SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I ask if the issue is about trust and I get the following reply.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I guess a big issue for party members is trust. Can a non-party moderator be trusted to moderate appropriately in an unbiased manner. However the same question regarding moderating in an unbiased manner is still applicable to a party member.Nope, nothing to do with trust or bias, simply: this is a Party forum, it should be run by party members, democratically accountable to the rest of the party.
Then we get the following.
Young Master Smeet wrote:To be frank, I'm at a loss as to why someone who will not or cannot join the party would even want to moderate our forum for us. My first thoiught is sabotage, or to turn the forum towards whatever policy or idea they do support.DJP wrote:moderator1 wrote:You are definitely wrong. Most of the debates held in Swansea are chaired by a non-member. Its down to the Branch to decide who chairs their debates.OK. Shows how many meetings I go to. But surely this is different for business meetings?
DJP,If you notice the quote below makes no reference to party business meetings.
SocialistPunk wrote:May I ask if the SPGB invite non-party members to chair physical debates that they host?There has never been any suggestion that sympathiser/supporter volunteers get membership voting rights.
Thanks as well Northern Light.I knew I wasn't imagining it. Though it's unlikely to have been party policy. Perhaps some long standing members could clarify?During my time in the NERB in the late 1990's I only recall two party debates, but my memory of those events is so poor I can't recall if it was being done then.
Thanks for solving the mystery Vin.I don't expect I'll get any acknowledgment from some quarters that I knew what I was talking about.
My mistake then DJP.I thought I heard that the SPGB used to invite audience members to take the chair at physical debates.
YMS1) I've already pointed out the unlikeliness of the relevant department considering an unknown forum newbie. A likely candidate would be someone known to the forum community. As for demonstrable commitment, I previously asked what volunteering to moderate this forum was, if not a demonstration of masochistic commitment.The only difference accountability wise is what I've already pointed out. A party member may be booted out of the party. I expect before that happens they would have been removed from their role as moderator.A non-party member moderator would still be booted off the forum. But would avoid the extra shame of being booted out of the party.Either way the party still has control of the forum. So the extra level of disciplinary action is irrelevant.Your next points are more personal appeal, than logical opposition.2) Yes people should be encouraged to join, however there may be numerous reasons why a sympathiser is unable to.As has been pointed out sympathiser/supporter help is not turned down in other situations. So if the party were to follow your logic on this point, those sympathisers should be turned away and told to form their own organisation.3) Of course they are. But it's an irrelevant statement and logicaly inconsistent (see above).4) Not sure what thas has to do with the relevant party body maintaining control over moderation of an open forum? To make it clear I'm not suggesting non member sympathisers are given voting "rights".The only "rights" a non-party moderator would need is to be allowed to work as part of a moderation team.We already know that sympathisers contribute to the benefit of the SPGB, probably more than some actual members. Given the controls the party would maintain over the forum, what is the difference between the types of volunteer activities already accepted by the party?Some, including yourself, have argued that moderating this forum is like chairing a meeting. May I ask if the SPGB invite non-party members to chair physical debates that they host?
Young Master Smeet wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:So in the abscence of party volunteers, a non party sympathizer volunteering to moderate this site would be turned down?That about sums up my opinion. Not sure how the quote below relates. Sympathisers can go run their own socialist fora if they want.
A case of "cutting ones nose off to spite the face".The quote I used, as you know, comes from the explanation of the DoP, number 8.
Quote:Only the conscious support of the working class will create socialism, and to this end the Socialist Party seeks to increase understanding of, and mobilize support for, socialism.The Socialist Party calls upon every worker to support these efforts in any way that they can.I shouldn't have to explain the relevance of the above quote to an SPGB member. You evaded answering my questions on this subject on the Moderation Suggestions thread. Now I find you doing the same when pressed. This time you use the "accountability" card.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Nope, nothing to do with trust or bias, simply: this is a Party forum, it should be run by party members, democratically accountable to the rest of the party.You have yet to provide a consistently logical answer to my questions.
SocialistPunk wrote:I would be interested to hear from those who are opposed to non a non-party member moderating on this forum, explain the accountability thing for me?If a party member moderator behaved in an unacceptable manner, I'd imagine they would be removed from the post, have their forum account canceled and perhaps face the ultimate sanction of being booted out of the party.Other than the last bit, there's little difference. So what's the accountability fetish all about?Not sure what you're geting at, YMS?Are you suggesting party members get special priveleges regards treatment on this forum? Or are you suggesting banning members from the forum should not lie solely in the hands of moderators, as rule 13 seems to imply?
So in the abscence of party volunteers, a non party sympathizer volunteering to moderate this site would be turned down? Sound familiar?
Quote:Only the conscious support of the working class will create socialism, and to this end the Socialist Party seeks to increase understanding of, and mobilize support for, socialism.The Socialist Party calls upon every worker to support these efforts in any way that they can.Not sure what you're refering to YMS, but rule thirteen of the forum posting guidelines does seem to suggest forum members can be permanently suspended from the forum. I don't think party membership status entitles a forum member to special priveleges.13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.
The issue of democratically electing moderators for party forums is a moot point. Northern Light asked the following question.
Northern Light wrote:Moderator1 has asked on more than one occasion for volunteers to step up to the mark and ease his burden. To my knowledge, he has had no takers, so where will this list of volunteers come from?The only attempt to address this question came from Alan, who suggested a form of compulsory service from party members subscribing to a forum service. If that were introduced I'd imagine the traffic from members would be even less.I would be interested to hear from those who are opposed to non a non-party member moderating on this forum, explain the accountability thing for me?If a party member moderator behaved in an unacceptable manner, I'd imagine they would be removed from the post, have their forum account canceled and perhaps face the ultimate sanction of being booted out of the party.Other than the last bit, there's little difference. So what's the accountability fetish all about?
The issue of non-party moderators has been discussed on the thread Moderation Suggestions, starting at #91 from a suggestion by Alan.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-suggestions?page=8Certain requirements would need to be agreed on. Such as:-The non-member being a forum member of a certain length of time.They probably should be a party sympathizer.The relevant party body democratically agreeing on the appointment and if needed a party wide vote.The non-party moderator would be subject to the same controls, restrictions etc as a party member mod'. Meaning they can be removed from the post and if warranted from the forum.It would be desirable that there is also at least one other party member moderator making up a moderation team. That way it should alleviate any party member fears that a non-party member is in total control.I guess a big issue for party members is trust. Can a non-party moderator be trusted to moderate appropriately in an unbiased manner. However the same question regarding moderating in an unbiased manner is still applicable to a party member.There is also likely to be a simple question rolling around in some party members minds, "If they are willing to be a moderator then why not join the party?"
The imagery in that cartoon, from the rag that is the Daily Mail, wouldn't have been out of place among the anti Jewish propaganda of the Nazis.The spirit of Harmsworth (lord Rothermere) does indeed live on.
Vin,Of course we can call for the abolition of money today, it's an integral part of the socialist case. Every time I've discussed our brand of socialism with others the abolition of money is a core feature. I don't know about other socialists but I don't try to get non socialists to think of a capitalist world with no money.Consciously adopting a socialist society would mean the abolition of money along with capitalism, it is a conscious decision, surely.Or perhaps you're suggesting socialism would evolve? I've been thinking of setting up a thread to discuss the concept of socialism coming about through evolution or revolution, or a mix of both. When we discuss socialism with non socialists we are trying to get people to think of it now, not in a distant future in a galaxy far far away.
ALB wrote:All true, but sometimes any publicity is good publicity. And some people will see a half-empty glass where others see a half-full one.ALB,I would say this "publicity" is worse than no publicity.What we have here is an author whose ideological outlook gets way more mainstream coverage than the SPGB/WSM could ever dare to hope for and he's essentially saying, "Can you believe some hippie lefties still cling to the Utopian notion of a world without money. Dream on. Now back to reality."What's worse is he only takes it up to the 1970's and doesn't mention the SPGB by name. He know's the SPGB exist and still advocate a world without money and he's doing a good job of painting it as a quaint notion.It's just more of the same misrepresentation etc, us socialists have to face on a regular basis.Using the water in a glass metaphor. We're trying to fill the glass, while him and his kind successfully drain it. But never dry.
