Skip to Content

Suspension of Cdes. V. and L. Maratty

50 posts / 0 new
Last post
moderator1
Online
Joined: 03/11/2013

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

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.

The mods have never said or agreed the current rules are not functioning appropriately.  There are concerns over the non-existence of an appropriate 'users guidelines'. Which we tried but failed to get included on the 'Please read menu' but we feel we can carry out our role within the current set of rules.

If any party member is of the opinion that some of the rules need amending or altering I advise them to get their branch to itemise it for conference.  For that is the only way the rules are going to get changed, or for that matter any users guidelines included..

Has for your suggested way forward.  May I point out that the mods do not enforce the rules by eliciting conditions for unblocking an account.  That role can only be carried out by the EC.  In the meantime the mods will continue to apply the rules.

The IC are of the firm opinion that the way forward given the history is for the EC to reach a decision on how they see the way forward.

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

jondwhite wrote:

Thanks Tim. Good suggestions.

Yes indeed; a very sound piece of common sense from Tim.  Now where are those EC minutes ffs.

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

gnome wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Thanks Tim. Good suggestions.

Yes indeed; a very sound piece of common sense from Tim.  Now where are those EC minutes ffs.

That makes five of us.  

 

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016

moderator1 wrote:

Has for your suggested way forward.  May I point out that the mods do not enforce the rules by eliciting conditions for unblocking an account.  That role can only be carried out by the EC.  In the meantime the mods will continue to apply the rules.

I cannot find any reference in the rules to the EC being involved in moderation appeals.

The only reason the E is involved is because the Internet Committee refused/ refuses to deal with Vin. Therefore all communications from Vin is sent to the EC,

It is certainly within the moderators remit to end it. 

 

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

Nice to see you have entered the spirit of solution focussed approaches,  Brian. Also good to see that the Mods are able to liaise and come to a joint position at such speed. Cynics might think that you are expressing your individual view on my suggestion, perish the thought.

I disagree with what you say about the moderators view of the rules. I recall Mod 2 and I having a lengthy conversation about the very subject. 

I also think it is confusing when you appear to conflate the IC and the moderators. Surely the Mods make decisions about Moderation not the IC. The view of the IC is about as relevant as the view of my cat (although he hasn't as yet expressed a strong opinion)

Similarly in the original post Mod 2 states "any queries and complaints against the decisiions or actions of the moderators should be by PM. Actually rule 15 states "queries or appeals about particular moderation decisions should be sent to the moderators by private message".

Actually in the rule there is no mention of actions or complaints. I would respectfully suggest that if the moderators (and this statement was agreed to by Mods 1, 2 and 3) are going to "enforce the rules " and "apply the rules" they should have some bloody idea what the rules actually are!!!! 

So just to be absolutely clear about the rules (which you think do not need to be amended) I cannot query a decision, for example "Mod 1 why did you make that decision" but I can "complain" about a decision, "I think that was a stupid decision Cde Moderator" and I can also make comment on an action the moderators have taken for example "I think you made a complete tit of yourself there Cde Moderator". I am also perfectly free to comment on an action of the moderators "I think your action in banning Cde X was a complete parcel of shite" 

You see the thing is, it is vey easy to go down a pedantic and rule focussed approach. Surely it would be better to draw back, reflect on the best way forward for the party and attempt to implement a decision that reflects common sense .


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

Good timing, nicely played Tim, (see #20). As soon as I point out some inconvenient facts that Linda keeps evading, (see #19) you step up to offer a solution to calm our fevered brows. You even get a round of applause.

What we don't get, is comment from Linda, addressing the inconvenient facts. So I'm gonna give it another go. Maybe we'll see some answers this time.

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.


alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Tim, perhaps you are unaware that we have been down this road with Cde. V. Maratty already.

 I have previously personally said that my approach to Cde. V Maratty was one of lack of confidence in his assurances of better conduct on the forum but now, since the Machiavellian development, a false account opened to launch an anonymous attack on the Party’s internal democracy, it is now one of trust.

This is a repetition of his accusations made on a RevLeft discussion list thread in 2013 which he set up to criticise the party for permitting a "purge"of members that should be brought once more to the fore.

This is what Gnome had to say about Vin’s posts at the time on that discussion list

“If you'd like to know more about the SPGB and the bogus claims being made by one or two disaffected ex-members visit the party's website and its forum. Make your own judgements about this issue and the most democratic revolutionary organisation you'll ever likely to encounter…some threads have been locked because of the wanton and capricious disruption which continued for around six months taking place mostly on these sub-forums…The OP has now been banned indefinitely from posting on the forum after numerous warnings and temporary suspensions.”

Gnomes’s opinion may have changed but the facts have not.

While Cde. V Maratty is now citing approvingly of mcolome’s comparison of the moderators with Leninist practices, here is Cde. V. Marattys judgement of mcolome’s moderating policy.

“I am permanently expelled from your SPGB forum for being 'off topic in thread' Perhaps spgb members have an explanation for this comedy duo which is typical of their forums at the moment. The moderator and 'malcom' is the same person.  Who is 'disrupting' this forum? Who is challenging the integrity of members? Who is off topic? And perhaps I can give you a demonstration of the status of free speech in the SPGB by going on the forum to defend myself?  unable to post link but it is the WSM forum.”

This is related to the unfounded accusation which was never retracted that the Yahoo WSM moderator and I colluded together in publically publishing a private e-mail on the forum. “I sent Alan Johnstone a private email. You can tell it is private the way it is worded. Worse than that the moderator took it from Alan and published it! How low is the party willing to stoop?”

Admitting that the error addressing his post incorrectly was his own was beyond Cde. V. Maratty ability. Better to just blame others of a conspiracy. 

This is what Cde. Marcos said at the time. “You have already violated four rules of this forum, in others forum that I know, you could have been expelled from the forum.” (my emphasis) Frankly, this is a very sad situation.”

Only a fool, (and I am not and I am sure other members aren’t too), believed that every post from Lindanesocialist was from her and that her account was not being used as a proxy by Cde. V. Maratty. But believing and proving something are very two different things but I recall Cde. V Maratty acknowledging in a PM to the moderators that he felt a “humiliation” having to resort to logging in on Cde. L Maratty’s forum account. We never expelled him from the forum but permitted Cde. L Maratty to “reply on his behalf” repeatedly. 

Again to use Cde. V. Maratty’s own words of his past situation and his view at the time.

“It seems some member of the SPGB are terrified that I intend to rejoin the party. and are disrupting the forums by attacking ex- members and sympathisers - it is no wonder they remain small

They are not representative of the party but I have no intention of joining while there people like that in the SPGB.

These very same people have chased off sympathizers and will continue to do so until the silent majority discovers what is going on.

The members and sympathisers attacked here have since left the party and are being vilified for trying to improve a rubbish moderation”

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/180388-spgb-forum-purge

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/wsm_forum/conversations/topics/51116

Little has changed. Yes, it is indeed very sad that the full history of Vin’s past disruptions are being so easily forgotten. I haven’t even gone into the archives of Spopen or Spintcom for the period. Others are very welcome to.

Is this Vin simply expressing fair comment and criticism of the Party procedures and process, in particular, the moderation of its forums?

From another, I would judge yes, but in his case, I think it simply illustrates a person who is unwilling to change. 

Due to his (and others) behaviour the Party conducted what could be described as a "branch-poll" concerning the re-admittance of ex-members who still adhere to our principles but have proven to be disruptive to the smooth running of the Party. It overwhelmingly agreed there are indeed grounds for refusing re-membership.

When Cde. Maratty eventually re-joined the Party having had his initial request for re-membership denied, his re-admittance was on his own pledges that his behaviour on the forums would improve. I would not be the only one to conclude that this assurance was never kept.

All water under the bridge. Let bygones be bygones?

Tim, with all good intentions, seeks that we once again take Cde, V. Maratty at his word.  

 I think it perhaps is repeating an earlier mistake that has come back to haunt us and which now requires rectifying for once and for all. 

 I am loathe to say that it is my opinion his continued disruption and claims about a lack of party democracy are reasons not just for his permanent suspension from the forum – but that his latest action was detrimental to the party and deserving of expulsion from the party. As I said at the start, my own attitude has moved from one of lack of confidence to where I now question the integrity of a fellow-member who can again smear the Party and/or its officers, just as he did in the past.

My own apologies for my own broken promise to not to add any further to this thread but for those who are only recent members, they should be made aware of everything and that all the relevant information is out there and as Socialistpunk says, not omitted from our consideration of the situation. 

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

ALB
Online
Joined: 22/06/2011

Tim Kilgallon wrote:
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.
As a majority of delegates voted, rightly or wrongly, to give Vin a third chance, this seems a way forward. Going back to the EC would just prolong the disruption of this forum. I take it that "duel" is a (perhaps deliberate) misprint for "dual" and that it means that Vin's second account which he has been allowed to use since his suspension will be closed and that Vin understands this.

alanjjohnstone
Offline
Joined: 22/06/2011

Quote:
As a majority of delegates voted, rightly or wrongly, to give Vin a third chance

By expulsion, Cde. V. Maratty will have full opportunity to avail himself of the disciplinary process per the Party's rule-book which will permit him his appeals and arguments to the whole membership and not have simply a few uninstructed delegates nor the EC make the decision on behalf of the Party. 

It is a democratic hearing Cde. V. Maratty has been pleading for and there is nothing more final within this organisation than the result of a full party poll. 

Quote:
31. A Branch or member acting in a manner deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the Principles or Rules, or detrimental to the interests of the Party shall be immediately suspended by the EC from all Party business except the matter in dispute. The EC shall forthwith submit particulars of the charge to all Branches and at the same time communicate the charges in writing to the accused and enclose a copy of this rule. Branches shall hold at least one specially summoned meeting to discuss the charge. The Delegates at the next Delegate Meeting or Annual Conference shall hear the case of the EC and of the accused; after which no further circulation of arguments for or against the charge may take place. The Delegates shall submit their findings to a Party Poll and the result of the Party Poll shall apply as from the date of suspension. No parties to the charge or dispute shall be allowed to sit as Delegates or Chair at Conference, ADM or any EC meeting where the case is being reviewed.

Some may give credence to Cde. V Maratty's word, i no longer do. But i am sure some fellow members, who i always found willing to see the good in others, will understandably be reluctant to exercise the ultimate sanction and will offer Cde. V. Maratty a fourth and fifth chance. 

After all, there is the time and the cost involved to consider but in regards to the time, i think we have wasted enough of it, already.  

"I have no country to fight for; my country is the Earth, and I am a citizen of the World." - Eugene V. Debs

lindanesocialist
Offline
Joined: 28/03/2016
From the EC - Your Forum suspension -  The EC, at their meeting of 5th November, considered correspondence between the Internet Committee and yourself, which was supplied by the Internet Committee in response to a request made by them,at their October meeting (item 2c Motion 2 of the October EC minutes). They also considered the request sent by yourself  to have your forum suspension lifted and a floor resolution carried at the 2016 ADM  ("This ADM recommends the Executive Committee to overturn the indefinite ban on Comrade V. Maratty on the website internet forum, spintcom and spopen”)  by delegates with a vote of 8–2–3. The EC thanked the Internet Committee for their reply to their request of October, and endorse their actions in the circumstances. They note that you have, in an email of 15/09/16 to the EC, undertaken to abide by the rules of the Forum, so therefore they lift your suspension and enjoin you to work together with the Internet  for our common aim (item 2di Motion 2 page 2 of November EC minutes). I have sent this request to the Internet Committee.
Topic locked