moderator2
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So all the problems of the forum that has gone on for years and years has now been singled down to this one thread began by the moderators so as to be transparent in our dealings.Gies a break…You can cite my initial disagreement with my co-moderators but, i believe later, i did tell you in another message on the forum that i fully endorsed the indefinite suspension imposed upon you because your behaviour had not changed. And today i repeated that position. So, yes, i am now completely in accord with that original statement.
I agreed to that statement being posted.And one important reason we agreed not to divulge voting was that we were well aware that our own difference of opinion would offer an advantage and opportunity for some to exploited it and so we agreed to show a common front and have continued to do so since then even when we have consequently disagreed amongst ourselves.I think it is called collective responsibility, but i maybe wrong.
Quote:Even if I was to accept (which I don't) that the spirit of that resolution should be applied to this forumWell, i do. Please officially lodge your protest and your request for my removal as a maverick moderator. Miss out the IC – complain directly to the EC I for one have gone out of my way to exercise tolerance and be lenient of Cde. Maratty's forum behaviour since which now stretches back years.Sadly, Cde. MColme's knowledge of the situation as he admitted is limited to reading posts on one thread. He is unaware of the very long history that is involved, going back literally years. Sadly, action was taken against Lindanesocialist only today (or was it her, for it takes no Sherlock Holmes to deduce who is really at the keyboard when her posts appear? Another clear sign of our willingness to compromise that goes unacknowledged) after two requests to follow common sense behaviour on where to post messages was simply ignored and defied.We are not dealing with isolated occasional infringements but a well-trod path of repeated misdemeanours which culminated in an indefinite suspension.Each new day and each new post from Cde. Maratty is re-confirming the correctness of the moderators' caution in not restoring his posting rights. You want to know how the vote went?I was in favour of lifting the ban regardless of the sensibilities among other members being upset by that decision. I was out-voted. Today, that moderator vote would be unanimous.As i said to Cde. Maratty in a PM he has never extolled confidence in me that he would change his spots. And that has exactly been the situation. He had an opportunity that if he accepted our decision in a comradely manner as it was issued that outcome would have probably been reversed. But that was not to be, and it was not through moderators actions but Cde. Vin's own reluctance to appeal to the EC and yes…to be genuinely show regret and remorseful for previous actions, admitting a role in causing the dispute. But for yourself, you'd rather indulge in some theocratic semantics about one word i used. I do not kindly take to being called a cowardly bullshitter and having the integrity and sincerity of my moderating doubted. You may well consider such invective as acceptable from a fellow member but to return to my opening remark – i don't consider it comradely in the slightest and don't expect such accusations to be made against me or any other member of the Party..i can only talk for myself, but my patience is being tested and i am coming to the end of my tether and quite frankly if you want my job as moderator, you are very welcome to volunteer for it….but i very much doubt you will…As a parting piece of information i recommended Cde. Maratty to be given the admin of an inactive media blogspot so he could continue his interest and involvement with videos.More fool me, eh?
Quote:This thread is bullshit, created by a member with an axe to grind.To dispose of this piece of mis-information and mis-direction simply and easily click first message to read the opening post. We are so "cowardly" that we put our decisions on to the forum on this topic thread for discussion. We have not shied away from taking responsibility for our moderation. As i said we will defend our moderation decisions if we conclude they were the right ones and will retract and apologise, which we have done on a number of occasions, when we agreed with the criticisms. For Mcolme's information, Cde. Vin Maratty is also banned from posting on our party's Yahoo business and internal discussion lists by a different moderator. WSM moderation is conducted by i think a member of the SPC (could be the WSPUS) and so you could offer your services as i believe he is inactive rather than passive (plus it is a discussion list with negligible traffic to monitor.)
Tim, the protocols on etiquette between members was laid down by conference which as you are well aware of, supersedes the guide-lines, the rules and the moderators authority…and you can check which conference resolutions which mandates a certain amount of civility and respect between members by going to Spintcom files and searching out the year yourself. Once more, why do you not read what Mod2 actually responded when the same point was raised earlier. I was replying to Cde. Mcolme query about what he considered was a more lenient treatment of LBird and the reply was not accusing Cde Maratty of the same breach but an explanation to clarify for Cde. Mcolme that because of their different status, LBird can be more accusatory in his posts..again within reason. Yes, we do hold members to a higher standard than non-members…Tough being an SPGBer, isn't it?Let it be clear what this moderator is saying and has said.I intend where possible to moderate with a lighter touch that what might have been the previous case. I'm not pointing the finger but simply saying my attitude and approach is my own. This means that i may well hold a different position from fellow moderators. I am one of three. I can be out-voted. I am also a democrat and accept decisions that go against my own view. Or would you like it if three individual moderators kept making individual idiosyncratic but conflicting decisions and kept reversing actions back and forth?If Mod1 infringed the rules as you claim by saying you were anti-democratic (again, i am not going to track back into history for the message) then banning would not have been the immediate response but a warning would have been issued. Has he repeated the claim? If not, then, we can assume he has understood he had gone further than he should have. I'm not going to return to the relevant messages for the context but let us be clear, many members in the history of the Party have accused others of not acting democratically and, in itself, does not warrant to be considered as questioning the member's socialist credentials and qualifications to be a member of the Party. Moderators have often been accused ourselves of behaving anti-democratically and, again depending upon what context, it can be considered as fair and acceptable comment. At other times, it can be seen as an unjustifiable slur that will evoke an official response. It appears to me, Tim, that you are personally very concerned from the number of times you have posted about the moderation process and its implementation by ourselves. Cde. Maratty will vouch that i frequently in the now distant past when difficulties were arising and evolving suggested he puts himself forward as a moderator and shoulder some of the responsibility of maintaining some order on the forum. I now suggest the very same to you. If you feel you can bring your own expertise and knowledge to the task then come aboard.But if you believe that constantly highlighting what you perceive as the failings of fellow members and comrades, all volunteers for what i think many would see as an unenviable party position, is constructive contributions to the Party organisation, so be it. We, the moderators, will continue to defend ourselves and our actions when we think we are in the right and beg forgiveness if we tresspass and transgress.
Our African themed Socialist Banner blog recently posted about the EU's attitude to protectionist policies. http://socialistbanner.blogspot.com/2016/09/free-trade.html
Quote:Six African countries who had been threatened with losing access to the European single market have finally agreed to sign the EU’s Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). But the continent may suffer as a result. In July, the EU had upped the pressure on six African governments, threatening to suspend their single market access if they had not ratified the new agreements by 1 October. Faced with a tax on their EU exports if they failed to cooperate, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Botswana, Namibia, Swaziland and Kenya all finally agreed to ratify their Economic Partnership Agreements. Kenya’s Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, Adan Mohamed, said that if he had allowed the EU’s October ultimatum to pass, “Kenyan products would have become un-competitive on the European market, as they would have been taxed at 22%”. The EPA, obliges it to progressively open its own market to European products. Critics say the dice are weighted in favour of the EU. The loss of customs revenue, coupled with competition from European products arriving on less development markets, is a major cause for concern.The strong decide the rules, the weak succumb.
You really must overcome this idea that every comment by the moderators is related directly to Cde Maratty's situation.The case for an unmoderated forum has been made in the past by Gnome. I merely reminded those with like-minded opinions to be careful for what they wish for.And in my reply to Mcolome i was trying to explain the reason why LBird appears to be able to make uncomradely accusations against some forum users without any consequences – because for the simple fact that he is not a comrade in the sense of being a fellow-member. But moderators do expect him to show a certain amount of civility as a fellow-worker, I was not referring to Cde. Marratty's own circumstances.
LBird is a non-member guest contributor to the forum. He has in the past (before my time as moderator) been sanctioned and suspended for breaking the forum rules (if memory serves me rightly.)As a non-member of the WSM and an opponent, he has the liberty of challenging the SPGB and its members' credentials as socialists just as long as his remarks remain within limits civil and are not abusive or insulting. He is free on the forum to express sentiments that we dispute and deny. He is not subject to any Party protocol that stops members questioning fellow members qualifications and qualities for being a socialist or a party member. Many may think he has had time enough to explain his position and question our own but as long as forum users respond and reply to his posts, he will continue to answer them. Therefore, the onus is upon forum users to take action by taking no action, when LBird posts his message. i don't think it is the purpose of moderators to control or censor the contents of posts other than enforcing the forum rules. LBird has been reminded to remain on-topic and not to de-rail threads. If he persists and, especially if there are complaints, the moderators will, indeed, act. Something, i hope he is fully aware of. One thing has to be remembered, LBird, unlike Cde. Marratty, has no recourse to an appeal process other than request the moderators to review their decision. Our decision is the final one. We could impose a permanent ban if we so wished but i wonder, considering the criticism we have received at continuing, for the time being, the present indefinite suspension given to Cde. Marratty, whether such a response would be welcomed when the moderators are being asked to change their attitude and approach to moderation towards a lighter touch.
This is now a REMINDER TO ALL CONTRIBUTORS to the thread1. 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.The OP has already explained the purpose of opening this topic and what he expected to have discussed and has appealed for it to remain on track. Please respect that wish of a comrade and if you consider what you need to say is of the utmost importance, start another topic or direct attention to an already existing thread.Be fully aware that posts can and possibly will be removed by the moderators if you insist upon ignoring this advice. Is that a clear enough warning?
Quote:The topic is supposed to be about why are the Labour Party in Britain relatively large. This can include comparisons to the SPGB but not irrelevant stuff or claims that there is no difference, ideologically or otherwise.Please do the original poster the courtesy of addressing the issue he wishes to discuss on this thread and explained further in his last message. Otherwise begin a new thread.
REMINDER (for LBird)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. I think we all know we have been here before but there are other aspects to the topic thread that others would prefer to concentrate upon rather than be distracted by the now well-trod path you seem intent upon taking it down once again. No need to reply to this message, LBird, just heed the reminder for the benefit of the other forum users and if you wish, just treat it as another cop-out by the SPGB but it is time to move on…Your views can continue elsewhere on the appropriate thread, if you so desire.
Worth a re-read…from almost 10 years agohttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2007/no-1231-march-2007/greasy-pole-if-john-were-prime-minister
When Cde. Maratty first requested that the two incoming moderators review his indefinite suspension, i informed my co-moderators of my view that if two out of three of us approved then the suspension would be lifted. This did not transpire.When quizzed upon my reasons for taking this decision by Cde. Maratty i answered that it was a judgment call based on my lack of confidence that past situations which resulted in his suspension and the disruption of the forum's objective they contributed to would not be repeated.It is my personal feeling that Cde. Maratty in terms of contravening forum rules may not be irredeemable but he is certainly a recidivist. That opinion of mine not only still remains but has only been re-confirmed by the manner in which he has endeavoured to have that decision reversed and his suspension revoked. There has been little change in the stream of posts and PMs over the past weeks to lead me to any different conclusion. For the present, the only thing which will revise my original position is to be out-voted by my co-moderators or to be instructed to by a higher Party authority – the EC, Conference or Party Poll.Has Moderator 2 now made his attitude crystal clear for all to understand, even if they don't agree with it.
This is now an official reminder
Quote: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.The topic is the WSP(INDIA) minutes, not a discussion on moderation. Gnomes original query i saw as legitimate, but the rest are not.
Message #6Is this really relevant to the case at point?Cde. Gnome took issue with my message which was posted to indicate that the OP had breached a rule which i did not deem too serious but sufficient for an action equivalent of a referee taking a player aside for a word.Gnome rightly pointed out that it should have been done by PM In retrospect, Gorachand may feel aggrieved a quiet word being so public. As for your demand for consistency, we are damned if we and damned if we aren't. I suggest you keep this thread to its topic – the WSP (India) minutes.
