Skip to Content

Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
Young Master Smeet
Offline
Joined: 15/11/2011

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

I've been reading up about this, and it's highly suggestive and useful.  One thing I'd say is that we need to find a way to cut down on drama.  Rules 14 and 15 provide one such route, asking would be "rescuers" to keep their nebs out. Generally accepting the omerta on moderation decisions may help any "victim" in the triangle to re-oriientate themselves as creators, focusing on creating socialist content, and seeing their challenge as to to not bring down the sanction of the moderator.

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

I think we all need to work together to get away from drama, nad back to socialism.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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

I think we all need to work together to get away from drama, nad back to socialism.

I think it is very interesting and I couldn't agree more. But I believe Karpman displays an equalateral triangle

an equilateral triangle is a triangle in which all three sides are equal.

So it cannot be applied to this forum in its present form.

 

Could I repeat that - despite the 10 month ban and all the other rubbish - Vin is still willing to draw a line under it and concentrate on 'positive socialist activity'

 

 

Young Master Smeet
Offline
Joined: 15/11/2011

Wikipedia wrote:
Each triangle has a payoff for those playing it. The antithesis of a drama triangle lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Each triangle has a payoff for those playing it. The antithesis of a drama triangle lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.

So how would we deprive a moderator of the satisfaction of blocking someone at will? 

Perhaps new rules?

 

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

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

I've been reading up about this, and it's highly suggestive and useful.  One thing I'd say is that we need to find a way to cut down on drama.  Rules 14 and 15 provide one such route, asking would be "rescuers" to keep their nebs out. Generally accepting the omerta on moderation decisions may help any "victim" in the triangle to re-oriientate themselves as creators, focusing on creating socialist content, and seeing their challenge as to to not bring down the sanction of the moderator.

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

I think we all need to work together to get away from drama, nad back to socialism.

whilst I'm happy to see you've found Karpman's work useful. I would say the Wikipedia entry is a bit superficial.

The Drama Triangle is a transactional game and the resolution of games is to reject stylised communication in favour of open honest frank communication.

The suggestion that rescuers keep out doesn't really help that. It must be remembered that in the TA model games are played from a sub conscious place and the players are unaware of their actions.

Another element of the Karpman Triangle is that at any given time all of the players can swap. The victim can get annoyed at some element of the process and start to persecute the rescuer, who then becomes the victim, they can then look to the persecutor to rescue them, and off we go again, in different positions.

 Berne's work on Transactional Analysis is fascinating, however a bit like old Charle Marx, it's better to read his original work than some of the interpretations of his work by others. That said TA Today is a really good introductory text.


Young Master Smeet
Offline
Joined: 15/11/2011

Well, the relationships involved here are somewhat superficial, and w don't have the capacity for intensive therapy.  I'd agree more frank communication is needed: I think we need more whim from the mods, and less retreat into convoluted rules and regulations.  But, I think also avoiding the relationship and the source of conflict may aleviate some of the more immediate problems.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

Jesus Christ, this is insane.  People's Judean Front are sane compared to us!  We are a tiny group and spend our time arguing about whether or not to allow a member to come back on the forum. A member who debated on behalf of the party 40 years ago! 

Vin was banned for going off topic and further banned for complaining about others going off topic, and further banned for complaining about being banned.

Now this thread has gone  right off topic;  without warning.!!!!

Every member 'questions moderators decisions', many members make what could be termed 'abusive remarks' EVERYONE goes off topic. Some have even likened this forum to 'leninist' and 'stalinist.' It is call free expression

 

Brian, what were you thinking when you signed this petition saying

"Without freedom of expression nothing will change"   Brian Johnson    Your words!

 

https://www.change.org/p/warwick-students-union-allow-maryam-namazie-to-...

 

ADM and the EC are trying to end the farce, could the moderaors PLEASE follow suit.

Jesus! You could ban him again next week, no one will do anything about it!!

 

 

 

SocialistPunk
SocialistPunk's picture
Offline
Joined: 17/08/2012

Linda, why is it you keep omitting certain facts? Could it be that the facts you consistently skirt around, are the ones that don't sit easily in your narrative?

Vin was issued with the indefinite suspension by moderator1 from this forum in March of this year. Vin would have been told of the appeal process, of which he knew from previous suspensions. Yet he chose not to pursue the matter.

When Vin was suspended in March 2016, there was only moderator1, monitoring the forum. Meaning moderators 2 and 3 were not involved in Vin’s suspension.

June 2016. The IC informed the EC that they would not handle any more communication from Vin.

July 2016. The EC made a decision to deal with all communication from Vin that was sent to the IC. Meaning Vin's appeal would be handled by the EC.

August 2016. Vin publicly asked the three moderators to reinstate him on the forum. The decision made was that he be advised to follow the existing appeal process, that any other member would be required to do. So despite your claim, the three moderators did not suspend Vin.
Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?

September 2016. Vin finally engages with the appeal process and sends a request to the EC, asking them to reinstate him on the forum. Meaning Vin left it 6 months before setting in motion the appeal process, to challenge his suspension.

No explanation as to why Vin left it six months to appeal his suspension has, as far as I can tell, ever been given. Instead, we’ve had eight months and counting, of yourself and at times Vin, using this forum as a means of circumnavigating the appeal process, often resulting in uncomradely comments and accusations. the latest being, that the IC have deliberately ignored an EC instruction.


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

SocialistPunk wrote:

Linda, why is it you keep omitting certain facts? Could it be that the facts you consistently skirt around, are the ones that don't sit easily in your narrative?

Vin was issued with the indefinite suspension by moderator1 from this forum in March of this year. Vin would have been told of the appeal process, of which he knew from previous suspensions. Yet he chose not to pursue the matter.

When Vin was suspended in March 2016, there was only moderator1, monitoring the forum. Meaning moderators 2 and 3 were not involved in Vin’s suspension.

June 2016. The IC informed the EC that they would not handle any more communication from Vin.

July 2016. The EC made a decision to deal with all communication from Vin that was sent to the IC. Meaning Vin's appeal would be handled by the EC.

August 2016. Vin publicly asked the three moderators to reinstate him on the forum. The decision made was that he be advised to follow the existing appeal process, that any other member would be required to do. So despite your claim, the three moderators did not suspend Vin.
Perhaps Vin thought the existing appeal process should not apply to him?

September 2016. Vin finally engages with the appeal process and sends a request to the EC, asking them to reinstate him on the forum. Meaning Vin left it 6 months before setting in motion the appeal process, to challenge his suspension.

No explanation as to why Vin left it six months to appeal his suspension has, as far as I can tell, ever been given. Instead, we’ve had eight months and counting, of yourself and at times Vin, using this forum as a means of circumnavigating the appeal process, often resulting in uncomradely comments and accusations. the latest being, that the IC have deliberately ignored an EC instruction.

I think part of the issue here is that both sides are taking entrenched positions, which frequently refer to past indiscretions (on both sides) and which very rarely appear to focus on a preferred outcome. I think it is important to stress that this has been exacerbated by the lack of EC minutes, which would have clarified things on both sides and provided a means of moving forward.

In this context I can understand that Vin would feel frustrated at not being reinstated, despite a rumoured decision by the EC to that effect, however I can also understand that The Mods have a requirement for instruction as well.  

I think it is fairly clear that the best outcome for the party is that we find a way of putting all of this unedifying crap behind us.

I think, (taking into account Vin's understandable frustration at not hearing from the EC) that despite the alleged glove puppet incident, and in the interests of moving forward, it is appropriate that Vin's ban be lifted.

I also think that  Vin should agree publicly to abide by moderation decisions and the rules as they currently stand, (including disputes about moderation) I also think referring this back to the EC only creates more work for the EC when they (and we) should be concentrating on more important things.

If both sides are hoping for complete vindication, then they both really need to understand that that will never happen,  nor is it important or desireable. 

I also think that this dispute is a clear indication that the current rules are not functioning appropriately (which the Mods have openly agreed). It is to be regretted that the time taken up with this dispute and with point scoring on both sides, has meant less has been available to be used more productively and cooperatively creating a better set of rules

 Can I suggest a way forward would be for the Mods to reinstate Vin, as soon the EC minutes are published. For the Mods to issue a warning to Vin re the use of duel accounts. For Vin to accept this warning and undertake not to use a duel account again. For the "Machiavelli" account to be closed. For  Vin to publicly withdraw the comments made on the Machiavelli account. For Vin to abide by the rules as they currently stand and thus we free up the Mods time to get on with amending the rules.


jondwhite
jondwhite's picture
Offline
Joined: 19/12/2011

Thanks Tim. Good suggestions.

Topic locked