- This topic has 118 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by Anonymous.
January 28, 2013 at 12:04 am #91672
Admin and I clearly mean what I say, you are taking the piss. You are clearly and unequivocally showing what is wrong with this whole affair. Moderate me, ban me, or whatever else you have in your "locker", I don't give a monkeys piss, you are totally out of order. This is, "totally" out of order! Comprendai? Understand?January 28, 2013 at 12:06 am #91673
Tell me admin, how long does a comrade, or poster, have to be under a "moderation QUEUE? A precise reply is required, no prevarication please!Steve.January 28, 2013 at 12:22 am #91674
Sorry for the Capitalisation, but as another comrade has done it, it appears to be o fey. He was not admonished for it, expect I will be!Steve.P.S. Is this "irony"?January 28, 2013 at 3:21 am #91675alanjjohnstoneParticipant
I do not see trangressions of moderation rules, whether accidental or deliberate, as proof that our model is inherently flawed so if on occasion there are exchanges of accusations and abuse, we live with that and moderators do their duty…to moderate it in the best way they see suitable for the specific circumstances, by informal and formal warnings and *temporary* bans of variable lengths as they see see fit. Not every foul in football is a sending-off offence but some are, not every foul deserves a yellow card but some do. A pattern of persistent fouling none which merit in itself sanctions can lead to both yellow and red cards. We are actully more "liberal" that we follow the idea of rugby has now adopted…"sin-bins"Brian – "The whole question of internet moderation is an ongoing debate not just within the party but also within the global internet community."Indeed so and within other libertarian organisations, too. "…if this forum was a stand alone organisation whose only connection to the party was through supporting the DoP then the issue of attracting people to the role of moderation becomes much more viable." Check out Libcom's post guidelines of a *multi-party* forum and some of the disputes that have occured within it to provide some perspective.http://libcom.org/notes/content-guidelines/forums-posting-guidelines"its apparent there are insufficient /*trained moderators*"I have asked this previously. Trained by who and tested by who, to what level of competence? Who in the ID is developing such a process? Who claims the ID are even qualified if they are to undertake such a task?"is never ever going to be resolved under the present circumstances of strictly observing party protocol where only party members can join a department or committee."Oh, so non-members and perhaps even non-socialists will have decision making powers within the party. I have supported out-sourcing certain tasks, technical ones, but no way could I endorse any non-member having a responsibility of policy-making. You agree to a measure. "Simply to open the membership of departments and committees to all and sundry would cause more problems that its worth under the present party rules." But what "present rules" do you envisaged being changed?SP accuses me of "the need to attempt to hurt or humiliate" him. SP can see justification in criticising comrades who embark upon a book-reading club but what is good for the gander is not good for the goose, apparently, when someone disagrees. I am accused of offering a "pathetic" excuse that amounts to " "I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people". Where is the difference?" I provided the difference to his question. I responded to that comment with "If SP cannot distinguish between educating oneself with socialist knowledge and escapism that is a serious problem – for him." I retract nothing and if SP wishes to treat it as a personal affront – so be it. I call it fair comment to his own rather unfair one.He concludes "you might as well turn the party into an online revolutionary reading group."Correct me if i am wrong but there was every liklihood that NE branch was about to be re-started as a viable active branch but because of the arguments on moderation, that possibility is no longer going to happen. Just who are turning the the party into an online reading group rather than concentrating upon the real task of conveying the socialist message??To Steve. Facts first. I have been recently moderated for engaging off-topic on the moderating issue over at Spintcom.In regards to a slip in capitalisation of one word. Both you and SP seize upon it going unmentioned by moderator as an example of his inconsistency and fairness. In comparison to wilful and knowing and unapologetic breaches of rules it's apples and oranges, not in the same category and cannot be compared, unless for malicious purposes as you fully intend it to be.Lastly, you say "Hope you and others do as much over the next 30 years for the cause of Socialism, as we have over the preceeding 30."I am no longer going to be tolerant of this tedious martyrdom-complex you possess. You repeatedly refer to your own contribution to the socialist cause and to the party. Even if I only joined yesterday, and have done nothing in the slightest but sit in my armchair and read a book on Marx, I am and will be an equally valued member of the Socialist Party possessing every privilege to agree or disagree with other comrades without some member boasting of the longevity of his membership or the things they have done in the past.You need an example? Look at your reply to my message on Spintcom:"Do you have no disquiet over what you have witnessed? I need no lessons from you, or anyone else of taking resonsibility for what the party does. 31 years of unfettered and rampant propoganda putting the case for Socialism is proof positive of this….Come back to me mate when you have done what I have done and continue to do! I am not some juvenile, piss-ant complainer, who complains for no reason. My party, my ethos, a new and better society and my contribution and commitment to the same, are being called into question and I will not have that, in any way shape or form, from anyone, you have not earned the right. Earn it then, question me over my integrity and my commitment to this movement. Nothing else will suffice. I was fighting this "class war", when you were in school or nursery, never, ever question my credentials as a Socialist, no one has that right."http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/14059And what was my crime for such an answer? The temerity of asking you to volunteer to be a moderator and show an example of good moderation.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/message/14069You KNOW NOTHING (shouting) of my history or past involvement within the socialist and labour movement. Don't you DARE declare yourself a better socialist than any other member of this party by virtue of your length of membership or amount of activity within it. My engagement with this thread is at an end, Moderator. I accept the inevitable time-lag that will ensue when I comment on other topics on the forum because of your inevitaable moderation ban (after all, if you don't ban me, its just going to be further proof to some that you and I are co-conspirators in an anti-Geordie alliance).As I said previously, people walk away when talking to brick walls. Here is another one doing it. A look back to all the various threads on moderation show how many well-intentioned comrades have tried to contribute but have decided it to be a lost cause and dropped out.Steve, you can have the last word…for what it is worth!January 28, 2013 at 9:39 am #91676AnonymousInactive
Two posts fro OGW Censorship or moderation 16.00pm 27th I think moderation should indicate when a post is unsuitable and give reasons why it has not appeared. I have had a number of posts rejected and I don't know why. 15.00pm 27th jan My reply to Alan has not satisfied the moderator. Is this not further evidence against Alan's belief that forum moderation is Ok.January 28, 2013 at 9:43 am #91677adminKeymaster
ADMIN NOTE: Steve Colborn now has posting rights suspended for 7 days. Flaming / offtopic. See above. [Note: removed by admin]Warning to Alan Johnstone: Flaming / offtopicJanuary 28, 2013 at 9:45 am #91678AnonymousInactive
These two rejected posts prove our point surely. Moderation? I think not. It is censorship. 16.00pm 27th I think moderation should indicate when a post is unsuitable and give reasons why it has not appeared. I have had a number of posts rejected and I don't know why. 15.00pm 27th jan My reply to Alan has not satisfied the moderator. Is this not further evidence against Alan's belief that forum moderation is Ok.January 28, 2013 at 12:55 pm #91679AnonymousInactiveadmin wrote:ADMIN NOTE: Steve Colborn now has posting rights suspended for 7 days. See above.Warning to Alan Johnstone: Flaming / offtopic[/quote Why on earth have you suspended cde Colborn?January 28, 2013 at 1:03 pm #91680AnonymousInactivealanjjohnstone wrote:My engagement with this thread is at an end, Moderator. I accept the inevitable time-lag that will ensue when I comment on other topics on the forum because of your inevitaable moderation ban (after all, if you don't ban me, its just going to be further proof to some that you and I are co-conspirators in an anti-Geordie alliance).
How dare you call us 'geordies' we are 'makems'! Geordies are from Newcastle!January 28, 2013 at 2:25 pm #91681BrianParticipant
Alan,Firstly, regarding the Internet Dept. providing moderation training I see few problems there. For a start your good self, Matt and Tristam have quite a bit of experience in the field of moderation. Then there's Paddy, Frazer, Mike and Neil who have experience and skills in conflict resolution/nonverbal communication/mediation. OK its a scratch team but at least its a start in making a positive contribution towards establishing a code of conduct which is applicable and acceptable to this form of medium and also to our commitment to DPD.Secondly, in my reference to a change of party rule: I was only pointing out that as an option and the implications involved if the Internet Dept. decided it necessary to open up the status of moderation to non-party members. Please note I concluded this was unlikely, therefore the only course of action is an improvement of standards within the Internet Dept.January 28, 2013 at 3:03 pm #91682AnonymousInactive
How were Comrade Colborne's posts off topic and flaming. How does anyone else know if you have removed them. I read them and they were cerrtainly not off topic. The thread is called 'moderation' and he asked why posts were going missing.You are deleting posts and refusing to supply me with a copy of my own rejected posts. Why? You must have a reason? The EC will ask you for them anyway. You do realise that it is part of your job to answer requests and enquiries?January 28, 2013 at 6:59 pm #91683AnonymousInactive
Am I suspended? Why are none of my posts registering?January 29, 2013 at 4:20 pm #91684AnonymousInactive
I have been refused the right of appeal against moderation. When was this right abolished and by whome?January 30, 2013 at 9:45 am #91685AnonymousInactive
As the only person on moderation perhaps I can help here. I have made a nuber of posts rejected. All were on topic, non abusive and did not attack a members integrity. So what criterion is being used. By the way I cannot see a sing problem with this post, if anyone else can then plaease point it out and let me know thanksTOGW
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.