Skip to Content

Amendment to Rule 8.

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
moderator2
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016

The moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so - to request that the EC over-rule the moderators. 

The numerous messages and PMs directed to ourselves since we collectively came to that decision, has not swayed us in our judgement.  

 

moderator3
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016

lindanesocialist wrote:

It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. 

Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appeals

Would you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.


lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator3 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. 

Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appeals

Would you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.

He has been informed that he must make an act of contrition to the EC.

Where are these procedures written down? I have never heard of a forum member having to appeal to the EC against an indefinite but I stand to be corrected if you can refer me to the relevant documents regarding such procedure. How many other forum members have appealed to the EC

Comradely

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator2 wrote:

 to request that the EC over-rule the moderators.

This is news. I was under the impression that the EC had banned Vin and the Mods hands were tied

So the existing 3 moderators  have the authority to reinstate Vin but refuse to unless their hand is forced by the EC?

So what is it.?

Mods refusing or EC refusing?

 

 

 

 

 

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

 to request that the EC over-rule the moderators.

This is news. I was under the impression that the EC had banned Vin and the Mods hands were tied

So the existing 3 moderators  have the authority to reinstate Vin but refuse to unless their hand is forced by the EC?

So what is it.?

Mods refusing or EC refusing?

Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.

If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator1 wrote:

Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.

If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.

Thanks for the clarity comrade, just for confirmation can you refer me to  the EC resolution suspending Vin from the Forum. It is something I have missed or overlooked and would clear up a lot of the confusion

Tho it is still a little confusing as Mod2 uses the term 'EC overule the mods'  decision to suspend him.  What does that mean?

thanks

moderator3
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator3 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

It is not up to the EC. It is up to the moderators who posts on this forum not the EC. 

Unless you can refer me to the relevant forum rule as I cannot find refence to EC appeals

Would you be able to inform us of the procedures Vin has been made aware of during past suspensions? And whether or not he made use of them? Thanks.

He has been informed that he must make an act of contrition to the EC.

Where are these procedures written down? I have never heard of a forum member having to appeal to the EC against an indefinite but I stand to be corrected if you can refer me to the relevant documents regarding such procedure. How many other forum members have appealed to the EC

Comradely

Fair enough, you are under no obligation to answer my enquiry. I can only assume during previous suspensions, of which there have been a few, Vin has been informed of the procedure for challenging moderator decisions.


lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator3 wrote:

 

Fair enough, you are under no obligation to answer my enquiry. I can only assume during previous suspensions, of which there have been a few, Vin has been informed of the procedure for challenging moderator decisions.

Quite.   but he has never had to write to the EC: nor has anyone else

 

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator1 wrote:

Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.

If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.

 

Moderator2 wrote

The moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so - to request that the EC over-rule the moderators. 

 

I am sure you can understand my confusion?

 

Tim Kilgallon
Tim Kilgallon's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

moderator2 wrote:

" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."

This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation 

And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.

However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions. 

 

Mod 2, are you seriously suggesting that because a decision has previously been made that this topic is closed for further debate? It's a bit like saying "the issue of captialism or socialism was decided at the last general election and there is no point debating it anymore as the issue is now settled". Surely the point of the forum is to generate debate and the purpose of moderation is to moderate that debate, not to lay down which topics can be discussed and which cannot? Am I not as an individual member, within my rights to discuss any issue about the running of the party on this forum, without recourse to my Branch?

So taking on that right to discuss these issues, I will!

I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.

i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.


Login or register to post comments