[SocialistPunk]

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.

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.

[SocialistPunk]

Not so fast.You have the audacity to say I'm being disrespectful, after your accusation in post #86.

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 moderate

I asked you to explain yourself, #97 and invited you to make an official complaint.

SocialistPunk wrote:

As moderator3 I have made no such comment. As a moderator I am doing a job for the Party and as such I keep to the issue at hand. My personal feelings about a person do not enter into consideration.It seems as though you are accusing me and Brian of using our Party post to carry out some sort of personal vendetta against Vin. Would you care to make an official complaint to that effect?You and Vin have bleated on about Party members conspiring against him once too often.It's time to put up or shut up!

If you are a socialist you do not go around making unfounded accusations, you provide proof and/ or reasoned argument. Neither of which you have done.You and Vin have accused Brian and myself of abusing our Party appointed roles, as moderators, to silence another Party member.Do you and Vin have the integrity to back up your accusations, or retract them?

[SocialistPunk]

lindanesocialist wrote:

So……Vin is banned from the forum for going of topic. Care to point out the on-topic posts? What an absolute farce

You keep peddling the same distortion regardig Vin's last suspension. It wasn't for off topic, it was for breaching rues 7, 14 and 15.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14

[SocialistPunk]

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 moderate

As moderator3 I have made no such comment. As a moderator I am doing a job for the Party and as such I keep to the issue at hand. My personal feelings about a person do not enter into consideration.It seems as though you are accusing me and Brian of using our Party post to carry out some sort of personal vendetta against Vin. Would you care to make an official complaint to that effect?You and Vin have bleated on about Party members conspiring against him once too often.It's time to put up or shut up!

[SocialistPunk]

Well you did point out the corrupting influence of power when you mentioned the book Animal Farm…mwahahahahaha!!

[SocialistPunk]

Linda, I no longer know what on earth you and Vin are going on about now.The only thing I can make out in your post is the bit about moderators being the chair. Only thing is, I never said moderators were like a chairperson.I've already said the forum is not like a Party meeting with all contributions going through the chair. It's an online discussion space with multiple discussions going on at any one time, sometimes within the same thread.Here's what I said a few posts back.

SocialistPunk wrote:

Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.

[SocialistPunk]

lindanesocialist wrote:

The choice is yours, not Vin's

How so? I don't get the logic behind Vin thinking he can bypass forum protocol and then claim it's the moderators who are at fault? 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.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.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.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.

[SocialistPunk]

For starters I'm not moderator3 right now, I'm SocialistPunk. I'm not making official statements or [sarcasm alert] dispensing righteous justice. I'm simply addressing an issue the way I see it, the way I saw it before becoming a moderator.I've already told Vin on a number of occasions, that as far as I could make out he was last suspended for breaching forum rules 7, 14 and 15, so I've no idea why you feel the need to mention that he wasn't suspended for posting memes. I know that already.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/twitter-account-worldsocialismcom?page=14Vin has been advised a number of times now, that he holds the key to unlock his suspension. It would be a lot easier and quicker than seeking out a change of forum rules. Theoretically he could be back on the forum come the next EC meeting, if he got his appeal to the EC on time for their next meeting, this Saturday.It always comes down to an issue of, "Vin was moderated unfairly etc". I've stated on numerous occasions that moderators are not machines, they have to make human judgement calls. When I signed up to become a moderator, it wasn't part of my job to go over old moderation decisions to see if they were "just and true". So it's pointless to keep on about how Vin was unfairly moderated etc.Once again I've told Vin numerous times, to put together a case to prove his "innocence". I first asked Vin to do this months ago during a NERB PM discussion on this forum. He flat out refused to do so. Perhaps had he done so then we might not be having this discussion now.My guess is this will just drag on and on with no resolution, wasting peoples time and energy, when it could have been solved long ago. The choice is Vin's, either keep it dragging on, arguing on the forum, or take some action that might result in a democratic decision he is happy with. It's a no brainer as far as I can tell.

[SocialistPunk]

The idea of an indefinite suspension means the way is always open to find a solution that suits all parties. Whereas a "lifetime ban" is final.

[SocialistPunk]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.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.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

Actually this is not quite correct. The issue here is most definately about Vin somehow not being able or perhaps unwilling to use what is already in place. Something most forum users don't seem to have a problem doing.I raised the issue of Vin providing an alternative set of rules as it's all to easy to criticise, but another all together to offer constructive alternatives.  I've asked Vin on numerous occasions in private as well as NERB email conversations, to offer even a hint of some alternative, and when once more publicly put on the spot, all we get is out of context memes and insulting innuendo.Tim, you weren't around when the first wave of "The Moderation Wars" kicked off. It sparked a long drawn out bout of forum "soul searching", regarding moderation. After months of argument, an improved set up was put in place (I can't recall if it came from an EC directive or conference) and Brian signed up as moderator1. He has always held to the view that the forum procedures are a work in progress and to that effect encouraged users to post suggestions regarding moderation, on a thread in Web/Technical.The two issues you raise are good ideas, but they aren't new. I believe Brian himself stated he was in favour of a set up whereby a dedicated section for moderation issues, where decisions could be openly thrashed out, was set up on the forum. Brian may be able to shed more light on the subject but I believe the concept was never moved forward due to practical concerns and a lack of volunteers.Regarding the issue of appeals, I've previously brought up the idea the Party should have something along the lines of an appeals committee to hear Party members grievances. A committee that had the power to make decisions. Though I expect even such a committee would be unacceptable to some, if the decisions didn't favour them.But like everything we do, it takes volunteers, and right now there isn't a very big pool to provide the volunteer numbers we need to do everything. In the meantime the moderators are doing their best to make the forum as appropriate as possible. It's an ongoing process. We are not power hungry pigs from a George Orwell novel.Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.

[SocialistPunk]

I keep reading now and then (recently on the thread about Vin's video), that Vin has been given a "lifetime ban" from the forum.This is not the case.Vin is on an indefinite suspension and has been advised on the forum, as well as in private emails, that he has options open to him to get reinstated. The main requirement being is that he will at some point need to persuade Party members that he is either willing to follow forum rules (like most forum members seem able to), or persuade Party members the rules need changing. Either way it will take some sort of presentation of a case.

[SocialistPunk]

Yep, a good read. What you imply is not worthy of a response.How about you address some of the points I've sent your way?

SocialistPunk wrote:

I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way?What has the organized mass murder of people got to do with rules/guidelines for an online forum? The use of Banksey's work in this way actually belittles the original message.

If you can't or won't address these points, then perhaps you could let us know if you have a problem with the rules and procedures of the forum? If so, perhaps you have some sort of alternative to offer?If you refuse to address my points then we are back to one of the following.

SocialistPunk wrote:

It seems we have a Socialist Party member who either doesn't want to follow the rules of this forum, yet still wants to post. Or who thinks the rules are wrong. If it is the latter, then it isn't unreasonable to expect an alternative set of rules to be presented for consideration. If it is the former then we have what I previously described, "a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism."

[SocialistPunk]

If I get a warning I'm willing to abide by the moderators decision.I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way?What has the organized mass murder of people got to do with rules/guidelines for an online forum? The use of Banksey's work in this way actually belittles the original message.

[SocialistPunk]

It seems we have a Socialist Party member who either doesn't want to follow the rules of this forum, yet still wants to post. Or who thinks the rules are wrong. If it is the latter, then it isn't unreasonable to expect an alternative set of rules to be presented for consideration. If it is the former then we have what I previously described, "a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism." 

[SocialistPunk]

It's important that rules are challenged, and at times this means breaking them. Without challenges to the status quo progress would be slow.But breaking rules without offering alternative ideas, solutions, etc, is in essence a meaningless display of the egoism of individualist anarchism.

[Author]

Posts