SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi BrianI refer you to the title of this thread. JC and myself are in the middle of discussing the post I put up referring to the second half of the title, censorship in a future socialist society. I posted something, JC disagreed, hence the discussion.I have been consistent in my asking YMS and JC to explain their position, that the deletion of posts on this forum is being used to protect the forum and users from abuse, by the removal of such posts. They fail to explain why the abusive posts still remain, as they claim such deletion is precisely for that. In post #77 I quote YMS and JC referring to the removal of abusive posts.Now JC claims my post #68 is an attack against him. Also claiming I advocate a "free for all" forum. A nice tactic to avoid answering such a simple question. Only it doesn't work.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:In the interests of good relations, SP, I'm going to ignore the personal attacks contained in your last post. I have answered your question in very simple terms. All I can do, therefore, is repeat myself. What I am in favour of is an agreement on what's acceptable and what is not, and the subsequent consistent enforcement of those standards by well-briefed moderators. The problem with having a free-for-all – which is what you seem to be advocating – is that threads inevitably descend into little more than an exchange of insults. Frankly, that's both boring and counter-productive.I was not having a go at JC, as he claims, merely using a bit of a flourish to emphasise his inability to give a straight answer to a straight question.If the use of deletion of posts is to remove abusive posting, then why do we still have abusive posts on this forum?A simple question, but will I get a simple answer? Probably not.As for the invitation to contribute to the thread about ideas for moderation. I happen to agree with a number of the ideas being put forward, I have argued previously for some of them and I will contribute soon.
JC and YMSLet me clarify this. It seems I am being misunderstood, so I will s p e l l.. i t.. o u t.. simply.I originally drew attention to a couple of posts that had been deleted recently. They helped further inflame the situ as the censored member took offence, as I would if censored. The mod' deemed the posts off topic.
SocialistPunk wrote:I 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.Young Master Smeet wrote: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).ANDLikewise I think most members, especially abused ones, would not want the abuse to hang around for all time.Jonathan Chambers wrote:But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship.So both members talk of the removal of abusive/offensive posts. As if I was complaining of such a thing happening, when in fact I referred only to off topic posts, that have fanned the flames we see now.So again I will ask the question. If the deletion of posts (of which I originally drew attention to) is intended to safeguard the forum from abusive posting, according to YMS and JC, then why are there still abusive posts left on this forum? And why has a party member seen fit to make a link available to them from SPintcom?And for those who refuse to read actual words that are posted. I have never advocated a "free for all", no rules forum. I think warnings and if needed suspensions are adequate. If carried out in a fair, unbiased manner.
SocialistPunk wrote:Moderation does not have to involve the deletion, editing or disallowance of genuine forum members contributions. If they are wrong they can be shown, if they persist they can be warned and if need be suspended. I have been consistent in this view throughout this debate.Straight answers on the back of a postcard to Socialist "Paxman" Punk.
Nice one Jonathan.I see you are up to your old tricks of not answering questions put to you.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship.We'll try again shall we, and maybe this time you could try giving me a straight answer instead of a politicians answer.You claim the censorship, as you admit exists, is about removal of offensive posts. So can you please explain to the forum why there are still offensive posts left on this forum? I am sure everyone who is checking this thread out would love to hear you back up your claim with a straight answer.I seem to recall a Paxman reference being used on another thread with regards to pressing someone for an answer. Well, do I have to do a Paxman?I am itching to bring up some points from your previous criticism of mine, so please answer this one so we can get to the next point.
Jonathan
Jonathan Chambers wrote:But if you want to insist on calling the removal of offensive posts 'censorship' then yeah, I'm in favour of that kind of censorship. People's judgement can be skewed sometimes, you see? And they then need the rest of us to say 'Hang on a moment…'You say that you support the removal of abusive posts. A point YMS made also. I put to YMS that the deletion I am referring to is not abusive posting, merely slightly off topic (but I don't know because I did not see them, censored ya see).If the deletion or as I see it, censoring of posts was to remove offensive material then why are there a number of offensive posts still on this forum? Not just recent stuff either. And why did a party member on another party site post links to some of the offending material, a clear act of inflammation. So much for beneficial censorship?It would seem you and YMS are in favour of highly selective censorship, that does not even do what you claim it is there for. But that is censorship for you. A highly suspect, flawed method of control.I would be grateful if you could answer this valid point, as YMS refused to touch it.I have other points to bring up regarding your post #65, but see if you can answer this simple one first
Hi pfbcarlisleThanks for getting back to me. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my enquiries.I was hoping you would be willing to clarify something from what you have said. You say you were not involved in OGW's first report. Could you explain how the Int Dept goes about investigating complaints? Who and how many etc?
I have heard a few people, surprisingly SPGB party members, on this forum recently suggesting that censorship will probably be needed in a global socialist society.I find this idea quite odd. Most censorship today takes place in countries with limited political and personal freedom. Even censorship of films and music in this country is greatly reduced, with many banned films of yesteryear being released over the past years. Often such material is considered tame compared to contemporary material. It shows that what some at one time find offensive, so often changes over time.As for material of a dodgy sexual nature, that stuff is abuse and criminal behaviour, so does not apply to freedom of expression.The behaviour of many people in society today is largely (but not exclusively) dictated to them by environmental circumstances. It is accepted by most socialists that the stresses and prejudices that so often accompany living within a dehumanising, profit driven, competitive society will be eradicated once a majority of people understand and work towards achieving a socialist world.In fact only once people are free from the confines of capitalism will humanity be truly free. Free to develop as fully as human potential may allow, mentally, emotionally, physically, technologically, artistically and perhaps even spiritually. 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. It will not be a utopia by any means but much, much better than what we have at present.So I would like to ask those who seem to think socialism will need censorship a simple question.Why?
Hi YMS
Young Master Smeet wrote:I think that the capacity to delete and remove posts is essential, for legal and practical reasons: cf. libel & spambots. I have no problem with pointless, disruptive or purely abusive posts being removed. Even Wikipedia does this (and deletes them from the history log too).I refer to your words above. I 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.So your so called beneficial use of censorship is not really being used with any consistency. That is part of the problem with the use of censorship methods. Who decides? Perhaps if we had a machine that could consistently decide what is problematic and censor only posts that are a real problem we may not have an issue, but we don't. Instead people censor other people and we have to rely on their judgment that is very often flawed.I am not a party member and I expect there are a number of non party forum members. If I or any of the others were to have a post deleted then we could not take our voice to another platform. You say a chairperson can not be overturned by non members, I assume you mean non party members? It sounds like a little dig at my suggesting there is a problem that needs fixing.As for the scenario you put across of a big argument taking place with people reacting to others posts. If a person breaks the forum rules then they can expect warnings and if they persist then a suspension may be necessary. Where is the problem with that? Instead you seem to think the inconsistent approach in place now is the best approach, highly selective censoring of posts combined with warnings and suspensions.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.I am of the impression some party members think this is harmful to the party. I think they are wrong. Look at the interest this discussion is generating. It is an example of a democratic party, openly engaging in discussion of a problem. Other parties attempt to hide their problems from public scrutiny and look like the corrupt power ridden organisations they are. The SPGB instead advocate open democratic debate and participation. This can only be good for the party, so long as the problem is recognised and dealt with openly and effectively. This is what we are doing now is it not?
At last! A party member who raises some good points regarding this issue. Good to see some party members can see there are problems with moderation on the forums.Thank you Brian.Like I said previously, it is early days for the party regarding this form of interactive communication and teething problems are bound to arise.Nothing wrong in admitting it and doing something about it, now is there?
When we have finished (if ever we do) with "race", there are still gender and class left to discuss.It's gonna be a long one.
Hi pfbcarlisleThank you for your reply.A couple of things spring to mind. I am not sure why you thought an apology to OGW was necessary. He and I both knew the wording of the confused report did not in actual fact rescind his first suspension. I merely wished clarification to be in the public domain as others seem to think it was rescinded.As for his first suspension.The Int Dept accepted the unsound nature of OGW's first ever warning that set the scene for this issue. That there was no valid reason for the warning as he had not broken any rules or even come close.However in upholding OGW's first suspension after invalidating the warning that sparked off the situation, is rather illogical.You and the Int Dept accept that the situ' would not have arisen, had OGW not been given a pointless dressing down from Admin.It means that his first suspension was upheld based on only one warning, and his "problematic" posting of another forum users words. I understand that there were and still are no rules regarding number of warnings, before a suspension is given.Now if the first warning was upheld, we have an acceptable base for his actual suspension. 1st warning, he continued. 2nd warning, he continued. Then onto his final "offence" and suspension.Instead what we are left with after the rescinding of the 1st warning. One warning, then suspension.Also OGW's second warning came after he called for the expulsion of the moderators. I explained in my report, that the combination of inconsistent threats, his 1st unwarranted warning, plus major difficulties in posting due to the Tech difficulties on site at the time, led OGW to think he had been barred from the site. Later on the same thread as his call for expulsion, he retracted his outburst.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/freedom-speech-socialist-party
The Old Grey Whistle wrote:Thankyou Socialist Punk.That is all I was trying todo. I started this thread because I had dificulty posting and I thought I had been suspended for no reason. Of course I do NOT want the above members charged. But what would the average member feel if they receive 2 warnings and a suspension without receiving a reason?This means OGW was suspended, for one obvious offence (that he retracted) and a dubious offence of posting the words of another forum user to highlight a problem. Something we are all guilty of and are encouraged to do with the use of a quote function.I would be very grateful if you could explain the logic behind the decision to uphold the suspension? As I know for a fact this mess we find our selves in at the moment would not have arisen if consistent judgment had been adhered to.
Hi YMSI take it you think that the censoring of posts is absolutely necessary to manage the forum?That the use of warnings and suspensions is not sufficient?Because at present on this forum, both are being used and are failing to control the situation effectively. So what next? Increase the level of censorship?That is exactly what happens with the use of censorship, if the little fails the intensity is increased.And as for the nonsense that deleting and disallowing posts is not censorship but the same as chairing a meeting etc. I have already shown that the deletion, disallowance etc can not be rescinded if proved incorrect, leaving the censored persons words point of view etc lost forever. At a meeting you can still speak your mind after the event if people are willing to listen. Also I believe if a chairperson is seen to be causing problems then the people present can over rule and remove them from that role, there and then.Instead of censoring, why not get to grips with the problem? I can see it and I know others can see it. The lack of consistent moderation. We need a guide or code of conduct for moderators.Surely it is better to deal with a problem, find out what is causing it and sort it out? Instead you and others advocate covering it up, in the hope it will go away. But it wont, it never does!The following words I find quite disturbing.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Post deletion can prevent the contagion from spreading, as later comers may respond and re-open old wounds.If others wish to do so and insist on causing trouble then they can expect warnings.I don't know about you, but I would like to be able to read what others have to say. I would like to be allowed to make my own mind up, and if I feel it warranted, add to the discussion. It is the essence of free speech and democracy.
Hi EdThat was very hard, I only got 6. Very interesting test that goes a long way to prove what we are saying about "race" on this forum.Yet people insist on claiming it is "apparent from walking into any cosmopolitan town, city or university,"The test could be taken as a good example of walking into said city and attempting to identify the people into their "racial" groups. Virtually impossible to score well."Race" or human diversity? Take your pick.
Hi Tom
Tom Rogers wrote:As with any test, the definition has to be applied with a degree of practical nous. For instance, sometimes nationalities and sub-nationalities are referred to, colloquially, as 'races' – for e.g. we could say that Scots are a 'race' by the above definition, but in practical terms they are more accurately seen as a sub-racial ethnic group.Using your above example of the Scottish "race".What "race" would I be if I were born in London, and my parents one Latvian the other Greek, moved to Scotland when I was five years old?Your idea of "race" includes a large element of social construct with a mix of biology. I would be interested to know where you got it from, as you have no hesitation in questioning the authenticity of HollyHead's post?The old timers, the scientists who coined the four "races" we generalise human kind with still today, thought of "race" in terms of biology, with varied mixes of religion, behaviour and technological ability.I would still be interested to know if you think there are only four "races" or rather were only four "races" as bequeathed to us by the originators of "racial science"? Go on give it a rough guess, using your definition.As for my definition of instinct it does not refer to reflexive behaviour. It refers to complex patterns of behaviour that are not taught.I would be interested to read a list of human instinct. But please do not dish out a list of biological reflexes such as yawning or shivering. It needs to be non learnt complex behaviour.
It would be good if everyone could calm down and discuss this important issue in a sensible manner.I may never get an answer to my earlier post as it was drowned out by problematic posts. I understand why OGW did what he did, a frustrated socialist who faced a wall of silence from fellow socialists regarding an issue that is extremely important to all socialists using such a new technology. He then found himself on the end of a personal swipe from a forum member while wearing the badge of a moderator. How can an ordinary member defend themselves from that?This demonstrates perfectly my points all along.1) That censoring members posts is a poor method of control2) Moderators need some sort of code of conduct, guidelines etcI understand that moderating is not an easy task. A code of conduct, or guide for moderators would go some way to protecting them from the accusation of bias. It would not be perfect, but it would be better than what we have now.I will say it again for the benefit of those who seem to deliberately ignore my words. Moderating socialist forums can be done without the use of methods of censoring genuine members. Warnings and suspensions are fine.If we mix the two up, then logic should have dictated that some of OGW's posts were deleted, as he had several weeks ago. Where is the consistency?If the moderation of this site were consistent, then we would not be in this mess in the first place. It really is that simple.It still seems that some members think that censoring is ok. That suspensions are just the same. If I have my words censored, deleted, disallowed etc then they can never be shown. Deleted censored words on these sites can not be overturned by the Int Dept, they are lost forever. If I am out of order then warnings may calm me down, if needed a suspension. If I think the warnings and/or suspension is wrong I can appeal to the Int Dept. Censorship can not be taken back, it can not be rescinded, once done it is done and can be damaging.
Quote:"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever."Noam ChomskyHi pfbcarlisleThanks for getting back to me.You say OGW's 1st suspension was lifted and not rescinded. Does this mean OGW's 1st suspension was upheld by the Int Dept.I am a little confused, as lifting something in regards to a sentence etc is the same as rescinding it.To put it another way. Does the Int Dept accept and uphold the validity of OGW's 1st suspension?
