Directly electing moderators

[SocialistPunk]

The issue of democratically electing moderators for party forums is a moot point. Northern Light asked the following question.

Northern Light wrote:

Moderator1 has asked on more than one occasion for volunteers to step up to the mark and ease his burden. To my knowledge, he has had no takers, so where will this list of volunteers come from?

The only attempt to address this question came from Alan, who suggested a form of compulsory service from party members subscribing to a forum service. If that were introduced I'd imagine the traffic from members would be even less.I would be interested to hear from those who are opposed to non a non-party member moderating on this forum, explain the accountability thing for me?If a party member moderator behaved in an unacceptable manner, I'd imagine they would be removed from the post, have their forum account canceled and perhaps face the ultimate sanction of being booted out of the party.Other than the last bit, there's little difference. So what's the accountability fetish all about?

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, a member couldn't be removed from the forum, except via disciplinary charge.  Anyway, the short version is we're trying to get people to join the party, so we shouldn't be helping peple not join it.

[SocialistPunk]

Not sure what you're refering to YMS, but rule thirteen of the forum posting guidelines does seem to suggest forum members can be permanently suspended from the forum. I don't think party membership status entitles a forum member to special priveleges.13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, there's something we need to change.

[SocialistPunk]

So in the abscence of party volunteers, a non party sympathizer volunteering to moderate this site would be turned down? Sound familiar?

Quote:

Only the conscious support of the working class will create socialism, and to this end the Socialist Party seeks to increase understanding of, and mobilize support for, socialism.The Socialist Party calls upon every worker to support these efforts in any way that they can.

[SocialistPunk]

Not sure what you're geting at, YMS?Are you suggesting party members get special priveleges regards treatment on this forum? Or are you suggesting banning members from the forum should not lie solely in the hands of moderators, as rule 13 seems to imply?

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So in the abscence of party volunteers, a non party sympathizer volunteering to moderate this site would be turned down? 

That about sums up my opinion.  Not sure how the quote below relates.  Sympathisers can go run their own socialist fora if they want.

[jondwhite]

gnome wrote:

Why should a forum moderator be in any different position to other comrades on sub-committees who are nominated in the first instance by branches and then appointed as the Executive Committee thinks fit?  Ideally, moderators should be selected from party members appointed to the Internet Committee, in a similar fashion, say, as those who layout copy for the Socialist Standard are selected from party members appointed to the Socialist Standard Production Committee.  Sub-committees are accountable to the EC and, ultimately, all party members are accountable to the party.  Others aren't.

Moderators and other committee positions are currently indirectly elected (because they are appointed by the EC which is directly elected) so this reply at least addresses the question.

[Anonymous]

gnome wrote:

Why should a forum moderator be in any different position to other comrades on sub-committees who are nominated in the first instance by branches and then appointed as the Executive Committee thinks fit?  Ideally, moderators should be selected from party members appointed to the Internet Committee, in a similar fashion, say, as those who layout copy for the Socialist Standard are selected from party members appointed to the Socialist Standard Production Committee.  Sub-committees are accountable to the EC and, ultimately, all party members are accountable to the party.  Others aren't.

Should we apply this to the branch chairperson. Would it be acceptable for an EC sub Committee to appoint the chairman of your branch? Indefinately? Or would you prefer election by members present at each meeting?A moderator cannot be compared to SSPC. As the internet grows the mod will have control of the 'meeting' until removed via available channels and at the moment there aren't any.Theoretically the mod can censor opinions and individuals just as a chairperson can. He can order  members to be silent and even order them out of the meeting but he cannot be removed by the 'meeting' that is in the hands of an EC appointed sub committee,  

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

So in the abscence of party volunteers, a non party sympathizer volunteering to moderate this site would be turned down? 

That about sums up my opinion.  Not sure how the quote below relates.  Sympathisers can go run their own socialist fora if they want.

A case of "cutting ones nose off to spite the face".The quote I used, as you know, comes from the explanation of the DoP, number 8.

Quote:

Only the conscious support of the working class will create socialism, and to this end the Socialist Party seeks to increase understanding of, and mobilize support for, socialism.The Socialist Party calls upon every worker to support these efforts in any way that they can.

I shouldn't have to explain the relevance of the above quote to an SPGB member. You evaded answering my questions on this subject on the Moderation Suggestions thread. Now I find you doing the same when pressed. This time you use the "accountability" card.

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Nope, nothing to do with trust or bias, simply: this is a Party forum, it should be run by party members, democratically accountable to the rest of the party.

You have yet to provide a consistently logical answer to my questions.

SocialistPunk wrote:

I would be interested to hear from those who are opposed to non a non-party member moderating on this forum, explain the accountability thing for me?If a party member moderator behaved in an unacceptable manner, I'd imagine they would be removed from the post, have their forum account canceled and perhaps face the ultimate sanction of being booted out of the party.Other than the last bit, there's little difference. So what's the accountability fetish all about?

 

[Young Master Smeet]

1) Accountability: a member of the party has been tested for the soundness of their views, and has made a demonstrable commitment to the cause of socialism.  They have their entire membership of the party to lose if they misbehave as moderator.2) The party: is about encouraging people to join the party, and so should not be making it easier for people to not join.3) Like minded workers who want to help the cause but not join the party and be bound by its discipline, are free to go set up internet fora wherever they wish.4) A party member can attend and speak at confrence, can go to their branch and can vote in party discussions, whereas a non-member cannot.

[SocialistPunk]

YMS1) I've already pointed out the unlikeliness of the relevant department considering an unknown forum newbie. A likely candidate would be someone known to the forum community. As for demonstrable commitment, I previously asked what volunteering to moderate this forum was, if not a demonstration of masochistic commitment.The only difference accountability wise is what I've already pointed out. A party member may be booted out of the party. I expect before that happens they would have been removed from their role as moderator.A non-party member moderator would still be booted off the forum. But would avoid the extra shame of being booted out of the party.Either way the party still has control of the forum. So the extra level of disciplinary action is irrelevant.Your next points are more personal appeal, than logical opposition.2) Yes people should be encouraged to join, however there may be numerous reasons why a sympathiser is unable to.As has been pointed out sympathiser/supporter help is not turned down in other situations. So if the party were to follow your logic on this point, those sympathisers should be turned away and told to form their own organisation.3) Of course they are. But it's an irrelevant statement and logicaly inconsistent (see above).4) Not sure what thas has to do with the relevant party body maintaining control over moderation of an open forum? To make it clear I'm not suggesting non member sympathisers are given voting "rights".The only "rights" a non-party moderator would need is to be allowed to work as part of a moderation team.We already know that sympathisers contribute to the benefit of the SPGB, probably more than some actual members. Given the controls the party would maintain over the forum, what is the difference between the types of volunteer activities already accepted by the party?Some, including yourself, have argued that moderating this forum is like chairing a meeting. May I ask if the SPGB invite non-party members to chair physical debates that they host?

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

May I ask if the SPGB invite non-party members to chair physical debates that they host?

No, of course not.

[SocialistPunk]

My mistake then DJP.I thought I heard that the SPGB used to invite audience members to take the chair at physical debates.

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I thought I heard that the SPGB used to invite audience members to take the chair at physical debates.

Don't think so. Could be wrong though..

[Author]

Posts