SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Now I see! OGW's post has now appeared from another dimension.A dimension known as a moderation queue. A strange parallel dimension where a person posts a comment on a forum and it does not appear until it's contents have been checked and deemed OK by a moderator. Who can tell when it could appear, or even if it will at all.Welcome to the strange world of the phenomena known as the moderation queue.It would have been nice for the forum members to have been informed that such moderation methods are to to used. It raises the question of what gets you put in a moderation queue? As Admin previously talked of it's use to avoid suspensions. Unless of course such a method has not been used and I am imagining it?
Back on to the subject at hand.As well as being in favour of a clear warning system of moderation, I am also in favour of it being what you could call "moderation light". I thought we had it before this mess. Admin was low key, a gentle word of caution here and there. Absolutely spot on.No need for an approach that seeks out every misdemeanor, to purge them from view.
AdamI can see your point 100%. It is not an easy one to call in this case.What you refer to, in being against the publishing of accusations before a person is proved one way or another, is of course a general question.In answer to the general question I would have to say that the issue is a two part problem. If someone is charged with a crime, the details of such are openly recorded. If on the other hand no charge has been brought and allegations are thrown about all over the place then that is of course unfair to the accused. Both scenarios can be damaging to an innocent person.The issue of the SWP is obviously very complicated. If the person leaking the report felt uncomfortable about a perceived cover up of a serious issue then I see nothing wrong with it. However I do not know the publishers motivation.It is strange that two allegations of such a serious nature were not taken to the police by the alleged victims or by the SWP itself. It is surely better to deal with such an issue in an open manner.
Hi Gnome or is it moderator 1.Not really sure which one of you is taking the water, with this humorous derailing of an important thread?
Hi AdminI notice OGW is down on this section of the site as the last poster for two threads, but his post does not appear?Has he had posts deleted again?
AdamI only know as much about this case as I have read from the links on this thread. But can I ask you about your comment regarding the leaked conference transcript.What is wrong with exposing such internal problems, if they are concerning such a serious issue? Whistle blowers in other areas of life are often held up as vital in exposing flawed practices and cover ups?
It has been suggested earlier in this thread, but that is what this thread is about.I think a warning system is a preferable method of moderating rather than an ad hoc anything goes approach.I for one would like to know where I stand regarding what to expect should I breach any rules. It would also be helpful to the moderators and ensure track is kept of who said what and how many infringements have taken place etc.1) An initial call for calm for all parties involved2) A 1st warning is issued to any who have infringed the rules3) A 2nd warning given if further infringement of rules takes place4) If infringement continues a suspension of a set length of time is given5) All warnings need to be given openly with clear reference to infringement of rules6) Every warning should be accompanied with a clear explanation of what to expect next, ie another warning or suspension will follow further infringement7) Moderators need to keep a record of who is involved and what action has been taken, it allows no room for accusations of not paying attention etc8) Suspensions need to be of consistent length, no indefinite or tailored suspensions for perceived offences. Such judge, jury executioner style leaves room accusations of moral judgment and/or bias. I suggest the seven day suspension be sufficient to allow a person to cool off and enough time to contest decision9) Thought needs to be given as to whether an immediate suspension is warranted for threats or intimidationA few thoughts so far. I am considering the aspects of the appeals procedure. If or when I think of more I shall post them.
It is a sad day when a socialist refuses to openly debate a subject so important to the socialist cause. A view they hold that so often supporters of capitalism use to accept and justify the horrors and injustices inherent within the rotten system we, as socialists, have vowed to discredit and disprove.But I will end it there as this off topic exchange has reached it's end. However it leads nicely into a topic that is at the heart of this debate and the recent heat generated on this forum. I had considered posting this subject on the thread "Forum Moderation" on the Web/Tech section. However I think that thread is better utilised for solutions and not the discussion of specific issues.The subject is off topic. Or more precisely what constitutes off topic and what if anything should be done with off topic posts?Some members of this forum insist that off topic as well as abuse is removed. But off topic is not easy to define in simple terms, as some seem to suggest. It can appear in a number of different variations. I will attempt to identify some here.1) Off course some off topic can be deliberate and obvious, soap operas on a physics forum for instance. But care should be taken to condemn even such an obvious example as sometimes light banter can be beneficial for the gelling of members and will likely revert back to the issue at hand.2) Sometimes in the unfolding complexity of debate, a person may inadvertently lose focus and introduce an out of place element.3) Topics can evolve, often from related side issues. On this forum the thread on religion evolved into a discussion on morality and then back again.4) Sometimes a person may feel something seemingly a little unrelated needs addressing, rather than set up a separate thread for something that could be clarified from several posts etc.There are probably more examples of off topic. But it is clear, or at least it should be, that off topic is not an open and shut issue.So what to do about it? Do we attempt to define every case of off topic? Get out the boxes and a multitude of neat labels, and start examining every suspected off topic post, to see what type of off topic box we can put them in?Or perhaps allow off topic to be a part of the natural eb and flow of a debating forum? It can be ignored or reacted to.Often the act of drawing attention to it, can result in the undesired effect of turning it into an issue in itself. What has unfolded in recent weeks comes as a result of such an approach. It is what lies at the heart of the issue.
JonathanI apologise if my post has been taken as character assassination by you or anybody else for that matter. But any case you think I could possibly make against you does not require the use of distortion. Your first post on this thread was far from what could be called a beneficial contribution to the discussion of censorship. Quite inflammatory I thought.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Blimey! Censorship, eh? Can't be all bad, then. There's nothing wrong with telling people to shut up every now and then. Just like the loudmouth down the pub. Might be amusing for a while, but before too long it all gets a bit too much and you just have to silence them for a time.Then there are these from Web/Tech "Forum Moderation", bringing your pet subject of human nature into play. Even hinting the issue is a personality problem. When in reality you know little of the history of the unfolding events. Also a fine demonstration of pouring scorn on a members attempt at trying to find solutions. You obviously have all the answers.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:#4 I agree that what underpins this fiasco is – largely – a failure on the part of some people to control their baser natures, but hey! That's what humans are. Why should socialists be any different? An understanding of what capitalism is and a grasp of how it needs to be changed doesn't, in and of itself, make us better or even nicer people necessarily.#25 I see. Smells like management-speak mumbo-jumbo from over here. The whole thing's completely bloody obvious to me. Two simple rules – be nice and stay on topic – will suffice. And then those two simple rules need to be enforced by well-briefed moderators. No need for lists. No need for any more discussion. I've offered some of my time for moderating, and I'm sure that at least a few others will do so if they are as bothered about this problem as they claim to be. For my part, like you, Brian, I'm by now heartily sick of this crap and have no more to say on the matter.In fact that is part of the problem here. People butting in, giving their opinions without knowing the full case. Trolling and inflaming. Unwilling to avail themselves of the facts of the events from the beginning. Gloating over the gory ending, after missing the plot of the main feature. Scavenging on the remains.You say that, "It is impossible to have an argument with people who refuse to engage with it." I was under the impression it is known as debate, but to debate you need people willing to engage, not run away when challenged. And as one of the "three arrogant opponents", I recall on the threads "Human Nature? Whoopee!" and "Sick Societies" I challenged you on your insistence that humans are creatures of base instinct, and you refused to answer. Instead you us left with this parting remark.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:[Chambers lights blue touchpaper. Exeunt stage left…]From a man who would be moderator.I am willing to continue the debate on human nature if you are. I suggest we take it back on the the relevant existing thread. I will be waiting should you feel able to defend your assumptions.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:I don't think you've thought this freedom stuff through properly, see? You're asserting that humanity, once liberated from the shackles of capitalism will be 'truly free'. Oh yeah? So we go from the situation that you describe as people's behaviour being largely conditioned by their environment to a situation where that's no longer the case just by abolishing capitalism? If only it were that simple! No, socialism will cure no-ones anti-social tendencies overnight, and you really can't – after this week's events – argue that the fact of being a socialist is in any way a guarantor of someone being nicer or more moral in their behaviour toward others. But this, it seems, is precisely what you are arguing. Not only that, but you go on to claim that most socialists agree with you. Well, it'd be interesting to see…I, for one, disagree with your assertion. Fiercely! And let's leave aside – for the moment – the question about whether humans even have free will…Unfortunately for JC I did not claim the ills of humanity would be cured overnight, nor do I claim the act of being a socialist guarantees that we automatically become better people, as his behaviour, past and present on this forum is clear evidence. Previously when I first joined this forum, JC demonstrated his fondness for the claim of the "baser side" of human nature. He ran away from the discussion when he could not provide any support for his claims. Not only did he run away but he did so in a manner that demonstrated a childish zeal for petty annoyance.
SocialistPunk wrote:It is my assertion that in such a society human relationships will be of a much better quality on a personal as well as community level. As such we will over time, as new generations are born into such a society, become less abusive and more co-operative.Generally people who support the idea that socialism is an impossible utopian pipe dream fall heavily on the argument that the"baser nature" of humans is a barrier. Such people more often than not leave themselves out of such a description. It is always others who are selfish, unpleasant etc. Here we have a socialist suggesting that our "baser nature" is no barrier to socialism, but despite the immense global effort in achieving a large democratic consensus for change our species will still bicker and feud away among itself while trying to sort out the ills of capitalism's legacy. Generally speaking when humans are faced with a real unfolding disaster they get on with the task at hand, it is in the films and dramas we are shown, that portray humans bickering away in the face of extinction. Maybe JC has seen too many disaster films or as his words show he uses the SPGB as his base line.The SPGB is a poor example to use to show socialism in action. The SPGB is essentially a party of theory, protectors of a wonderful idea. Within the organisation there exists several hundred very frustrated men and women, open to the pressures of surviving and operating within the capitalist system they so despise. They are used to people laughing and pouring scorn on the idea that we can create a better society. The pressure creates tensions that inevitably get the better sometimes. And sometimes the safety valve lets off steam. This does not mean that members are allowing their "baser natures" to shine through. It is a good thing, it shows they are human and not Marxist robots. There are very good socialist men and women in this party, I have met some over the years and conversed with many more on this forum.Unfortunately there also seems to be a minority that have a poor view of their fellow humans as well as socialists, every now and then they expose themselves.Thankfully for the WSM and our species they are a minority.
More generalities YMS.On this thread where I highlight the problem of censorship used to control what has been happening recently, it was YMS who brought up the issue of abusive posting. I do not claim YMS is defending arbitrary censorship. I claim YMS's attempt at generalising a topic that has highlighted a specific problem, is an attempt to deflect a need to confront the issue and that it is shared by others. They have even criticised a positive attempt by another party member to try and reach a conclusion or two that can be used for open discussion at the party conference. My intention was to demonstrate the problems of arbitrary censorship. Censorship that has seen fit to remove so called off topic, but leaves abuse. However I did not mention abuse. YMS's post regarding abuse suggested we were talking about moderators deleting abusive posts. So I do not know where the idea comes from that I advocate a moderator being allowed to delete abusive posts.I have previously stated I have no problem with removal of spam. I believe spam is mostly promotional rubbish, of a commercial or criminal variety. And in todays libel obsessed culture, all sites need to be careful to protect themselves. These are a product of capitalism, nothing to do with free speech and so do not belong on a site that promotes socialism.I will state once more on this thread as I have done elsewhere (I will also add it to the relevant thread of Brian's) I see nothing wrong with a warning system. An initial call for calm, 1st warning, 2nd warning and then suspension. All clearly and openly referenced so that everyone knows what to expect.I think deletion of even abuse and off topic are unnecessary. Lessons can be learnt from such material. Hiding from, refusing to address and ultimately censoring a persons input, whether deemed to be problematic by some, is not the way to change a situation for the better. Views or behaviour, if wrong need to be addressed upfront and openly.
Hi pfbcarlisleThanks once again for taking the time to answer me. I know I keep saying it but I greatly appreciate your input.For me it has helped highlight a potential problem, that I will post on the relevant thread in this section.Thanks.
You are very good at "generalities", YMS.The problem here is that in discussing the need for or against the use of censorship techniques, as the title suggests, having a place in the struggle towards socialism, accepts, rightly or wrongly, the reality of such actually taking place. In other words we have to be specific, because it is happening here and now. That has been established and accepted.I originally laid out my position, that the arbitrary use of deletion as we have seen amounts to censorship. You claim it doesn't, then see fit to lump in deletion of abusive posts, that were never even mentioned. Now you claim that is a generalisation. Worse still your so called generalisation, seems to be your recipe. Delete everything that is unacceptable!That is the problem with censorship, who gets to decide what is and is not acceptable? If judgment and punishment is to be carried out arbitrarily by one individual then it is not democratic and therefore not socialist. Even a magistrates court in this country has three officials presiding over judgment. What we have at present is one person. That is censorship by dictate.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I believe I have answered your question. I believe deleting pointless posts, disruptive posts and abusive posts to be fine (in fact, in the case of the latter it is in the general interest of both the abused and the abuser). Post deletion can prevent the contagion from spreading, as later comers may respond and re-open old wounds.I have highlighted the problematic part of your assertion. You and JC both referred to the deletion of posts as if abusive posts were/are being deleted for our benefit. Especially the benefit of the abused and abuser. Trying to make out that censorship was not arbitrary, but directed and necessary.Seeing as the two of you seem unable to understand your own words, I will rephrase the original question slightly.Where did the two of you get the idea, based on my original post, that abusive posts were being deleted for the good of the forum? We seem to be in a position were YMS and JC justify censorship on weak grounds. The abuse is still here for all to see and so could not be said to have been censored to protect anybody. It has also been highlighted with a link to it from another party site, by the abused party. So much for your assumption it's removal is beneficial for the abused and the abuser?You don't need to be telepathic to explain your own reasoning on the subject, just consistent.Now here is an interesting one for you to mull over, YMS. You claim off topic, disruptive posts should be deleted. Check out #39 on this thread. A members first contribution to this subject, disruptive, personally directed, trolling, not contributing to the topic, etc etc.
