SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi MattGood to hear you are getting some success on the BBC and Guardian blog chat. Hope it continues.You said:
Matt wrote:The queue was put in place on here because it was understandable that some posters might feel suspension 'was' a big deal.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?As for your words below:
Matt wrote:A queue forms when mods are busy elsewhere. Some mods work from their desks all the time, or are super efficient, so can speedily deal with stuff. Others like me, are away for varying lengths of time so the queue can build up. Others have slow connections and so on so can't just login and on when they like or have a busy caseload doing website stuff so have to ration out specific tasks.I think that pretty much demonstrates the flaw with moderation queues. The human element. It can see posts sit in a queue for hours.I do not know about you but I like to read what people have to say on any thread I choose to follow. In the past month or so I have seen posts by OGW appear as being the last one posted, only to find his post is not there to read. At times his post has appeared, hours later, other times never to appear at all. I find that very frustrating and insulting to be aware that I am not being allowed to read a post. I am interested in what others have to say. I may not like it, but I would like to be able to make my own mind up regarding the merits or faults of any contributions.How do you explain the often human failings that can lead to an error or inconsistency in vetting posts. A moderator may pass a comment one day and fail to pass a similar comment another day, leaving the moderated member with no idea as to what they are allowed to post or not.The supporters of censorship in the party seem to fail to take into account the main reason that censorship ever came into existence in the first place. It exists to control that which the audience can be exposed to, mainly out of fear it may spark an undesirable reaction. A reaction that historically has been seen as a threat to the religious or political elite of the time.I suspect censorship among the SPGB has more to do with reducing argumentative infection on its online sites.This then becomes a moral issue. Looks like the mods just don't trust us lot to behave ourselves!?
Regarding moderation queues.What is the purpose of a moderation queue?I expect it is supposed to encourage the poster to bring their posting behaviour inline with forum rules. That suggests if off topic and abusive posts are submitted then they will not see the light of day. Seems straight forward enough.However I have noticed a problem with this seemingly noble use of censorship. I have received via the reply function, posts from OGW that have been disallowed. What did I find, you may ask? Surely an abusive litany, maybe gross off topic even? Well, actually none of those. The contributions I found myself reading could have been submitted by myself or any other forum user, without even raising the moderators eyebrow.Then I was further confused to see similar comments being allowed a day or so later. Weird!So it would seem that when in a moderation queue the standard you are expected to rise to is way over and above a normal level of acceptable contribution. So much so it becomes absurd, expecting a person in moderation to be super squeaky 110% "acceptable" at all times.Some questions then are, do we have one standard for those who are moderated and another for everyone else?Is it fine that the "acceptable" standard of behaviour varies from time to time, with the whim of a moderator?Does the practice of moderation queues expose a flaw in human judgment that sees a person in, as Ed perfectly frames it "a slow torture".Combine these issues with the fact there is no thought out exit strategy the moderators are using, and we are left with a scenario where a person may find themselves in mod queue limbo indefinitely.Pure "slow torture".
AdamAgain you fail to do your homework before butting in. I hope this is not going to become a habit.If you carefully read the first half of the sentence below you can just about make out the title asking if censorship belongs among the struggle. In other words is there a place for censorship within party practices today?Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society?So, if posts are being removed from this site and other SPGB sites, and if people are being put in what is termed moderation queues to see if what they say is acceptable, to a moderator, before us normal folk get a chance to judge for ourselves, then that I am afraid is a form of censorship. It is being used among the struggle towards socialism as we speak, today. It is also creating unnecessary friction within the SPGB. Precisely the reason why it needs addressing openly by the party. Hence my setting up the discussion.It is clear for most people, until now, to see that the discussion has "Done exactly what it says on the tin". In fact I reignited the discussion by asking a question about party policy regarding the non censoring of the "right wing" on post #90, and how, if at all, it is comparable to the censorship being used on party sites. Two replies came from my question, one from Gnome #92 and one from DJP #91. Neither answer the potential contradiction referred to in my original question. And again if you had done your homework on this thread you would have seen Jonathan Chambers and myself briefly discuss our differences about censorship in a future socialist society from post #62 onwards.I ask who is being deliberately disingenuous here?
AdamI am a very much disappointed and a little saddened by your two posts.It is a sorry day indeed when a socialist, whom I have been in contact with over the last few months, discussing the issues regarding the recent forum difficulties, offering constructive solutions etc, has seen fit to sink to the use of insinuation to try and derail this thread.Adam knows I set this thread up to discuss highly selective censorship methods that are being used on this forum, such as the deletion of posts and vetting of contributions as control and punishment. He knows I advocate a warning and suspension system, with conflict resolution at its core.Now he sees fit to insinuate that I advocate an “open season” on the promotion of all manner of vile and evil acts of abuse in the name of free speech.
ALB wrote:“I don't know whether or not the initiator of the thread had an ulterior motive or not, but look at the title again and re-read the first post. It quotes the following definition of "censorship" (from wikipedia):”And:
ALB wrote:“That' seems clear enough.Or is it? Does he really think that there should be no regulations against "child pornography" or to "prevent slander and libel" in a socialist society? Is he really against everything that the wikipedia definition defines as "censorship"? Not even Index on Censorship go that far.”During the past four months of our discussions I thought we had reached a certain level of trust, to be able to discuss party issues openly. We have never agreed on every issue, but that is to be expected. However I thought we had made some positive progress regarding the issue of forum moderation with Adam sounding out part of a suggestion of mine on SPintcom.So you can imagine how disappointed I was when I saw he had stooped to deliberate distortion in an attempt to score a few points.No other person who elected to discuss the issue of censorship chose such a pointless approach, as I expect they new all too well that I do not advocate such vile nonsense.Given the fact we have spent several months discussing forum issues, it has come as a shock to find Adam the one to attempt this tactic.Time for a little evidence that, if Adam had the decency to check out before posting, he would have found answered his questions on this very thread long before he saw fit to attempt his, “debating “tactic”".
SocialistPunk wrote:#1I do not think it necessary to give specific examples, but they involve the editing, removal or even total disallowance of relevant posts and comments of forum members including SPGB party members under the vague rules of moderation.I wish only to discuss the merits and/or problems associated with the use of such practices within a socialist environment and to ascertain if such censorship would be continued within socialism, should it ever come about. #21I do not for one minute think or suggest the SPGB or WSM advocate full censorship or restriction of free and open debate etc.Censorship is not just an all or nothing method of control. It can be and is used in varying degrees and in different ways by various organisations.Now with regard to the examples I have seen. What we have is the deletion of posts that are from members of party sites who also happen to be SPGB members. They were/are not spammers, nor were/are they engaging in irrelevant and deliberate disruption of any site for the sake of it.A member of this forum had two posts deleted, the reason given that they were off topic. If off topic was a reason for deletion, then many members of this forum would regularly have posts deleted for that reason, as would I.To delete a post that is considered off topic, (and we may be looking at a little non deliberate off topic, if any) in this way is a form of censorship. It is used to control. The ultimate aim of censorship is control.Next, being put on moderation. If a forum member is deemed to be problematic, for whatever reason, they are put on moderation and their posts are vetted. Another form of censorship in use, again for the purpose of control.If these forms of censorship are being employed as a way to control the forums, at least be honest about it, as well as consistent.But socialists don't like the C word, so it is easier to pretend it is not censorship. Instead it is hidden within what is known as moderation.Such denial easily fits the description of doublespeak. #59I have never advocated non removal of spam or obviously legally problematic posts. The original point in highlighting censorship was the removal of relevant or off topic posts. If off topic posts were removed many a thread would be a lot barer. As for your scenario of deleting abusive posts, I see recent abusive posts still on this thread and I am aware of links to them being used on another party site, to draw attention to them. I would be interested in your response as I am sure others would. I did not set this thread up to have a go at the party. But to highlight problems of moderation, namely censorship and inconsistency, that seem to be inflaming the problem further. I was under the impression the best way to resolve an issue like this is to discuss it openly and seek to find a democratic solution. #62As for material of a dodgy sexual nature, that stuff is abuse and criminal behaviour, so does not apply to freedom of expression.What I find somewhat confusing is why a respected party member of long standing, and of obvious intelligence, would choose to deliberately ignore the evidence that already was available on this thread and elsewhere on the forum.Thank goodness there are party members who hold the view that there is no place for censorship within the SPGB.
gnome wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?It doesn't.
Quote:I hope the party members who support the deletion and disallowance of certain posts will have the courage of their convictions and provide some sort of explanation as to the principle at work behind the use of censorship on the party online sites.This issue has been dealt with extensively on numerous threads over the past four months. It's all played out. Finished, finito, fertig, fini.Comrades are concentrating on, and putting their efforts into, various upcoming activities.The DebateThe By-ElectionThe Conferenceto name but a few…You could be helping us in the struggle.
Hi gnomeVery well I accept your in depth argument of "It doesn't", with regards to party censorship. I must remember to put that in my arsenal when I wish to wheel out the big guns when I come across someone who thinks that socialism has been tried and failed. Yeah right!Unfortunately for us, it does.
Quote:Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.Now, I have some posts from OGW that have come through to my email via the reply function. I can categorically tell the forum that they are not problematic and are on topic. They contain nothing I could not say or ask. It seems different rules for OGW are in force, based on the caprice of the moderators.OGW is being censored. Therefore censorship is taking place on this forum.As for your remarks about this issue being an interference, I think Steve has answered perfectly.But I will add that in highlighting flaws on this site I am helping the party. In showing the problems of such an approach, and arguing for a moderation approach that reflects socialist values.If that is not helping the party then I don't know what is?I will answer DJP's comment, later today.
The typical left wing response to the all to often vile and offensive views of the right wing, is to not allow them any public platform. Effectively censoring views and opinions they think do not belong in the public arena.The SPGB stance is the opposite. To allow the vile and offensive views of the right wing to be heard.Why?As far as I can ascertain, it is two fold. Firstly, it allows the offensive views of the right wing to be exposed to the full glare of public scrutiny. Secondly, if handled correctly their position can be shown to be wrong. As the right wing openly support capitalism and like most other political organisations they try to persuade workers they have the secret to making capitalism work for all. This relies on piling the blame for capitalism's shortcomings upon the shoulders of foreigners and those from different ethnic groups.So the SPGB policy is to openly engage with problematic and offensive political organizations in order to highlight the failings of their views, rather than simply silence them.With this important principle in mind, I ask the following question.Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites?Surely if posts are considered problematic, even offensive (as many consider extreme right wing views to be) surely the best approach is to expose them and then seek to find a resolution through discussion?I hope the party members who support the deletion and disallowance of certain posts will have the courage of their convictions and provide some sort of explanation as to the principle at work behind the use of censorship on the party online sites.
AdminI have now asked openly on this forum as well as via private message. So I will ask here again.I would appreciate an answer to the issue of how many "correct" posts does it take for a mod queue to be lifted?Not a difficult question to answer.If a moderation queue is going to be used then there must be some way of determining when it is considered ok to remove a person from such a queue, surely?Do 5 "correct" posts fulfill the requirement, or 10? Maybe up to 20? Or perhaps the difficulty in providing an answer to a simple question is because another method is being used? Divination perhaps. The practice of using occult or hidden knowledge to foretell the future. Various methods can be used, tea leaves, animal entrails, hidden messages in the stars, tarot cards, dice and even excrement.If divination is being used to decide as to when TheOldGreyWhistles' mod queue punishment is lifted. May I suggest a possibly more reliable form, such as numerology or mathemancy to work out the number of "correct" contributions required before it is deemed acceptable to the powers that be. Why make things more complicated than they need be?
Hi Admin and thanks for getting back to me.I take your point about specific enquiries. However the question I asked regarding what criteria, in terms of length of acceptable behaviour, constitutes an acceptable reason to end the mod queue torture, needs to be asked and hopefully answered in public.There is also no guarantee an answer will be provided if the protocol you mention is followed.Sometimes in life open questions regarding areas that are perceived as being problematic or unacceptable, need to be asked in the public domain. I believe whole heartedly in full democracy. For such democracy to work we need to be fully informed in order to make an informed decision. In this case I believe the road down which this forum is traveling regarding the use of censorship to control us, is wrong.So I will continue to openly ask pertinent questions, in the hope we will receive answers that will keep us fully aware of the situation regarding moderation on this forum.If that offends anyone, then that is unfortunate for them, and I suggest they leave politics well alone in future, as most should be aware that it can get a little real at times.With that in mind, I would appreciate an answer to the issue of how many "correct" posts does it take for a mod queue to be lifted?As for my mistaken perception that certain party members are being driven out. May I suggest a way to avoid such misunderstandings in future. Communicate rather than command. If you make the first move, you may get a surprise at how effective talking with people can be at coming to an acceptable resolution.
admin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I was hoping Admin or the Int Dept would be able to answer a very relevant question regarding the use of The Moderation Queue on this forum.You are reminded that forum comments are not to be used as a way to communicate with the moderator or for private conversations between users.However, apologies for the delay in replying to your initial enquiry, I shall see that it is replied to forthwith.With regards to moderation, the practice is that this remains in place until a user has demonstrated an understanding of and willingness to abide by the forum rules.
Hi AdminI was not aware that this thread is considered unsuitable to ask questions regarding forum moderation. Other members and myself have asked similar questions in the past without receiving such replies. I do believe the thread title is "Forum Moderation and Web' Tech' Issues".As for the demonstrated change in forum behaviour. I think the question has been asked, but as no specific reply regarding any idea as to what actually the demonstration of change looks like, in terms of amount of acceptable contributions etc, then you still have failed to answer the original question. As OGW has handed his party resignation in, it looks to me as though he may be kept on permanent moderation until he does so. In fact I am starting to think his (and another party member) leaving the party is now the desired result. How else can such aggressive moderation be explained.Moderation here, now looks to be all about control, the essence of censorship, rather than facilitating a positive online environment, where solutions to problems are sought through communication rather than imposed. Though I expect those doing the imposing will never be able to see the un-socialist nature of their actions. Such is the way with authority.I never ever thought in my wildest dreams I would find myself in a position where I would be criticising the SPGB for using censorship and authoritarian measures to silence dissent. How times have changed.
Spot on there OGW.I think there have been a lot of mistakes in recent months, from both sides. But only one side holds all the cards.Are you still in a Moderation Queue?
I was hoping Admin or the Int Dept would be able to answer a very relevant question regarding the use of The Moderation Queue on this forum.TheOldGreyWhistle has been in a moderation queue since he served a suspension from this forum on the 4th January. I think he served about a week on suspension, give or take a day or two. That means he has been in a Moderation Queue for approx 5 to 6 weeks.During this time he has had posts allowed and disallowed, depending on the content and whether or not it has been deemed appropriate or not for forum users to view.He has proven he is capable of saying the correct things, as we must presume his allowed posts are considered acceptable to be seen.We can only presume his disallowed posts must have been found to be unacceptable, though I do not expect he has been calling for the repatriation of immigrants. If he had done so, I expect he would have found many a party member jumping to his aid with regards his "right" to free speech. Joking to one side. I have seen several of his recent disallowed posts, that came to my email box via the reply function, and I have to say I saw little wrong with them. In fact I could have posted the exact words and would not have found myself under the spotlight of the moderators. It would seem that when in a Moderation Queue, the rules on what you can or can't say suddenly become different to that of regular forum members.Now my question is a simple one. Is TheOldGreyWhistle on permanent moderation, or perhaps semi-permanent moderation?
YMSI take your point on board, you are right in pointing out the difference of reformism and particular reforms. I should have just said you support this particular policing reform. Sorry about that one.My problem with this issue, and it isn't that big a concern, is any so called class conscious revolutionary involved in helping the system police disgruntled workers may end up in a situ' where the research dictates the direction. In other words they may find themselves in a position where the client's needs change and the research continues in a different manipulative direction, one not originally considered by the researcher. Scientific research has a tendency to evolve.Imagine if such research eventually led to techniques that saw the police, instead of wielding batons, handing out candy canes that enabled them to control and silence dissent among the masses. Nobody would die, but the result would be just as potentially problematic for socialists and others seeking to organise resistance and change.At the end of the day, if people did not actively support capitalism, there would be no one to do the dirty work. Unfortunately for us, researchers and academics all to often prop up the ideology and machinery of capitalism.
Steady on there YMS I think you are in danger of advocating reformism there.I suppose dropping the A-bombs on Japan helped save a lot of lives too?
DJPI merely posted the link about prof' Waddington (that I now think does not work) to show who advocated kettling.But you are right they are both academics, and both involved in a field that has benefits for any capitalist state machinery looking into different ways of controlling the masses. And by the way I read the "Chaos Theory" that Drury supposedly denies co-authoring.You should know as well as I, or any socialist, that many academics end up involved in fields of research that benefit the ideology of capitalism. Here it involves physical manipulation of people through the use of psychological crowd control techniques, for the benefit of the state. Now you could if you wish, argue it benefits the protesters as they may find themselves on the receiving end of less police violence. But that is as far as that goes. How different is such academic support of the state in it's tactics of policing than say Steven Pinker or Ayn Rand's excuses for the in-built one sided misery of capitalism?This is an example of a lefty academic, whose research is paying off. Most academics follow the research, it is the most important thing, it leads to professional recognition and monetary gain.So he has been outed as a hypocrite, advocating one thing and actually doing another. Why get so wound up about such simple truths?
EdPlease leave this personal stuff alone mate. I chose to overlook your original comment to me that lit the fuse.We are socialists, frustrated with the lack of progress in bringing the capitalist system to an end. I am only interested in this issue now because I can see some improvements need introducing to make this forum reflect socialist values of openness and resolution instead of censorship and silence.If I did not care I would have left this forum long ago, in fact I would not have even bothered to join. But I do care and so I stick around in the hope something positive will come of this situation.
