moderator3
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lindanesocialist wrote:ALB wrote:yet within 10 days of his second undertaking (of 29/30 of October) on 9 November he opened a socket puppet account in clear and flagrant breach of the forum's rules.I would say that that amounts to the end of his third chance that the ADM delegates voted to give him and that the least messy way out of this would be for Vin fo follow Alan's example and withdraw completely from this forum.
Vin saidIt seems Alan's tantrum is paying offAdamThis was not a sock puppet account. The Internet Committee have acted undemocratically and refused to take into account the recommendation of ADM and the EC. They have been constantly provocative. I could see they had no intention of allowing me back on the forum so opened up an account – which is my right . I opened ONE account. I did not have an existing account. My previous account was permanently blocked. Mackiavellian defies the definition of a sock puppet account. A sock puppet account requires TWO active accounts.The problem was criticism of the party. The IC will always find a rule to apply against me. I moved a resolution to have them removed for undemocratic behaviour and they have had it in for me ever since.
Yet more distortion.When Vin created his "Machiavellian" account, the Internet Committee had not been given the instruction from the EC to reinstate Vin's account.If Vin had contacted the moderators to discuss the situation, he would have found out that the IC had not yet received instruction from the EC. And that as soon as instruction had been received, Vin's account would have been unblocked.This is not the first time Vin and Linda have jumped the gun in seeking to apportion blame where it did not belong.
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-suggestions?page=14
Obviously some users fail to grasp the reason the rules encourage us to contact the moderators regarding moderation decisions.The idea behind contacting the moderators off thread, regarding moderation decisions, is to allow a dsicussion to take place between moderator and forum user, that doesn't clog up the thread.
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.
lindanesocialist wrote:moderator3 wrote:Just logged on and I can report that the flag/report function has been activated. Forum users can no longer see when it has been activated.I'm not really sure what action can be justified against the post in question? Do users wish to see accounts blocked every time a single, non threatening, inflammatory comment is made?Didn't they teach you anything at moderation classes. He is a troll, his only contribution has been to illicit an emotional response.Furthermore, he is clearly a member of the party. Wow, wish you defended Vin so well
I am aware it was a comment designed to illicit an emotional response. My point is, this forum is littered with posts that are aimed at doing just that. Do we block all users when they go a trolling?I have contacted Admin to see if he can shed any light on the issue.
Just logged on and I can report that the flag/report function has been activated. Forum users can no longer see when it has been activated.I'm not really sure what action can be justified against the post in question? Do users wish to see accounts blocked every time a single, non threatening, inflammatory comment is made?
Forum rulesYour 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 rules.Reminder: 12. Moderators may move, remove, or lock any threads or posts which they deem to be off-topic or in violation of the rules. Because posts and threads can be deleted without advance notice, it is your responsibility to make copies of threads and posts which are important to you.Reminder: 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.
Reminder: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account. Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.
lindanesocialist wrote:moderator3 wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appealsWould you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.
He has been informed that he must make an act of contrition to the EC.Where are these procedures written down? I have never heard of a forum member having to appeal to the EC against an indefinite but I stand to be corrected if you can refer me to the relevant documents regarding such procedure. How many other forum members have appealed to the ECComradely
Fair enough, you are under no obligation to answer my enquiry. I can only assume during previous suspensions, of which there have been a few, Vin has been informed of the procedure for challenging moderator decisions.
lindanesocialist wrote:It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appealsWould you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.
Warnings are given after a reminder has been posted on a thread and users continue to ignore the reminder.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.Moderator2 wrote:We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.What we have is a situation whereby a forum member, Vin, was suspended prior to two additional moderators joining the IC. Once Vin found out who they were, he asked our opinion on the matter, presumably with the view to have us overide the previous IC decision.To date, as far as I'm aware Vin has not contacted the EC to put his side of the story forward and request a removal of his suspension.It now appears the focus is being directed towards one word.
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.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Hi L BirdYou may find Brian's thread about Donald Trump provides you with a little bit of insight into your own life.1st Warning: 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.
