you are very familiar with.  And the present decision making process will only change if and when there are 2 or more moderators here instead of one.  

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Well said Mod1. I fully agree, censorship amongst other things removes the ability to learn from mistakes.I had suspected you were not in favour of using censorship as a tool for forum moderation, from the in depth discussions that took place on this forum a couple of years ago.Thanks for clearing this issue up.

I just hope its also clear to other users where I stand on this issue, for I make no secrets and I have no secrets.  And whilst I remember the I.C. do not hold meetings in secret, in fact we do not hold meetings.  But obviously we do use the internet to communicate with each other on the work of the committee.  Most of this communication is taken up with the technical aspects of improving this site and introducing new accounts.   The moderation of this site plays little part in the day to day affairs of the committee.  And that is how I would like to keep it so the flow of more important issues and problems is not disrupted by the disruptions on this forum.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

Hi Mod1,Not really sure what is meant by your post. Are you in favour of the use of censorship for use on SPGB communication sites such as this forum? Or do you view it's use as a moderation tool as likely to cause more problems than it solves?The sentence of mine you quote is a reference to the moderation approach being used here now, with censorship not being needed. It was tried briefly on this forum and only succeeded in further complicating the issue of moderation for the SPGB, as it added the issue of whether censorship is appropriate for a political party that is opposed to it's use for a number of reasons.Back on topic.There are three main reasons I can think of why censorship is a problem. It fails to tackle problematic areas by hiding them from view, rather than deal with them openly. It is patronising and elitist to assume a role of deciding what people can or can't think and/or decide for themselves on various issues. It is often used to airbrush history, thus altering events and restricting the ability to examine and learn from past events.

I was just placing on record that if there is a further occurrence of the Russell Brand open letter incident with Vin's posting (although inappropriate) being moved to the rubbish bin by Admin I'm not in favour of such action, and I was not a party to that action.  It's cenorship full stop and I wont let it rest if there's a reoccurrence – no way.  If Admin had not jumped in and let me handle it appropriately by having a PM discussion with Vin the probability is that he would have been persuaded to apply a bit of self-censorship and approved his posting being moved to the rubbish bin.  The posting itself was not a breach of the rules, however if the I.C. decide to introduce a rule where such incidents are a breach it will mean we are back to square one with problematic postings and would mean me reconsidering my position has the moderator of the forum.  For I will not be party to censorship here or anywhere else.Just like a public meeting every contributor must have the opportunity to withdraw their comments or remarks and admit they are inappropriate for the thread or forum, unless of course they are spam, then they go directly to the rubbish bin.The system of reminders, warnings and suspensions does not cover all incidents but I find its those postings which are outside the rules that we have so much to learn from.  And we are not going to learn about applying the democratic method appropriately if we apply censorship to such postings – are we?

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

 Would it be a complaint against this? 

ALB wrote:

That "No Platform" is not the way to deal with people with obnoxious views such as Marine Le Pen. Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?

Of course not.  The incident with your posting of the 'Open letter to Russell Brand'.

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

 There you go, comrades! Do we take this crap lying down ?  Is this not our forum too?  

A initial move in the right direction would be for you and your Branch to lodge an official complaint to the I.C. I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

[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:

Before I forget it would be appreciated if you are  keeping track and making a list of any suggestions you have for moderation.  Anything which makes life easier all round would be very welcome.  I agree the rules need reviewing 

 Easy. Stop wasting your time on the unnecessary moderation of me. You seem to have plenty of time for that. There is a lot worse than me on this forum of which you have every right to suspend _ permamently. 

Surely moderation of all posts is in the collective interest without exception?  Your reasoning above is it seems is in contradiction to what you have posted elsewhere on this site.  

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

 Its also been explained to you in another thread why your posting of the open letter to Russell Brand was considered to be inappropriate for the forum." #13 

How will I know if my post is innappropriate in future? You will not decide until I have posted it! Why not stretch your imagination to a world where I can post anything as long as it hurts no one  

It's not a question of hurting anyone but of understanding the rules.  But if I suggest any more than that I know I'm in for a hammering with you probably accussing me of preaching or lecturing.  Lol.Anyways basically the rules are there so the flow of the thread is not disrupted.  Figure it out for yourself why it gets disrupted, but my advice is that before you click the save box read your message and ask yourself how will other posters react to how I've expressed this particular message?  Don't do it once but several times and if any doubt is raised delete.  You would be suprised how many messages I deliberately delete during the week.Paddy Shannon you may have noticed does not show his face here.  Can I suggest you contact him and ask him why?  I know what his advice is going to be but no harm in finding out for yourself.  Ooops that's a breach of the rules.Before I forget it would be appreciated if you are  keeping track and making a list of any suggestions you have for moderation.  Anything which makes life easier all round would be very welcome.  I agree the rules need reviewing but right now I just have not got the time to sacrifice or the same amount of energy I put into the Swansea report over two years ago.  I've got older and slower.  Damn another breach f**.See we all do it!  Lovl

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

If by being less bias and discriminatory you mean I ignore that this post actually breaks Rule 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).  

 As I have pointed out and explained to you over and over again. It does not braek any rules: It is not a repeated thread. I have also asked you to show me the thread it repeats but you can't because it doesn't exist.Can you publish the exchange of emails you have had with other IC members on this subject  as would be fitting for a socialist organisation? 

"Its been explained to you in another thread why this open letter is allowed.  Its also been explained to you in another thread why your posting of the open letter to Russell Brand was considered to be inappropriate for the forum." #13Its a repeated cross-posting   and therefore in breach of Rule 6.

[Author]

Posts