SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Weird how two forum users who don't like the forum rules, but still choose to post, have used the report feature of this forum for, "experimentation" purposes only. I guess it must be scientific socialism at work?
sat·ire[ sat-ahy uhr]NOUN1.the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.2.a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.3.a literary genre comprising such compositions.
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:moderator1 wrote:without prior permission from the moderators.”May I ask via what channels would permission be requested and on what grounds would permission be granted/decided upon? How long will it take to come to such a decision?
I can't think why the moderators want to create this rod to beat their own backs.
It's the power which appeals, at least to some. Which is why, in the past, I've argued for an unmoderated forum. Let's face it, things couldn't have really been that much worse, and in all likelihood a great deal better, than over the past few years. The almost constant public wrangling cannot have had anything but a deleterious effect. How many visitors to this forum, does one suppose, have left in dismay, never to return?
Out of interest, have you ever used the report feature of the forum?
Subhaditya wrote:Now socialism is trying to scale up the communes of 100-150 people that existed 10,000 years ago to communes involving millions of people. The thing is the females were shared in the communes to make them work as was parental responsibilities. I dont think people will be inclined to share material resources if the females arent shared. The ideal situation I can think of is where every female is accessible to all men and parental resposibility is shared communally.And.
Quote:If we do decide to tolerate or encourage physical pleasure seeking behavior how we may go about it, the authors of "Sex At Dawn" highlight several communities that do just that often having rituals that encourage female accessibility and discouraging men from behaving possessively / selfishly. Ultimately trying to create conditions where every female is accessible to all men.As DJP pointed out, the OP seems to give the impression that women are objects.
gnome wrote:moderator2 wrote: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.If this is not an official reminder to Gorachand wouldn't it have been preferable to send him a PM? But it occurs to me that he was well within the limits of Rule 7 which permits the candid and forceful expression of views. Odd too that "aspersions" can be cast upon certain members of the SPGB without so much as a murmur from the moderators.
The moderators were so biased in their approach they even let a particularly uncomradely aspersion made against themselves go unchallenged.
If there were originally twenty four of them and now there are only five remaining, by my calculations, it means they should have nineteen tin foil hats going spare.
lindanesocialist wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.Vin said:Most of my suspensions are for openly discussing and challenging moderators' decisions suggesting that they should be discussed openly on the forum and in line with our Party traditions of openness. Indeed after one suspension I had to assure the IC that I would never again question moderators decisions on the forumAt the moment secrecy surrounds the decision making of mods.I have made these suggestions myself and I wish you luck in achieving some form of transparency. You have mine and Linda's supportoops Your off to a bad start, then
I recall being here before, with me suggesting Vin bring rule change issues up with the branch. He didn't seem that interested in that approach for some reason.
lindanesocialist wrote:My point is, that a criticism of the Intro Video is that it leaves the party open to be sued for using BBC material but the video was constructed using material from the Party's official Youtube channel.We were already open to be sued before the Intro Video.Can't say fairer than that. Case closed, surely?
It doesn't matter whether or not some people from this or that branch disagree with the merits of the quality of the video, so it's unhelpful to attempt to set branch members against one another.The issue here is whether or not there's an issue of copyright to be worried about.From my point of view I can't see that there is a problem and if there were an issue, it could be sorted.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.Tim Kilgallon wrote:As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago.
StephenWhat you actually said was and what I object to was that "Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it."I have demonstrated clearly that I haven't just make sarcastic comments, and that in the past, contrary to what you have posted, I have made contributions which pointed out where I think you have gone terribly wrong and made suggestions about how I think the mods could have hamdled the situation better. So I ask again, are you, as you are keen to get others to do, willing to withdraw that remark?
Tim,I've no problem with withdrawing that remark. I also apologise if I caused any offence, it was not my intention. I just got a little annoyed with your comment (see below) and let slip a word, "just", that changed the slant of the question and had no place.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.There is a question I wanted to ask you, regarding the sentence highlighted in bold above, but I don't have time right now. Perhaps I'll come back to it later.
Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago.
I am speaking as a forum member here, not a moderator. I have on a number of occasions explained that I'm speaking for myself and not as a moderator. I think anyone following this discussion will be able to grasp that I am capable of having a opinion of my own without it affecting my judgement as a moderator.I know you wish to give the impression that I'm abusing my role as a moderator, but if you cast your memory back a few months, you'll find I had the same views on this subject as I have now, and that was before I became a moderator. I challenged your attitude regards moderation back then and you didn't like it, as such it lead to accusations coming from you and Vin that I was an abuser and bully, sending hatemail to you. This led to the bust up at the last online NERB meeting.
Lindnesocialist wrote:I am leaving this subject, it has been flogged to death but I will ask quarterly if the ban still stands.Now, seeing as you've decided to rejoin the conversation despite proclaiming you were done with it. How about explaining the following.
lindanesocialist wrote:Mod1 has declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to call him a comrade. How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderateYou are basically saying Brian and myself are using our Party roles as moderators to wage a vendetta against Vin. As such you are saying we are corrupt as well as without socialist integrity.This is now the third time (see posts #97 and #128) I've had to ask if you are going to either retract your accusation or make an official complaint?Seeing as you like questioning the integrity of others, do you have the integrity to either back up your accusation or retract it?
