SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi JDI tend to agree with you for the most part. I've been talking to a couple of my fellow northern socialists and we agree that on the whole the statement is fine. Apart from a little bit.
Quote:We recognise the enormous challenges faced by women victims of male violence, and the pressures which women face, including from abusive men, not to complain about violence and abuse. We therefore believe that, when women complain of male violence within our movement, our trade unions and political organisations should start from a position of believing women.We believe that all women who complain of male violence have the right to be listened to and supported.It might seem a bit picky to some, but no pre investigation bias should be taken. The statement, instead of saying, "should start from a position of believing women.", would benefit from changing to, "should start from a position of taking women seriously."Other than that, I think the SPGB should seriously consider supporting it.
Hi JD (hope you don't mind the acronym? If you like rock music it is often considered cool)What is your take on the invitation? Is it something the SPGB should collectively take part in?Does anyone else have a view?
I haven't been following this thread 100%, just dipping in and out. But I have a question regarding the statement.I assume the intention is to attract disillusioned SWPers. What strategy is to be used to get the statement to the intended audience?
I have been away for a weekend visiting friends "int" Leeds and what do I find upon my return to this forum but a strange post entitled "Moderation is Good". I have little idea as to what it is about, but the opening post is a little sparse on the truth.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:For those who don't know, I got moderated for using words like 'motherfucker'. And 'villain'. Now, I might be a bit perverse – I certainly like to think so! – but I actually like those words. I embrace them. Celebrate them, even. Great words. I like 'concatenation', too. I get laughed at at work for using phrases like 'this motherfucking concatenation of motherfucking villains want to expropriate us of the fruits of our motherfucking labour!'Nobody at work moderates me, or tries to. They just ask me questions about what the fuck I'm talking about. Which is a good thing, as I'm sure you'll understand…Actually, Jonathan was moderated from SPintcom not just for simply "using words like "motherfucker" " that he seems to love so much, but for using those exact words directly aimed at two party members in a rather unkind, critical manner. Given the fact he moaned on about bad behaviour and forum loudmouths, made his colourful contribution perfectly hypocritical. But as the post was deleted from SPintcom, it has been removed from public record forever. Chalk one up for the power of censorship to alter events and the historical context.When I read this opening post, I asked myself what does it contribute or seek to achieve? The forum posting guidelines ask the same questions. I couldn't find a thing in this post that had anything constructive to add. It seems to suggest, in a rather crude way, that there is nothing wrong with being moderated?Given the fact that those who are questioning forum moderation have never advocated a "no moderation" approach, there is no need for such a thread as this. Then I figured it out.TrollFrom the Oxford Dictionary: verbno object[..]2 informal submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response
Jonathan Chamber wrote:This much I do know: Two weeks of knowing that anything I wrote might be rejected on the grounds that it contained words that some might find offensive – which, I might mention, happily coincided with nine days in which I had little or no internet access – did me no harm at all. I wrote – offline – a lengthy and spirited reply to Brian's ripport which I have no intention of ever publishing. I thought a lot about the importance of allowing people – whatever their chosen vocabulary – a platform, and I came back from the wilderness of moderation a slightly better person.Moderation? I recommend it. Especially, we ought to moderate those who – mischievously – snipe from the sidelines. You all know who I mean, don't you?In essence this thread looks as though it was set up to say "stop #?>!@#! moaning about being moderated", and in doing so, seeking out emotional responses. I could be wrong, in fact I hope I am wrong.
MattI am glad you decided to answer my post, though I notice on post #179 you fail to answer my questions.But before I continue I would like to ask you, what it is you think my motives are? Your previous post #170 to me suggested I wanted the problems on this forum to continue, despite my offering solutions as to how both sides of the debate could be appeased. We do not have to agree on everything, but I imagine we would both like to see an end to the current forum difficulties. Though it is obvious our solutions are far from the same. You see no problem, apart from personality issues, whereas I see a flaw in the moderation approach. A flaw that could easily be solved by a moderation framework.Varying numbers of warnings, warnings remaining active for varying lengths, varying time lengths of suspensions, all different for different members, along with highly selective post deletion as well as moderation queues after coming straight from suspension. I don't know about you, but for me this demonstrates clearly that there is no moderation system in place other than a carte blanche one. Carte blanche = having free rein to choose whatever course of action you want
Matt wrote:I repeat that mods are subject to oversight by the department in the event of an appeal against their decision. Posters should use the relevant procedures and their appeal wil be given due consideration.I have recently used the procedures you speak of. I asked Admin to clear an issue up for me, regarding some posts. He answered. I questioned the logic of his answer, he would not reply. So I sent an enquiry to the Int Dept. That was about eight days ago and I still have not had any acknowledgement of my enquiry. I did not expect a quick reply, but I thought I would receive acknowledgement. So much for your overseeing of moderation? Then there is the fact that not everyone would choose to challenge moderation decisions, even if they feel aggrieved. So in reality poor moderation may go unnoticed.
Matt wrote:I think many if not more will be bored shitless.Funny how those who dislike the topic always reel out that one. So perhaps it may surprise them that during the past five days there have been over 700 new views. The facts show there is more interest in this issue than many a thread on general discussion.
Matt wrote:Ironic acrimonic contradiction. Could be a song. The Outsiders?This is all rather to much heat for me personally……….So with one hand you make a sarcastic swipe, and with the other you feint a swoon, claiming the disagreement is too much for, "others of a quieter disposition such as myself". Did someone just cry wolf?At the end of the day this issue has damaged the party. For some it is easier to lay the blame on personalities, or that party members should take it on the chin etc. I on the other hand see it, not in terms of personalities, or lacking strength of character, but in terms of a system failure. Flaws have been exposed. The logical thing to do is work out a better system and put it place. The EC is seeking to do that. Time will tell if they succeed or not.
MattOn post #171 on this thread you said the following.
Matt wrote:To not make or respond to inflamatory postings.And:You may enjoy a good punchup in the style of a bar room brawling type of forum, but others of a quieter disposition such as myself, are likely to find it most intimidating.I see you are unable to stick to your own advice of not responding to posts. Though there was nothing remotely inflammatory with my post #169, you obviously saw fit to ignore the general point I was making and decided to take issue with me, suggesting that I enjoy and am in favour of a "punchup" style forum.May I suggest instead of making false claims for others, you check out what they have to say before throwing around accusations. (Perhaps you were inspired by another party member on the Censorship thread?) I suggest you check out post #136 on this thread. There you will find my suggestions for forum moderation. You will find the following extract.
SocialistPunk wrote:Hopefully these suggestions should go some way to guiding members and moderators and so allow the protection of both while maintaining maximum freedom to contribute to the forum.As for the following, post #172.
Matt wrote:This is subject to oversight by the procedures to which moderators and posters are expected to adhere.Could you please direct me to any where I could read the above mentioned procedures for moderators. Procedures I expect rule out any ad hoc moderation? Hopefully it may go some way to explaining your inability to answer a very simple question from post #118 about the following statement.
Matt wrote:The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.SocialistPunk wrote:That is quite interesting to hear, because on this forum OGW and Steve Colborn were suspended, and upon their return from suspension they were put in a moderation queue. So much for your claim.I think many on this forum would be interested to hear you explain the contradiction that exists with your statement and actual reality?I have little acrimony to exorcise on this forum. I seek only explanations and answers to relevant questions, yet I receive mostly silence, distortion and stirring tactics from those who are unable to defend the status quo. So much for the power of socialist analytical ability to cut to the root of an issue. Seems it only works when the focus is on outsiders.
Hi MattSorry you feel that way, but the highlighted paragraph below spells out clearly the carte blanche moderation approach used on this forum. You never did answer my question about your mistaken claim a moderation queue was introduced on this forum as a replacement for suspensions. Such a system that sees different forum members being treated differently, for similar offences with moderators trying every tactic possible, except communication, to me is evidence of carte blanche moderation. I am very sorry if the facts don't seem to fit your view.Moderating:The moderator reserves the right to reject messages sent to the list.The moderator reserves the right to suspend or expel a subscriber for unacceptable behaviour.It would also appear that you do not take notice of what I have continually said on this issue. I am not in favour of a "good punchup" style forum. I am in favour of a form of moderation that has "social" ism at it's core. In other words communication, conflict resolution etc. This needs a bit of backup, in the form of some "time out" style measure. I advocate a set framework of warnings and suspensions, I always have done.The censorship issue has been throttled, happy slapped, with a "snuff" video being made available, to all bar room retailers soon, but if you like we could continue it on the relevant thread? If not I will point out one simple thing about censorship. It comes in many different forms.
ALB wrote:Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal email lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place. They should be put under moderation faster and for a longer period. The posts in question have caused a great deal of damage to members' morale and this has not been good for the Party. Many members called for an end to such posts and they still continued for a period of time. We fully support any action taken by the moderators to deal with such posts in the future and hope they will not recur.I think that pretty much explains the items intended target, SPintcom and SPopen. If a floor resolution were to come from it, then it can surely only include that which it specifies? So it isn't really a case of "fondly imagining" anything!Though I do not quite grasp what it is Lancaster branch is expecting to fix? A system whereby moderators have carte blanche and members can be suspended for indefinate terms quite quickly, already exists. It has led to big problems, seen two form F's being submitted and sympathisers turned off. Given these facts, why would anyone come up with an idea that advocates a more authoritarian approach? Just what sort of message is it sending regarding WSM socialism being an appealing social socialism?Surely the way to go is to ask a simple question and work from there. In the case of this forum it should be, "What is the intended purpose of the forum?"Once it is decided what the SPGB online spaces are for then it is a case of coming up with a framework and approach that seeks to achieve the intended goal.I find it hard to grasp that such a simple bit of common sense seems to evade most, but fortunately not all, SPGB member online contributers.
gnome wrote:Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer."steve colborn wrote:Lancaster branch supporting statement for this item for discussion starts thus;"Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal e.mail lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place."So you were correct in your initial assertion Brian, that this IFD did not include the SPGB forum. It must, in fact, come from certain members "hopeful" interpretation of the IFD but does not correlate with the facts.Anyone who fondly imagines that Lancaster's item doesn't include the SPGB forum is quite at liberty to contact the branch secretary, Paddy Shannon.
I think Steve has a point, surely it can't be a case that the Lancaster (not Lancashire as I used earlier) item is meant to include the "open" SPGB forum as well as the "internal" SPintcom and SPopen.If it is supposed to include the "open" SPGB forum as well as "internal" e.mail lists, it needs to be explicit in it's inclusion, if it is intended to be a voting issue.No moving the goal posts around to frame the discussion whenever it is required, with a "we all know what it means" whine.How many times have we heard on this forum the need to follow protocol etc?
There is a little matter of members of the Lancashire Branch coming on this forum, (as it affects all who use it, non party members also) to explain their position. Hopefully they won't just limit the discussion on SPintcom. Open democracy is the name of the game, is it not?
Amen to that Brian.I am not even a party member and I have spent more time on this matter than I care to admit. This moderation problem has been the cause of two members handing in their form F and has turned off several sympathisers, perhaps more, myself being one of them with an on forum trashing of respect and trust being the final nail in the coffin.So I hope the EC do not drag their feet. It is an opportunity for the party, and I hope it isn't wasted.All the best.Stephen
Brian wrote:So you see no need for moderation in its current form and therefore no need for a 'committed locked thread' either. Which on reflection simplifies my suggestions even further and it also retains conflict resolution with the moderators engaging in a dialog with the offender. I can go along with that although it means a programme of quality training being established. Which should not be a problem.Hi BrianSorry for the delay in replying.That about sums it up. Current moderation clearly is not working. The moderation queue and post deletion seem to be creating more problems than they solve. I am also aware that the current system has no concern for communication that seeks conflict resolution, despite Admins' claim that the current system is "a human approach".For me communication, conflict resolution would be the key element. I also imagine if some form of training could be made available it may help to reduce the incidence of moderators inadvertently inflaming situations.I am a little unsure about your locked thread suggestion. Would it see an offender unable to contribute at all, on the forum?At the end of the day the EC has a number of suggestions to work with and I am sure they have some of their own. So there should be no excuses for not replacing the current mess with a more equitable, open and accountable system of forum moderation.
Bloody hell, I seem to be missing all the action. I'm away for a few hours and the suggestions are coming thick and fast. I am pleased to be reading this stuff though. Seems like the penny has dropped.Brians' suggestions are going to be put before the EC on Saturday and now Ed has come up trumps.I'm gonna add my ideas in here as well. I see mine as a mix of Brians' and Eds'. Here we go.The way I see it we should be aiming to create a socialist space here on the net. A place where enquiring minds of all varieties are welcomed. A space of learning. Not a place that turns people away, not just from the forum but from the party as well. Unfortunately this is what has taken place. We don't want a repeat.Hopefuly these suggestions should go some way to guiding members and moderators and so allow the protection of both while maintaining maximum freedom to contribut to the forum.For starters. No moderation queues or retrospective post deletion. Obviously, any spam that gets through or legally problematic stuff gets nuked. But genuine contributions stay. Off topic and a little heat need not be a problem. It happens all the time on this forum and only occasionally becomes an issue. To go around removing off topic and inflammatory remarks from the forum will leave the site looking like a declassified government document.So as most will by now know I am in favour of a warning and suspension system. Where I advocate time lengths, I will refrain from suggesting the actual lengths. I will leave that to the EC and Int Dept to decide. But before I start fully I must emphasize that I advocate communication as the overriding principle at work. Without effective communication conflicts will never be resolved. We should be aware that Socialism relies on communication and co-operation. We should never forget this.1) An initial non warning intervention by a moderator to call for calm. The opportunity should be taken for the moderator to asses the situation.2) If situation persists a 1st warning is issued to any offenders.3) Further breaches result in a 2nd warning.4) The next intervention becomes a suspension of set length.5) All reasons for warnings and suspensions are given openly with references to offences. As well as reference to penalties for further breaches. Events need to be recorded by moderator, for future reference as it will help in the delivery of consistent moderation and information being made available quickly in case of appeal.6) Moderators need to seek to engage in dialog with any involved parties at all stages, in an attempt to find resolution before further escalation. This could be done via private message or specific thread. 7) Warnings and suspensions should have a set length of time before they "expire". No making up different lengths for different people. This should reduce the likely hood of accusations of bias.
If a member returning from suspension acts up, the process starts again. A situ whereby it becomes evident a forum member intends only to deliberately disrupt for the sake of it may arise. Leading to the next point.9) A set number of suspensions are allowed (e.g. no less than 3). If a repeat offender emerges and reaches the alloted amount of suspensions, then a moderator may ask the Int Dept for permission to close the offenders forum account.10) The repeat offender has the right of appeal to the EC. If they wish to return to the forum then they are free to submit reasons they wish to do so as well as any supporting evidence if necessary to explain their position, as to reasons why they were unable to accept forum rules and etiquette. It is a little like an ex member rejoining. If they have had issues over disagreement with the party, they are required to explain why they wish to return and show the same disagreement no longer stands.11) If the ultimate sanction of account closure is to be used, then suspensions need to have an in built term of expiry. No dragging up a suspension from a year ago to stack up with any newer suspensions to be used to warrant account closure. The ultimate sanction needs to be used only against deliberate repeat offenders who demonstrate only a desire for disruption.
