Skip to Content

Locked Threads

15 posts / 0 new
Last post
Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011
Locked Threads

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

Vin wrote:

Could I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

?

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Vin wrote:

Vin wrote:

Could I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

?

The reason why threads are locked are for one reason only - that is the thread has run its course on the OP and diverted from the subject in its entirety.  It does not prevent any user from answering an accusation on a thread specifically set up for that purpose.  However, I would advise any accusations on moderation issues be dealt with on the 'Moderation suggestion' thread.

robbo203
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011

Vin wrote:

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

 

Agreed but to be fair, Vin, the thread on Fresco which I set up was seriously derailed and some of the posts there should not have come under " general discussion"  at all  but rather the "website/technical" category. I think that was fairly obviously the reason for the Moderator locking the thread but yes perhaps a formal explanation might be appropriate when a thread is locked as you suggest. 

 

I am not a big fan of the off topic rule as you might know but I think while the rule exists, the Mod was carrying out his functions as per the rules....

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

 

Agreed but to be fair, Vin, the thread on Fresco which I set up was seriously derailed and some of the posts there should not have come under " general discussion"  at all  but rather the "website/technical" category. I think that was fairly obviously the reason for the Moderator locking the thread but yes perhaps a formal explanation might be appropriate when a thread is locked as you suggest. 

 

I am not a big fan of the off topic rule as you might know but I think while the rule exists, the Mod was carrying out his functions as per the rules....

I have to respectfully disagree. He ignored attacks, trolling and off topic posts by LBird, 'Bob Andrews' and many others. I could have respected him if he had acted earlier. He only jumped into action when I responded, which will result in a party member being suspended for the next year while trolls and adverts run free. There is no democratic control of these online meetings.

A chairperson is for ONE meeting,  a moderator is for life and cannot be questioned or removed. He has the power and he has used it -  to silence any opposition to his 'moderation'. It is an embarrasment to our movement and cannot continue. We need a party wide discussion on this.

Bob andrews is allowed to attack me behind his pseudonym. Why? I am not allowed a psuedonym. Why? Who is protecting 'Bob'  and why? Can you explain why he has been abusive to me, gone offtopic and broken many other rules yet received NO moderation??

Are we not a party of equals? Or are some more equal than others?

But then 'Bob Andrews' is not a party member. He was expelled along with others for gross undemocratic behaviour

 

 

 

moderator1
Offline
Joined: 03/11/2013

Vin wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Vin wrote:

Couldb I suggest that when a thread is 'locked' it should be accompanied with  a reason.

It does not look good if a topic is locked simply to prevent someone from answering an accustation , for example. as this would stifle balanced debate, which is indispensible to the socialist movement.

 

Agreed but to be fair, Vin, the thread on Fresco which I set up was seriously derailed and some of the posts there should not have come under " general discussion"  at all  but rather the "website/technical" category. I think that was fairly obviously the reason for the Moderator locking the thread but yes perhaps a formal explanation might be appropriate when a thread is locked as you suggest. 

 

I am not a big fan of the off topic rule as you might know but I think while the rule exists, the Mod was carrying out his functions as per the rules....

I have to respectfully disagree. He ignored attacks, trolling and off topic posts by LBird, 'Bob Andrews' and many others. I could have respected him if he had acted earlier. He only jumped into action when I responded, which will result in a party member being suspended for the next year while trolls and adverts run free. There is no democratic control of these online meetings.

A chairperson is for ONE meeting,  a moderator is for life and cannot be questioned or removed. He has the power and he has used it -  to silence any opposition to his 'moderation'. It is an embarrasment to our movement and cannot continue. We need a party wide discussion on this.

Bob andrews is allowed to attack me behind his pseudonym. Why? I am not allowed a psuedonym. Why? Who is protecting 'Bob'  and why? Can you explain why he has been abusive to me, gone offtopic and broken many other rules yet received NO moderation??

Are we not a party of equals? Or are some more equal than others?

But then 'Bob Andrews' is not a party member. He was expelled along with others for gross undemocratic behaviour

If there's an issue with moderation you are fully aware what the procedure is.  PM me with a complaint and I'll pass it on to the I.C.  no problem.

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

moderator1 wrote:

If there's an issue with moderation you are fully aware what the procedure is.  PM me with a complaint and I'll pass it on to the I.C.  no problem.

Can't you deal with it yourself? Have you no answer?

 

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

moderator1 wrote:

The reason why threads are locked are for one reason only - 

They have all been locked by moderation when I have asked a question. I wonder why?  Why not just answer the question? 

 

robbo203
Offline
Joined: 07/11/2011

Vin wrote:

 

I have to respectfully disagree. He ignored attacks, trolling and off topic posts by LBird, 'Bob Andrews' and many others. I could have respected him if he had acted earlier. He only jumped into action when I responded, which will result in a party member being suspended for the next year while trolls and adverts run free. There is no democratic control of these online meetings.

A chairperson is for ONE meeting,  a moderator is for life and cannot be questioned or removed. He has the power and he has used it -  to silence any opposition to his 'moderation'. It is an embarrasment to our movement and cannot continue. We need a party wide discussion on this.

Bob andrews is allowed to attack me behind his pseudonym. Why? I am not allowed a psuedonym. Why? Who is protecting 'Bob'  and why? Can you explain why he has been abusive to me, gone offtopic and broken many other rules yet received NO moderation??

Are we not a party of equals? Or are some more equal than others?

But then 'Bob Andrews' is not a party member. He was expelled along with others for gross undemocratic behaviour

 

Hmm Im not too sure that this is entirely true Vin,  Lbird has been suspended in the past  - has he not? - and has frequently received warnings.  I think Bob Andrews has also received warnings though I might be wrong about this.  I cant  explain his behaviour to you as I dont know him or where he is coming from but am inclined to agree that perhaps he needs to be taken more firmly in hand by the Mod. Not that it matters that he is not a Party member.  The rules of the forum should apply equally to everyone on this forum, Party member or not

 

Im not quite sure what you mean about not being able to use a pseudonym on this list.  The vast majoirty of users use pseudonyms of some sort.  Are you not possibly confusing this with sockpuppets?

Vin
Offline
Joined: 03/12/2011

robbo203 wrote:

 

Hmm Im not too sure that this is entirely true Vin,  Lbird has been suspended in the past  - has he not? -  The rules of the forum should apply equally to everyone on this forum, Party member or not

Im not quite sure what you mean about not being able to use a pseudonym on this list.  The vast majoirty of users use pseudonyms of some sort.  Are you not possibly confusing this with sockpuppets?

The rules of the forum do not apply equally.

Point one.  LBird has been repeatedly abusive and has not received a permanent suspenspion, as I did, Which required party wide action to rescind

point two.  A pseudonym is ony a psedonym if it hides the real identity of the user. I am not allowed a pseudonym. When I attempted I was revealed as a person who lacked integrity.  

I do not confuse 'sockpuppet' with pseudonym and I find that suggestion inexplicable.

Point three. Bob Andrews has the right to remain anonymous, I don't. You may ask why would I want to be anonymous. Well ask Bob.

 

 

Bob Andrews
Offline
Joined: 18/11/2016

Dear Vincent.There's something I think you should be aware of. It's funny isn't it? Even though these are only lines on a screen I'm actually talking to you. For this moment in time, I have your attention. I have your attention. Did you know that attention is power? Did that ever occur to you before? Probably not, because, let's be honest, you're not too bright. Kind of a dim bulb really. The Lord Mayor of Chumpsville. You know in your heart it's true, painful as it is to admit. No. Just kidding.

I hope your feeling aren't hurt. I wouldn't have pulled your leg like that if I didn't think you could take it. I assume that a compagno with your high level of awareness will catch the ironic tone, the sarcastic humour. You're not some average ignoramous.

I was lying. Those things I said about you before - all true. You are a supreme A-1 chucklehead. No. Just kidding. You are a warm, intelligent, decent guy. No you're not. You're a f**king imbecile.That's well known. No. Not true, not true. I don't know anything about you. Nothing. How could I? So don't get excited.

But see how you let me jack you around emotionally? That's what happens when you give your attention to social media. You give it a lot of power.

 

The power of social media...yep.

Topic locked