[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.Please note, I'm tempted to issue a 1st Warning to all those posters who've responded to #729. 

[moderator1]

Please note a Reminder unlike a Warning is not aimed at any specific user but all users.  #679&680 are not in breach of the guidelines and rules. 

[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. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

As this thread  was started by LBird  , am I the only on who feels uncomfortable about discussing it when he is unable to respond.Perhaps it is only my own personal experience but I can feel his frustration. 

LBird is on moderation, not suspended, which means he can if he so wishes post here but all his posts are filtered by the moderator.

[my bold]This was untrue.I was banned for a period, and when I tried a dozen times to login and respond, I was confronted with a message that my name was blocked.A special thanks to Vin, for his comradely and openly expressed concern.

My sincere apologies to LBird for any inconvienence the blocking caused and I thank him for bringing this matter to the forums attention.  And I appreciate there was no grudge intended on his part. I was under the assumption that by placing a user on moderation by blocking the PM function was still open for dialogue between the user and myself.  Apparently, by blocking all dialogue ceases until the suspension is lifted.This imo means that the present process of actions available to me are at variance with the severance of the breach i.e. Reminder>1st,2nd&3rd Warning>(?)>suspension.I shall at the earliest opportunity bring these concerns to the attention of the Internet Committee and hopefully they can be resolved so the present system of sanctions is more appropriate to the severance of the breach and with such a moderation function in place I'll be better placed to administer an appropriate slap on the wrist rather than a crack on the knuckles.

[moderator1]

Vin Maratty wrote:

DJP wrote:

If no-ones named it's not a warning, just a reminder. Not that I'm the moderator though.Less of the paranoia please 

my boldI think that's the bit I don't understand. What is the point of  1st warning? What happens at 3 or 4 warnings? It is importand to know because I believe 3 warnings and you can receive an indefinate ban. Which when you consder what other forum members have done on a nameless thread,  it just appears rediculous to me.  I don't  think paranoia comes into . Some get away with a lot while others have to tread on egg shells.  It is an objective observation and can be proved true: No matter which scientific method I use.  

I post a Reminder when posts are starting to stray from the topic of the thread.  Its not aimed at any user in particular but at all users.  If any user ignores that reminder and breaches the guidelines and rules I then post a 1st Warning attached to the post in question.  If any of the rules continue to be breached by the poster I will attach a 2nd Warning to the post where the further breach occurred.  If I have to issue a 3rd Warning because of a further breach I follow this up with a PM to the user explaining what my next course of action will be if they continue to breach the rules:  1.  I can put the user under moderation; 2.  I can suspend the user for a definite/indefinite period.   I will usually only take the latter action if there's a serious breach i.e. using a puppet account, or deliberate anti-social behaviour. Since the new guidelines and rules have been in place I've only had to issued two suspensions, both of which were for serious breaches.  Although, lately I've issued Warnings on several threads overall the posting of a Reminder seems to be working by effectively prompting users to take care on what they post.However, if any user disagrees with any action I've taken the PM facility is available for me to reconsider my moderation, or to discuss modifying their behaviour.Hope this helps. 

[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]

steve colborn wrote:

I am struggling to see how rule 2 could or can be applied to Vin Maratty. As far as I can judge, Vin's posts merely followed a natural progression of a thread!!! Steve Colborn.

Rule 2. was not applied to Vin.

[moderator1]

And also #90 on the same thread.

[moderator1]

For an example of a breach of Rule 2.  see #117 on the Science for Communist thread.

[moderator1]

Reminder:  Rule11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.

[moderator1]

LBird wrote:

Let’s try once more.

Vin Maratty, post #12, wrote:

I mentioned George Walford who's ;“basic premise was that people’s assumptions and identifications (the factors making up their ‘ideology’) are not explicable in terms of material conditions in general and their relationship to the means of production in particular—and are never likely to be.

[my bold]Vin quotes a non-Communist, non-Marxist ideologist, when I’ve already called the thread ‘Science for Communists’, and pleaded with those who don’t share my ideas to start their own thread, perhaps ‘Science for Non-Communists’ like George Walford (whoever he is).

LBird, post #1, wrote:

I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.

Now, given what I’ve said at the start, and presuming that Vin actually bothers to read what I write (and I’m not entirely sure that he does), what reason could there be for Vin’s posting of the ‘Walford ideology’?It seems to me there are two choices:either, Vin is trying to wind me up, by deliberately posting off-topic diversions to derail the thread (yet again, I might add, because there seems to be a history of this derailment within threads on this site which try to discuss science from a Communist perspective);or, Vin really is being honest, and really just doesn’t understand anything whatsoever about ideology, Communism, Marx, ‘ruling class ideas being the ruling ideas’, ‘material conditions’, ‘means of production’, etc.Now, perhaps I’m being too generous about Vin, and I’m wrongly assuming that he does understand about ‘ideology, Communism, Marx, etc. etc.’. That assumption of mine leads me to think Vin is a troll, and is deliberately trying to spoil these discussions, for ideological reasons of his own (in this case, I would hazard a guess that he’s employing Engelsian ideas about science).The alternative, it seems, is that I should be less generous to Vin, and use baby-talk to him about the big world of ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, and assume that he’s a naïve innocent abroad, who really does give Walford’s ideology some credence.It must be obvious to all by now, I’m really confused as to why a discussion about the relationship between science and Communism can’t get off the ground, on a site that I’m assuming is a Communist site.Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.

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.

[moderator1]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Who would flag my post #63? It not offensive!   Everything I say needs a warning? 

3rd Warning: 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]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Why did my post #60 receive a warning?  This getting  is ridiculous

2nd Warning:  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]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Reminder 99       fairness and objectivity

1st Warning:  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.

[Author]

Posts