SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
History repeating itself here with the BBC. They did the same sort of thing to the Sex Pistols song "God Save the Queen" at the time of the silver jubilee in 1977. It hit number one on the NME charts, but the BBC only acknowledged it at number two. So avoiding the accusation of censorship, in not allowing it air play.Comforting to see the BBC are still the guardians of the nations morals.
Sorry OGW. I know you have been suggesting help for Steve, and ultimately the cause. I only meant, no SPGB mention of support was spoken of.
Glad you cleared that one up Adam. Thanks.My only concern here regarding both issues, is that whereas mention of financial support was suggested for an anarchist bookshop, no party support at all was spoken of when it came to a recent, reluctant ex member standing at a local election.That ex member only left the party as a matter of principle, very reluctantly may I add, I know it caused him much distress. If the party is serious about positive socialist activity taking off wherever possible, I don't think it too much to expect forward thinking socialists to rally around a fellow socialist, who in reality does not want to be left out in the wilderness.
ALB wrote:It's not a question of ignoring your post but of what's possible given the party's democratic decision-making processes. Better to let things take their course this time and see if something can be worked out in time for next May's elections when, amongst others, Sunderland and South Tyneside councils will be up for re-election.Democracy need not be bureaucratic and slow. I think it is time the SPGB took a long hard look at how party democracy could be brought up to date with modern technology.In the meantime looks like a real socialist takes a back seat to an anarchist book shop. Maybe next time!"Power to the people"
It is on post #16 (31st March) of this thread, where Steve states he is standing in the local elections and post #71 (5th April) where he mentions his rejection of offers of financial from non party socialists.That's a lot of talking and no offers of party support.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Wouldn't be that much different from the party offering financial support to the anarchist book shop. Steve's case is identical to that of the party and you will rarely come across a more honest bloke (as well as being a socialist of course) in the north of England.Strange that an offer of financial help was seriously suggested for the fire damaged anarchist bookshop, yet when a recent ex party member announced they are standing in the local elections, (to continue north east socialist electoral activity) no offer of party support was even mentioned on this forum.
Nice find Adam. That would make a good poster to plaster about and some t shirts. Ultimately pointless, but good fun.How about this thread be made into an anti tribute for her. We are gonna be bombarded by the media and she is gonna get a national send off etc.We should dig up, no pun intended, as much dirt about her as possible. Stuff like her relationship with the upstanding democratic loving, christian,General Pinochet. Factual stuff though. Nothing potentially libelous.What about it?On a slightly different note. When I was a wee, impressionable punk, one of the bands I liked called, The Exploited, (cool name) had a little number titled "Maggie". Some of the lyrics were a little on the explicit side, well most of them to be honest, and it was a favourite of mine back then."Maggie, Maggie, ya c###. Maggie Maggie Maggie, ya f###ing c####". Sweet. Who ever said punks couldn't write good music? (A bit of self censorship there, especially for Matt)They also had an album, "Lets start a war…..said Maggie one day"I think I'll get them out and have a listen.She will be missed by many a 80's punk.
Young Master Smeet wrote:A lot of people have called for soft touch moderation. The first step of which must, Shirley, be general calls to knock it off, without naming names. If infractions continue, named informal warnings, followed by named final warnings, and then banning/moderations follow.The job of the moderator isn't judicial, it's not about who started it, but keeping the forums clear of noise (and the causes of noise).If individuals feel particularly agreived, they can report infractions to the moderator, and ask for specific restiution, but we have all been asked not to fdo this on list. Just as we have been asked to not make pointless posts of the 'I agree' type. All individuals have to do is keep to a few simple rules. Don't flame, don't respond to flames. f you are aggreived, report via the button.YMSI have always advocated a set protocol regarding moderation that starts with a call for calm etc. Along with that contact with the parties involved. If that initial call for calm fails then warnings and if needed suspension for a set length of time.Not sure were you get the idea a lot advocate soft touch moderation? But we have the complete opposite right now. We have whole threads being locked down. The moderators threatens post deletion for breaches, then locks down the thread. What logic lies behind such behaviour and what authority?But to add insult to injury, Admin's alter ego joins in on the off topic, pointless contributions, yet gets infuriated when others fail to follow the rules. That I am afraid is hypocrisy in action. On the latest lock down a whole chunk of posts have been deleted, including Admin's alter ego contribution. How convenient.I posed the question to him, that if he could not follow the guidelines, how could others be held responsible for their breaches. No answer, just lock down and wholesale post deletion.Answer that YMS and Admin.I for one woud like access to my posts from the latest locked thread.
DJP wrote:steve colborn wrote:Can anyone explain what the big pipe, post 44 is all about?OGW posts a reply which says he cannot reply. It reminded me of the painting of a pipe by Rene Magritte with the caption "This is not a pipe"It was an attempt at humour to lighten up the situation, but failed and probably besides the point…Though clearly OGW is not banned..
DJP/AdminI see you clearly fail to grasp the intention behind the following forum guidelines. Before posting please consider the following:Will your post contribute? Does a one line response really add to the discussion? Will other users like to read what you are posting? If you are offering an opinion, give reasons. If you are asking a question, provide information. If you are sharing a link or article, say why. If you fail to get what the guidelines are there for, then how can others be held accountable for their inability to follow the guidelines?
AdamI too had thought things were settling down. There are a number of good threads going on right now, with a lot of good contributions from quite a few forum members, exchanging ideas and information, working together as socialists should.I am sad to say Admin is out of order big time on this one. There was no need to shut down a whole discussion, (all the off topic in the world can't derail a thread as well as lockdown) especially as it has simply relocated to here, on the forum. How futile it now appears. In fact it comes across as an act of vindictiveness, given the participants have a history of disagreement with Admin.Also, if we take the fact the moderators on SPopen have allowed vigorous discussion of the subject to take place, Admin's reaction is at odds with his moderator colleagues.May I ask if there has been any further movement regarding the EC looking into moderation?It is now glaringly obvious that something needs to be done to make moderation consistent, fair and accountable, and it needs to be done fast.
What with all the attacks on ex members recently, I think the old saying "action speaks louder than words" is very appropriate..
Sadly OGW, you have hit the nail on the head. Although open and free discussion is the key to democracy and therefore socialism, no organisation likes the light of possible criticism to be shone upon itself. The SPGB clearly is no different in that respect. The irony is that such un democratic displays of power, draws such attention even more.The way this forum is being managed is a reflection of the party. If one moderator is able to shut down a whole thread, that was not really a problem, (after all the issue is being discussed elsewhere) without following any kind of protocol, it sends a clear anti democratic and thus a clear anti socialist message.The party have always maintained that no single member has any special position or privileges, yet here we see one party member using the power at his disposal to try and shut down discussion between forum members he has had issue with previously. What is going on?No doubt we will get few answers, as we are not party members. But if that turns out to be the case then the party are shooting themselves in the foot, if they think such action will bring old friends or new recruits stampeding to join.
ModerationTo report a comment to a moderator use the 'Report' button below each post. Calling out for a moderator response in-thread is off-topic and will only serve to further derail the thread. Commenting on moderation decisions in-thread is also off-topic and will only serve to further derail the thread. In-thread comments on moderation will be removed and their continual posting will result in disciplinary action. Comments on moderation can be made within the 'Website/Technical' section of the forum. Does anyone else see the irony of the posting guidelines that I have highlighted above, in light of the recent unnecessary thread lockdown?Off topic derails a thread, questioning moderation derails a thread, blah, blah, blah.Somehow it fails to mention that locking a thread also serves to derail a thread entirely, in a way that no one can work around.I suggest an addition to the guidelines.Locking down a thread derails the thread, but is perfectly acceptable because we make the rules. No discussion will be tolerated as it serves further to derail the thread. Pure comedy gold.
I see the discussion that already existed on another, now locked thread, is taking place here. Free speech so often wins out over censorship and control and in the process showing it up for the farce it is.Given this fact, I would like to ask whoever has control, what was the point in locking us out of a whole thread, without following the usual moderation protocol?Before I am hit with the magic, off topic eraser, may I remind the controller, that we could be discussing this on the locked thread. There is a bit in the posting guide that asks if the subject exists on another thread, locking a thread only to discuss the same topic elsewhere is defeating the point of any guidelines and rules. But I suppose locking this thread as well would be a little obvious.
