moderator2
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I really can't be doing with all this shit right now.If those who wish to take such a deluded comrade at his word, fine. I won't be complicit. Consider this my resignation as moderator and i will be logging out and have no intention of returning to the forum. Oh, in case those amateur psycho-analysts think i am employing some sort of emotional blackmail to get my way – they too can fuck off.I won't be on this forum again…and i won't be hiding behind a wife's skirts or creating some fake sock-puppet to post. What our so-called fellow member seemed to not realise but what some other members have understood, you do not require to be a forum user to campaign and promote the SPGB case. Apologies to my much put-upon co-moderators who have been let down by other forum users who, for their own reasons, have not provided them with their fullest support. Adios amigos
Cde.V. Maratty, i liken your actions to that of an anonymous poisoned pen writer.And i judge your attempts to evade your own responsibility by somehow implying every member who uses a nom de plume (one mind you, not two) are sock-puppets and thus are as guilty as yourself concerning breaking the rules and that moderators appointed by the EC and fully authorised to use two accounts are also sock-puppets, is simply plain silly.It is as laughable as your allegations that censorship has been applied to your "criticisms" of the party you did not deign to put your real name to or even acknowledge you were a member of.The word to describe your behaviour is scurrilous.
Quote:They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum,So it took you a just 26 days to breach that assurance you had given to the EC which formed part of their decision they reached 5 days prior to your latest infringement of the forum rules.The suspension on this forum remains until the EC reviews your subsequent actions and issues the moderators with further instructions.
It appears that few take notice of the moderators or of the rules even though it was pointed out. in the very first message.
Quote:* Once again forum users are advised that any queries or complaints against the decisions and actions of the moderators should be by PM to ourselves and not conducted on the forum."So be it. I am unsure if Tim with his humourous contribution seeks a response but when two people use the same apparatus from the same location, the IP is the same. We were unable to identify whether Cde.L Maratty or Cde. V Maratty was the poster machiavellian, so we did the reasonable thing, we asked. And until we received a response from Cde. L. Maratty, her then current suspension was continued. When she told us she was not machiavellian we lifted her suspension.In reply to Gnome, he may like to know that the moderators too are still awaiting formal notice of the EC instruction or the receipt of the relevant EC minutes. It is perhaps understandable that we should encounter problems when we lack a Gen Sec but like himself, i don't like being kept in the dark as i have, as he probably remembers, have had a number of occasions to make complaints about such things in the past.It is problematic that the moderators was belatedly informed on the hearsay of an EC member of their decision. Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if there had not been this delay in communication. But to clarify one thing. Cde. V. Maratty has been registered as “Vin” since he re-joined the forum after leaving the party for a period and under that ID he was subsequently suspended. It, nevertheless, still remains his valid forum “nom de plume”. He is not permitted another account unless authorised (Rule
which he has never requested, nor was ever granted. The current suspension was maintained despite the decisions by ADM and EC because this breach was a new one and a more recent turn of event, subsequent to their decisions, and considered serious enough by the moderators to warrant the suspension being continued. i am sure other forum users are well aware of Cde. V. Maratty’s numerous accusations against our objectivity, so it may not come as a surprise that the moderators chose to recuse ourselves from the matter other than to report the facts as we find them to the EC. It will now be the responsibility of the EC to determine whether Cde. V. Maratty purposefully posted a message under a false account (sock-puppet) to by-pass a suspension still in effect. He will no doubt be given ample opportunity to rebut the moderators’ interpretation of his motives and our actions. It will now be the EC, not the moderators, who will make the decision on what to do.Therefore, i think it is better to treat the situation as “sub judice” and decline from any further comment or opinion and let our EC conduct their own enquiries and reach their own conclusions so i will refrain from any further posts on the issue. There will be no more replies from me on this thread from this moment on. I hope that is understood. In the interests of fairness I request that my submission to the next EC is published below the allegations of puppeteering A sock puppet is a second account set up by someone already a member of the forum in order to deceiveHere are examples:Mod1 and BrianMod2 and AlanMod3 and Socialist PunkThese are deceptive to newcomers and onlookersBy definition a Sock Puppet requires one user to have TWO accounts My previous account was blocked in March 2016 so Machiavellian is not a sock puppet account. It is my one and only account.I used a pseudonym to avoid the obvious bias from moderators against me. Other members use pseudonyms: Young Master Smeet GnomeSocialist PunkJondwigtALBrobbo203USER555NETDJP imposs1904Hollyhead This is only one example of the disrespectful and distorted way in which the IC treats me, another was allowing an EC member to believe that he was reading out an apology from me to the EC . When in fact I had never sent such an apology I request that the EC informs the Internet Committee in no uncertain terms to allow Linda and myself to take part in online forums, and to take down the inaccurate and defamatory post about us and publish an apology.Cde.V. Maratty
The moderators have agreed that in regards to Rules 1 and 15, despite a 3rd and final warning, plus a PM Lindanesocilist continued to breach the rules and has now had posting rights suspended for 7 days. Those who wish to comment on this action by ourselves can do so in the appropriate manner by PMing the moderators.
Goodness me…i had almost forgotten their existence. Out of sight – out of mind, indeed. I did recently go to their website to check on their dismissal of the citizens' wage which was a fairly good rebuttal of it. In Thailand, there is a word to describe a man who flits from one woman to another. He is called a butterfly and it is used as a verb also …to butterfly. It is an appropriate description …Butterfly politics… moving from one party to the next, especially when enamoured by attractive manifesto promises but then moving on to the next where the nectar is sweeter still. I think we have had experience of this type of serial party joiner. I wonder if there might be an opportunity to pick up a few SPEW supporters if they do dissolve. (i'm not confident that they will) Surely, they cannot all be damned. Can there be a few who are genuine and sincere socialists, if misguided and mistaken?
moderator3 wrote: I tried.Reminder: Rule 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. May I remind users that there already exists a thread in the Web/Tech section of this forum, where suggestions regarding moderation can be discussed.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-su… Should I go there and discuss my survey and questions and focus on time? Anyone want me to spend 5 minutes writing on a topoic of your choice in the moderation suggestions forum?
Many thanks for your legal opinion and the lawyers latin, (a subject which never appeared in my school's timetable so i had to look it up)
Quote:*Forum rules* Your use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these.I was amiss in not citing that earlier
Quote:should be applied to all participants in the forum, including moderatorsAs it did to this moderator who received a suspension for his post in reply to one of your own that tried my patience one time too manyBut, you have rightly deduced from my post to Cde. Lindanesocialist that it was indeed a threat of me now drawing a line in the sand that any more breaches and i will automatically suspend her from the forum. Again, i hope she fully and clearly understands this and takes care with her future postings.
And Lindanesocialist, just how many times do the moderators have to accommodate your repeated breaches of the guidelines?How many times do you require to be told not to take it upon yourself to perform the moderators' task by deciding what action is warranted and what is not? For those of you who have forgotten RULE 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.You are already just one small step away from suspension, Lindanesocialist, and no more formal warnings from the moderators are necessary yet you persist in breaching the rules.Pay heed to this message and simply note its serious intent and there is no need nor cause to reply on the forum to this posting.
:Reminder: Rule 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.
I think i have to agree this poster has idiosyncratic views and ways of expressing them that generally does not accord with the general opinion of socialists within the WSM i refer folk to this insightful post on one aspect of his argument. http://class-warfare.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-was-born-facially-disfigured-with.html
