December 10, 2012 at 9:41 am #90986AnonymousInactive
I have not received a reply why comments from 'ed' and 'gnome' have gone unpunished when my own comments do not.It may have something to do with the fact that 'ed' and 'gnome' (the moderator) are in the same branch and probably go to the pub together.Is this the way a socialist forum should me run?December 10, 2012 at 10:01 am #90987adminKeymaster
Please see our site guidelines and rules for the correct way to appeal moderation decisions.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelinesFurther off-topic messages will be removed.December 10, 2012 at 10:16 am #90988AnonymousInactive
I am not off topic.This is my thread.I decided the topic. I am not contravening the forum rulesBut 'ed' and 'gnome' are of topic as they are just personal attacks.December 10, 2012 at 10:41 am #90989adminKeymaster
Moderation note: Off-topic comment removed.Reports to the moderator and appeals must be made through the correct procedure as explained in forum guidelines.December 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm #90990AnonymousInactive
"Free and open discussion on Sticky: Forum Rules" My topic/thread but I can't post! Not so free and not so open!Strange By the way my deleted post was very much on topic as it referred to previous contributers.December 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm #90991
Having never seen OGW's post, I have no choice but to accept that the moderator has made the correct decision to delete his post.Censorship anyone!?December 10, 2012 at 2:52 pm #90992SocialistPunk wrote:Having never seen OGW's post, I have no choice but to accept that the moderator has made the correct decision to delete his post.
You are right. However there is a right to appeal, and as this has been used correctly ,the internet department is looking into this right now.December 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm #90993
Hi DJPPlease do not take my post as a personal criticism, I have the utmost respect for you and what you do for the party and ultimately towards socialism.My issue is with the principle of deciding what others can or can not say, can or can not read. Am I not allowed to make up my own mind?I am sure you believe you have made the correct decision in deleting OGW's post, perhaps you have? But I have not seen it so have to take the word of another. This is the problem of censorship. Other people making decisions for us, about what is to be said, heard, discussed, painted, sculpted, sung etc.Is trust enough?Most people who advocate the censorship of this or that, do so because they think it is the correct thing to do, they trust their own decision to be able to judge correctly. But the whole basis of censorship is that the censors do not trust others to be able to decide.Censorship has no place in socialism.December 10, 2012 at 3:38 pm #90994
Hi SP,I may reply in more depth later on. But for now can I ask you if you are in favour of any kind of moderation on the forum at all?Moderation and censorship are not necessarily the same thing, however. But to explain why would require a longer post which may, or may not, come later.December 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm #90995
Hi again DJPI too don't have much time to discuss in detail, but I do recognise the need for some sort of moderation. I saw nothing wrong with the moderation when I first joined. You kept a low profile as Admin. There was no problem with your occasional words of caution. On the whole, up until recent events things were fine, the forum was vibrant, lively and interesting.I think the issue with OGW was handled badly and it led to a bigger issue than there should be regarding moderation. No personal criticism intended, just a little honesty.I agree that moderation and censorship are not necessarily the same thing, it just depends on which moderation approach is used. Deleting, not allowing posts is censorship,or as I have heard "positive censorship". Quite simple.I would be happy to discuss this further, if you would like to, later on?December 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm #90996AnonymousInactive
I believe in moderation. Members who are abusive to other members should be 'moderated'. But they are not!I am moderated for 'quoting' the abuse and saying that it should be stopped. I was the member calling for moderation and I still am.So, DJP if you ask me if I am in favour of moderation, my answer is an emphatic YES.December 10, 2012 at 5:47 pm #90997TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:I am moderated for 'quoting' the abuse and saying that it should be stopped. I was the member calling for moderation and I still am.
With all due respect, reposting abuse only inflames the situation and commenting on moderation or calling out for the moderator in-thread only derails the topic further. Previously the guidelines and appeal process where not adequately displayed on the site. If everyone sticks to these there should be no need for moderation in the first place.December 10, 2012 at 6:18 pm #90998AnonymousInactive
There was no moderation! That's why it was left to me to call for it.Members were attacked and abused and nothing was being done about it.I now realise why and it disturbs me even moreDecember 10, 2012 at 9:30 pm #90999TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Members were attacked and abused and nothing was being done about it.
Numerous warnings where given and in the end 2 members temporarily banned, how this amounts to 'nothing being done' is beyond me.However. Comrade, it's time to move on!December 10, 2012 at 10:57 pm #91000
Hi DJPAs referred to earlier, if you would like to discuss the merits of censorship, I am all ears.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.