Skip to Content

Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
moderator2
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016
Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

"Admin has informed the moderators that a sock puppet account was used on the forum:

'I'm afraid the SPGB doesn't know the 'truth' even when it is democratically decided! An 'elite' decides the 'truth' even today never mind in socialism!' -  Machiavellian’s comment originally on message #27 at

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/one-member-o...

This posting was removed by Moderator 2 having been notified by the Internet Committee of the IP being the same as either Cde. V Maratty’s or Cde. L Maratty’s.

A sock puppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception. The term, a reference to a simple hand puppet made from a sock, originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, to manipulate public opinion, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website…” (our emphasis)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device (e.g., computer, printer) participating in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing. Its role has been characterized as follows: "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get there.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address

The moderators concur that we view this not just as a serious breach of the forum guidelines but one which raises an issue of the integrity of a party member. We feel we have no recourse but to once again take up the valuable time of the EC to seek its advice and recommendation. Until then and until we are further instructed, the accounts of Cde. V. Maratty and Cde.L Maratty will remain suspended."

 Agreed by Moderator 1, 2 and 3

Once again forum users are advised that any queries or complaints against the decisions and actions of the moderators should be by PM to ourselves and not conducted on the forum." 

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

I'm not sure how familiar cdes Marraty and the comrades who take the role of Mods are with Eric Berne's theory of psychological games. However they may find Stephen Karpman's development of this theory and in particular his concept of the "drama triangle" particularly enlightening.

YFS

Tim


moderator2
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016

In the interests of fairness I request that my submission to the next EC is published below the allegations of puppeteering

 

A sock puppet is a second account set up by someone already a member of the forum in order to deceive

Here are examples:

Mod1 and Brian

Mod2 and Alan

Mod3 and Socialist Punk

These are deceptive to newcomers and onlookers

By definition a Sock Puppet requires one user to have TWO accounts

 

My previous account was blocked in March 2016 so Machiavellian is not a sock puppet account. It is my one and only account.

I used a pseudonym to avoid the obvious bias from moderators against me.  Other members use pseudonyms:

 

Young Master Smeet 

Gnome

Socialist Punk

Jondwigt

ALB

robbo203

USER555NET

DJP

 imposs1904

Hollyhead

 

This is only one example of the disrespectful and distorted way in which the IC treats me, another was  allowing an EC member to believe that he was reading out an apology from me to the EC . When in fact I had never sent such an apology

 

I request that the EC informs the Internet Committee in no uncertain terms to allow Linda and myself to take part in online forums, and to take down the inaccurate and defamatory post about us and publish an apology.

Cde.V. Maratty

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator2 wrote:

The moderators concur that we view this not just as a serious breach of the forum guidelines but one which raises an issue of the integrity of a party member. We feel we have no recourse but to once again take up the valuable time of the EC to seek its advice and recommendation. Until then and until we are further instructed, the accounts of Cde. V. Maratty and Cde.L Maratty will remain suspended."

 

The  2016 Annual Delegate Meeting  democratically decided to  recommend that the EC instruct the Internet Committee to end Cde V Maratty’s indefinite suspension.

On November 5th the EC agreed to this.

Vin Maratty then set up an account and the Internet Committe suspended it 

A committee that stubbornly ignores the democratic wishes of the party as expressed by branch delegates and  the Executive Committee  also raises issues of the integrity of the members of that committee.

gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

lindanesocialist wrote:

moderator2 wrote:

The moderators concur that we view this not just as a serious breach of the forum guidelines but one which raises an issue of the integrity of a party member. We feel we have no recourse but to once again take up the valuable time of the EC to seek its advice and recommendation. Until then and until we are further instructed, the accounts of Cde. V. Maratty and Cde.L Maratty will remain suspended."

 

The  2016 Annual Delegate Meeting  democratically decided to  recommend that the EC instruct the Internet Committee to end Cde V Maratty’s indefinite suspension.

On November 5th the EC agreed to this.

Vin Maratty then set up an account and the Internet Committe suspended it 

A committee that stubbornly ignores the democratic wishes of the party as expressed by branch delegates and  the Executive Committee  also raises issues of the integrity of the members of that committee.

This delay in acting upon the wishes of ADM is quite appalling.  Although the EC did indeed agree to lift Cde V. Maratty's indefinite forum suspension the membership has still not been apprised of the precise wording of the motion ten days on. I've attempted to get this information but there appears to be some kind of a 'news blackout' with those I've asked keeping schtum.

I wonder why that would be?

Bijou Drains
Bijou Drains's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/11/2015

I don't understand how both Vin and Linda can both be considered sock puppeteers. Surely this would require them both to have their hands up the poor puppet's orifice. Surely such cruelty is beyond even a Mackem?


moderator2
Offline
Joined: 14/06/2016

It appears that few take notice of the moderators or of the rules even though it was pointed out. in the very first message.  

Quote:
 Once again forum users are advised that any queries or complaints against the decisions and actions of the moderators should be by PM to ourselves and not conducted on the forum."

So be it. 

I am unsure if Tim with his humourous contribution seeks a response but when two people use the same apparatus from the same location, the IP is the same. We were unable to identify whether Cde.L Maratty or Cde. V Maratty was the poster machiavellian, so we did the reasonable thing, we asked. And until we received a response from Cde. L. Maratty, her then current suspension was continued. When she told us she was not machiavellian we lifted her suspension.

In reply to Gnome, he may like to know that the moderators too are still awaiting formal notice of the EC instruction or the receipt of the relevant EC minutes. It is perhaps understandable that we should encounter problems when we lack a Gen Sec but like himself, i don't like being kept in the dark as i have, as he probably remembers, have had a number of occasions to make complaints about such things in the past.

It is problematic that the moderators was belatedly informed on the hearsay of an EC member of their decision. Perhaps this situation could have been avoided if there had not been this delay in communication. 

But to clarify one thing. Cde. V. Maratty has been registered as “Vin” since he re-joined the forum after leaving the party for a period and under that ID he was subsequently suspended. It, nevertheless, still remains his valid forum “nom de plume”. He is not permitted another account unless authorised (Rule 8) which he has never requested, nor was ever granted. 

The current suspension was maintained despite the decisions by ADM and EC because this breach was a new one and a more recent turn of event, subsequent to their decisions, and considered serious enough by the moderators to warrant the suspension being continued.  

i am sure other forum users are well aware of Cde. V. Maratty’s numerous accusations against our objectivity, so it may not come as a surprise that the moderators chose to recuse ourselves from the matter other than to report the facts as we find them to the EC.  It will now be the responsibility of the EC to determine whether Cde. V. Maratty purposefully posted a message under a false account (sock-puppet) to by-pass a suspension still in effect. He will no doubt be given ample opportunity to rebut the moderators’ interpretation of his motives and our actions. It will now be the EC, not the moderators, who will make the decision on what to do.

Therefore, i think it is better to treat the situation as “sub judice” and decline from any further comment or opinion and let our EC conduct their own enquiries and reach their own conclusions so i will refrain from any further posts on the issue. There will be no more replies from me on this thread from this moment on. I hope that is understood. 

gnome
gnome's picture
Offline
Joined: 14/10/2011

moderator2 wrote:

 It will now be the responsibility of the EC to determine whether Cde. V. Maratty purposefully posted a message under a false account (sock-puppet) to by-pass a suspension still in effect. He will no doubt be given ample opportunity to rebut the moderators’ interpretation of his motives and our actions. It will now be the EC, not the moderators, who will make the decision on what to do.

Except that as far we can tell, considering the news blackout, the suspension was technically not still in effect since the EC had made a decision to lift the current indefinite suspension on 5 November whereas the alleged sock-puppet account was not opened until 9 November, no doubt foolishly, as a means of circumventing the perceived inaction of the Executive Committee and/or the Internet Committee. 

While I am perfectly cognisant of the problems Head Office administration is currently experiencing it shouldn't have been beyond the wit of the EC to have appointed one of its members, or more obviously the Head Office Organiser, who claims he doesn't have enough to do to warrant coming in to HO more than once a week, to advise the Internet Committee almost instantly of the EC's decision in this regard.

ALB
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

gnome wrote:
the alleged sock-puppet account was not opened until 9 November, no doubt foolishly,
It wasn't just foolish. It was framed as a nasty attack on the party as if it had come from an opponent:

Quote:
I'm afraid the SPGB doesn't know the 'truth' even when it is democratically decided! An 'elite' decides the 'truth' even today never mind in socialism!
In fact it is unbelievable that such a thing could have been written by a party member. Party procedures may be slow and cumbersome but they are still democratic. ADM floor resolutions are not self-enforcing but recommendations to the EC which decides if and how they are to be implemented, so the moderators could not simply act on the one in question but had to wait for what the EC decided and instructed them to do. For all they know (and we know) there might be conditions attached to lifting the suspension.

And it wasn't an "alleged" sock-puppet but an open and shut case of one, a textbook example.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

ALB wrote:

It wasn't just foolish. It was framed as a nasty attack on the party as if it had come from an opponent:

Rather than refer to it as a 'nasty' attack on the party, why not logically refute it.? So when a member criticises the party it is dismissed as an 'attack'  You made no comment on malcolm's observation of moderation; he has only observed such behaviour in Stalinist and Leninist groups. 

Someone who has been blocked from online participation in party activity for 10 months does not have the right to criticise the party?

The party has told us via conference resolutions that members may openly criticise the party. Vin and I will continue to critisise the party where necessary unless and until the party decides that its members may not do so. Don't bother trying to tell us we  can't criticise the party, it is nowhere in the rulebook and never will be.

But I think you have hit the nail on the head. Vin has been suspended for 10 month and will remain suspended for criticising the party and in particular the internet committee. This is the only thing that seperates him from other ‘outspoken’ and ‘off topic’ or 'abusive'  members. 

 

Members are free to set up accounts anonomously, ALB? YMS, Gnome, Socialist Punk. The party TOLD Vin via ADM and EC resolutions,  to go back on the forum after a 10 month suspension, a 'small elite' (using LBird speak) is ignoring that and has blocked him yet again.

The online SPGB is run by a few members  who ignore the democratic wishes of the party.  It has used rule after rule to keep a member suspended for 10 months for criticising it. Now that it has been told by the party to end the farce, they come up with yet another rule to apply. How do we describe such behaviour without breaking some 'rule'

How would 'hollyhead' for example feel if the mods set up a special thread revealing his real identity?

Is it no wonder Vin appears angry and frustrated. 

Adam, your 'logic' appears upside down:

It is not 'action detrimental'  to criticise the party but it is definitely action detrimental and undemocratic  for a committee to ignore the declared wishes of the membership

See Socialist Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

ALB wrote:

In fact it is unbelievable that such a thing could have been written by a party member. Party procedures may be slow and cumbersome but they are still democratic. ADM floor resolutions are not self-enforcing but recommendations to the EC which decides if and how they are to be implemented, so the moderators could not simply act on the one in question but had to wait for what the EC decided and instructed them to do. For all they know (and we know) there might be conditions attached to lifting the suspension.

Confused and wrong again Adam. The Executive Committee doe not have anyone suspended. The internet committee does and it has the authority to reinstate but is deliberately using the delay to extend the suspension. 

Other party members and forum members have criticised  moderation. See malcolm, for example. He has only witnessed  anything like it in Stalinist and Leninist groups. 'too many rules and interference'.

I cant remember you saying at the time that it was inconceivable for a member to criticise the party in such a 'nasty' attack?

 

 

Topic locked