[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would be grateful if you could answer this valid point, as YMS refused to touch it.

ISTR that I have addressed it, several times, that disruptive posts (what some people call off-topic) should be removed without mercy, I even gave an example with reference to beginning to discuss rugby on a bakery forum.You yourself accept that spam and abusive posts should be removed, and a disruptive post is just an extension of spam.If the technology on this forum allowed individual posts to be moved, I'd prefer that to deletion, but it doesn't.

[Young Master Smeet]

Brian wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think consistency is a relatively low priority.  Each case will be unique in any case (and if the mods fail to act in one case it has no bearing over their actions in another).

You seem to have shot yourself in the foot with that opening sentence because its directly implying that the opposite is the norm i.e.  Inconsistency is a relatively high priority.  Which is just asking for trouble for without standards there's lack of consistency, and without consistency its really difficult to conduct a review which can be quantified against performance and to also assess what requires improvements in reference to equality of treatment.

Well, no, because my point is that we shouldn't be treating the moderator as if they are the law, or a forum cop.  The priority is people agreeing that they want to be on the forum to discuss socialism, and that comes first and foremost, not letting other things get in the way.Rules, and the muliplicity is troll fodder, because they will come, and they will game them, expertly, a general "be excellent to each other" is all that is required.If there is a fight, it doesn't matter who started it, who was insulted by whom and how, what matter is the fight stops, and if that takes banning both parties utterly unfairly, that's what it takes.  We need a tartar in the chair.I'll reiterate my central point, if members don't spat and stand on their hindlegs demanding fairness, but instead just get on with debating the points at hand, the problem disappears for everyone.

[Young Master Smeet]

I think consistency is a relatively low priority.  Each case will be unique in any case (and if the mods fail to act in one case it has no bearing over their actions in another).More important, than any rules, is to remember the difference between democracy among friends and democracy among enemies.  Democracy among friends is the tacit agreement that we want to be together, on this forum, discussing socialism.This is another way of affirming the basic rule of wikipedia: ASSUME GOOD FAITHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faithThis cuts between members as well as between members and moderators.  Assume the moderator is acting in good faith first and foremost, and remember why we're here.  The moderator is trying to help discussion.  It doesn't matter if you think the moderator is wrong, or has warned you unfairly, it doesn't matter.  In the grand scheme of things a warning from the moderator is supremely unimportant, and the response is the exactly same as if it was a fair warning: you back away from any arguments, and get back to discussing the topics in hand.The chair will get it wrong: that doesn't matter, you are bigger than that.  Just keep on discussing.If we police ourselves, the moderators don't need to do anything: stay on topic and don't abuse other members.  It's that simple, those are the rules.  The easy way to abide by them is just never directly address a forum member nor refer to them by name, just like at a physical meeting, you're addressing the chair.And just remember, an argument that lasts a week online would be over in five minutes in the pub.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

I'm reminded of a story attributed, as most are, to Bernard Shaw.  Woman: Would you pay £1,000 to sleep with me? Shaw: No, but I would pay 1p. Woman: What do you think I am? Shaw: I thought we'd already established that, now we're just haggling.  You've no problem with deleting posts, neither have I, we're just discussing where the line is.  Of course, there is no line, it's always a matter of negotiation, but if, like Wikipedia, we Assume Good Faith on the part of the moderators, it can be quickly resolved.AFAICS most posts are on topic (or within legitimate slippage of topic: for instance, a thread about soccer can lead to rugby relatively easily, but it would be disruptive to talk about rugby in a thread about cake baking, and such a post could be legitimately nuked from a great height, IMNSHO). 

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Well, this kind of proves my point, we don't know on the forum who are or are not party members, so moderation needs to be accountable to the party democratic mechanisms, not the forum members.  No dig intended, I had no idea you weren't a party member.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Well, in the minimum it means a lot of work for moderators, and additional unhappiness all round, as the old wounds get re-opened again.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I take it you think that the censoring of posts is absolutely necessary to manage the forum?

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).

SocialistPunk wrote:

That the use of warnings and suspensions is not sufficient?

If someone gets suspended for disruption, I'd rather the disruption did not live on after them.  Likewise I think most members, especially abused ones, would not want the abuse to hang around for all time.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

And words when said are lost forever, into the ether.  Here, as we've seen, members can take their dispute to other fora, or can find other ways to get their point across.  I'm afraid you have not established a quantitative difference between chairing a physical meeting and an electronic one.  Also, at public meetings, the appointed chair cannot be overturned by the non-members.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

A insults B.  Moderator warns/bans A.  A week later, C comes online, and sees the offending post, and responds (before scrolling down), resulting in a warning/ban for C.  B defends C, gets a warning/ban.  A week later, D comes on, sees the offending post, and leaps to B's defence, earning a warning/ban.Posts that don't add substantively to the discussion, that are purely disruptive or abusive deserve to be zapped, rather than preserved in aspic.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

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. Now, if the technology supported it, I'd be happy with individual posts being moved to a deletion forum, so regular users can see them go down the tube.  Second best would be to edit the post to leave a place marker saying that the moderator has removed the content (as happens on comment is free), but deleting posts is fine, and is no more censorship than interrupting a disruptive member in full flow at a physical meeting.  Posts are not being pre-vetted for content, nor are they edited/moderated for content, but for behaviour that disrupts the debate.  As recent events have shown, we need such interventions.

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,There's a difference between a regular contributor and someone who makes the conversation about them, rather than the topic at hand.  I do try to stay on topic, and can't recall going off thread recently, now, here, have I seen many members go off thread (and, in isolated incidents, it is not a problem, but, as on Wikipedia, if someone keeps breaking in on their hobby horse it can be a problem).  Just as, in a football match, a foul in itself may not necessitate a card, but seen over the course of a game, it will be the straw that broke the camel's back, or the sponge that overdid the metaphor.Indeed, people can be deterred from contributing by "robust" debaters, that's why we need to moderate ourselves, and occasionally be moderated.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tom Rogers wrote:

I agree that the evidence for miscegenation is all around us, but this does not help you establish that race is only a social construct, it just indicates that some people will breed outside their own wider kin group under the influence of propaganda and a particular consciousness that is accepting and encouraging of race-mixing.  This is likely to happen under a more globalised system of capitalism which relies on the migration of cheap labour.  Explain why so much effort needs to be put into propagandising the benefits of multiculturalism ('race-mixing'), if not because it suits an agenda.  Isn't this an effort to overcome and discourage instinct-level behaviours, drives and inclinations that would otherwise see people develop relationships mainly among those with whom they self-identify? 

You cannot get animals to act against instinct, instinctive behaviours are automatic and ingrained, all you can do is get a stronger instinct (self preservation) to supervene.However, since you are unable to substantiate your claims about the "observable fact of race", how in the name of snut can instinct do it?  How, for instance, can instinct tell an African from an Australian?

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Party members on the forum do not get special privileges, they are members of the forum and treated just like non-members (at the very least, we have no way of knowing who are party members)

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

Off topic posts are noise that interfere with the rights of forum members to receive information, they are a species of censorship in their own right, and if left uncontrolled can swamp a discussion.  There is a breed we could call the unconscious troll, not deliberately derailing a conversation, but with a knack of making every discussion about themselves and sucking the air out of the room.Also, don't forget, the moderators have a legal duty to protect the party from legal action, such as libel, etc. so the capacity to remove posts is important.

SocialistPunk wrote:

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.

The democratic control of the forum and its users.

[Young Master Smeet]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

I would not, if I were you, put your trust in 'such people'. Every 'such people' the working class has ever trusted has led us into the shit.

I trust the authority of physicists, biologists, doctors, dentists.  I have to, I am ignorant and they are informed.  Whilst I can, and do .

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

What if 'such people' are unfair and unbalance in their administration. Would we be allowed to point that out?

Absolutely, democratic authority means acocuntability.  But banging on my door at three in the morning to tell me about a case I can do nothing about would not be welcome. There are times and places for everything.

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Are you in favour of censorship?

In the sense I discussed above, yes.  For example, in a workplace in socialism, if someone engaged in racist discourse, I'd throughly expect them to be asked to stop it, or leave.  Now, their right to give and receive racist opinion would not be infringed, in general, since mechanisms for such dissemination would have to be established, but the freedom of association of their colleague in their workplace would have to be maintained and protected.  Also, the right to receive opinion also includes the right not to receive unwelcome communication.

[Young Master Smeet]

Interestingly, this is how the OED defines Censor (n.):

OED wrote:

1. The title of two magistrates in ancient Rome, who drew up the register or census of the citizens, etc., and had the supervision of public morals. a. transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.b. spec. An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government. More explicitly dramatic censor, film censor.†a. A person who judges or criticizes.Obs. b. esp. One who censures or blames; an adverse critic; one given to fault-finding.

Obviously, the verb to censor comes from the name of the ancient office (I clipped out a few definitions that I don't need).   Now, it will be clear, that there will be need for the type of censorship implied by "One who censures or blames; an adverse critic; one given to fault-finding." even if that is not a formal position.  Obviously, we're not talking here about someone sitting down and vetting all publications pre-emptively, in the totalitarian sense, but in the sense of someone reminding people with a common purpose that there are rules and expected behaviours.  Such people could even have authority, in the sense of knowing what they are talking about and being held in esteem and respect by their peers for such knowledge.  they could also have democratic authority, in that they may be elected to such purpose.I'd imagine most workplaces and organisations would have a censor, or a censorship function, just as the Socialist Party has a variety of mechanisms for dispute resolution.Of course, the ancient Roman office was a strike against the Tribunate, to try and claw some power back for the Patricians as they were being forced to surrender access to the consulship to Plebeians. To get away with it, though, they nexploited the need to define who was a citizen and who could take part in elections.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tom Rogers wrote:

As previously stated, the physical fact of race is, to me, empirically self-evident.  By denying this, you deny what is plainly in front of you.

Well, I'm open to debate, but I also don't believe the self-evident fact that the sun goes round the Earth.  If you're unable to defend your position, to given any examples of the evident existence of race, to which I appear ignorant, then I will have to continue to suffer my delusion.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tom Rogers wrote:

OK, but again so what?  Just because the characteristics that form a man-made, socially-constructed racial classification are accidental – even random – it does not follow that race itself is not a physical fact.

Nearly, except that I am disputing the "physical fact of race".  The onus is now on you to demonstrate that there is some "physical fact", some Thing we can call race.  Specifically, you'll need to demonstrate how the "empirically self-evident" differences between people differ from the "empirically self-evident" physical fact that the sun goes round the Earth.If you can't, we're left with the relatively banal idea that human beings are not genetically identical with each other, and the differences between any given two people become greater the further back you can trace a shared ancestor.p.s. gender is a social construct, sex isn't.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tom, what you said was:

Tom Rogers wrote:

Thanks.  You state [as far you know] that race has no solid basis in biology or DNA terms, but I do not see how that assertion can hold.  I am white and it seems apparent to me that there are both particular and average group differences between, on the one hand, myself and other whites, and on the other hand, people of other races: for instance, people of African origin.  Apart from anything else, it just seems empirically self-evident that there are differences and it seems to me quite odd  to deny this.

to which I replied

YMS wrote:

there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other.

i.e. that the apparent differences are only accidental, and not a factor of a coherent thing called 'race'.  indeed, within apparent "racial" groups, you'll find more variation of genetics/features than between such groups.  The coincidence of, say, blond hair and blue eyes is not essential, the two features can be divorced.For instance, I am "white" (well, grey), but I have patches of brown skin (often referred to as freckles, but essentially, they are patches of melanin, which means that the difference between myself and a "brown" person is not qualitative but quantitative).Differences in skin tone are no more significant than difference in height or eye colour.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tom,the reason we say there is no such thing as race, is that there are no inherent sets of characteristics/bundles of features by which any human population can be separated from any other.  The perceptive differences between people are accompanied by overwhelming similarity.  What there are are a series of characteristic frequencies. Take a look at the notion "black" how many "black" people actually have black skin?  hardly any.  Most are a shade of brown.  Most "white" people are a funny sort of grey/red colour.  Some east asians used to be referred to as yellow, but other than Jaundice victims, no one is actually a yellow colour.  The discourse of skin colour is socially determined, and has little to do with the reality of human morphological variation.Lets try an easy counter example.  Dapple horses are easilly distinguished from chestnut, but no-one would seriously claim that dapple horses were a different race/sub-species, it's just a colour tone (and no stallion would spend five seconds choosing a dapple over a chestnut mare).Likewise, a horse looking at two humans would probably not notice the skin colour or hair, and just see a human.

[Author]

Posts