moderator2
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Seems like any attempt to smooth over the bumps and pot-holes of this forum with a non-contentious approach results in more controversy.But, yes, a PM may have been the advisable route to take, even though a message directed to one particular person may well also be helpful advice for others on the forum and it perhaps should be shared with the forum.Your view that calling a comrade "vindictive" is acceptable happens not to be shared by this moderator but the use of it was not expressing such extreme disrespect that it would warrant posting an official reminder. If in the past, moderators permitted uncomradely aspersions to be cast on other forum users, then you will acknowledge and appreciate that the moderators are now making efforts to end, or at least, minimise such exchanges.
Gorachand, you may, of course, comment on the minutes of the WSP (India) but can i remind you of this rule and the section i have highlighted
Quote: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.This is not an official reminder but more of a comradely early intervention to avoid future problems. Cde. Sarkar is a fellow member of the WSM and we cannot accept having aspersions cast upon his character on the forum. I hope you take note of this informal cautionary message so that the issue does not become more serious. Take care with future posts.
Damn…left that moderator account on again…curses but the post is from alanjjohnstone…my apologies once more
It's not so much how many pamphlets they have published, but how many they have circulated and how many fellow-workers have read them.
Quote:I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.And you have been repeatedly informed that we are in the process of addressing these concerns and those changes will allow appeals against moderator decisions to go to members uninvolved with the matter and for them to resolve the issue within a time-scale. The fact that these changes are taking place is sufficient evidence that the current moderators share the view of other forum users that aspects of the current guidelines is wanting in particular aspects. I think when we submit the changes to the EC, having already discussed them within the IC, the forum will be informed at the same time so to forward their views to the EC. (as well you and others know, some EC members decline to visit this forum so if someone has criticisms or improvements it has to go directly to the EC to hear and not automatically expect opinions expressed on the forum to be noted)But that is still to be finally decided and i offer only a personal opinion. Regards the EC, Cde.Maratty possesses the option of urging his branch or any other branch to bring the matter of his indefinite suspension to conference and ultimately a Party Poll of all members. That is the supreme body which over-rules all committees and rescinds all prior decisions. Albeit, perhaps a cumbersome form of democracy, but eventually it will resolve any disputes and grievances to the satisfaction of the Party as a whole, if not to an individual or perhaps a group of individuals. I am well aware of union procedure and often lawyers are required to approve the form of words in any negotiation settlement. I think the willingness of the present moderators to try and establish a harmonious forum is quite evident to those who recognise the genuine intent of our approach and attitudes. However, for those who look for sinister undertones and ulterior motives, there will always particular words or phrases to be misconstrued and misinterpreted.But i believe you, yourself, Tim, once referred to the thickness of your hide when it comes to barbed posts…likewise, the moderators are not easily distracted from their duties.
The moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so – to request that the EC over-rule the moderators. The numerous messages and PMs directed to ourselves since we collectively came to that decision, has not swayed us in our judgement.
JFK had Addison's DiseaseLet us not forget FDR and his polio. However, we should note that both these presidents took utmost precautions to either minimise (FDR) or keep secret (JFK) these health problems.But Trumps's previous near-misogynist campaign to highlight Clinton's "feminine" fraility may have paid off to a certain degree now.
" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.
It has been pointed out that there does not exist a permanent ban – but an indefinite suspension. The moderators have on numerous occasions directed Cde.Vin to address his concerns about his circumstances directly to the EC who possess the authority to instruct the moderators to rescind their decision. We rightly permit anyone to express their views…as long as they abide by the guidelines and rules of this forum. The original decision to issue Cde. Vin with his indefinite suspension was not taken lightly and it was subsequently reviewed and re-confirmed.It may have been forgotten by some but he was indefinitely suspended for persistently breaching the rules despite being subject previous sanctions against his behaviour on the forum which disrupted its operation for other users.
It would be misleading to deny that an individual case resulted in drawing attention to a very obvious breach of the intent of Rule 8, revealing a flaw in the purpose of a suspension – which is, naturally, to actually suspend posting privileges.But the wording of the rule was chosen to be applicable generally and be fit to apply in other future situations.
Here, Timhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/september-2016-ec-minutes#comment-34461Message #6We are not trying to police private e-mails. We are not trying to impose censorship. A rule already existed but it could be and was being purposefully disregarded. If in the context of your own message you cite a banned person's view or opinion, that is permissible. But if you are deemed to be deliberately posting on behalf of a suspended user so as to deliberately circumvent the suspension then that is not allowed. Certain suspended members may be in the unique and fortunate position of having a person to act as their proxy, but there will be others who will be under a suspension who will not have this advantage. But if they possess a legitimate and valid reason to communicate with the Party through the forum, our rule permits ourselves, the moderators, to temporary lift the sanction in the interests and benefit of the Party as a whole.
Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed. How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached.
I tried to point out in a comradely way that several posts could have been quite easily combined into one post as per the rule which is there for the convenience of other forum users. There is no curtailment of your free speech but a suggestion that the messages are posted in accordance with the rules. It was a post intended to avoid any possible 'aggro', not create it. But as they say…the road to hell is paved by good intentions…. The moderators on this forum are solely concerned with this forum, and no other.It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts. Some users had considered the guidelines not 'fit for purpose' and their concerns are being addressed but like everything within the Party, there is a proper procedure to follow. People would be rightly upset if we, the moderators, made up and applied our own rules without due process.
Linda, please note that your style of post may well contravene this rule6. 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’).This is an informal piece of advice for you to consider in future postings and not a formal reminder.
