Moderation is Good

March 2024 Forums Website / Technical Moderation is Good

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #81775
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    No, really.

    Moderation is a great thing.  I know whereof I speak having just come out of moderation. (Thanks, Tristan! And Matt – who's the man who moderated me in the first instance.)

    For those who don't know, I got moderated for using words like 'motherfucker'. And 'villain'.  Now, I might be a bit perverse – I certainly like to think so! – but I actually like those words.  I embrace them.  Celebrate them, even.  Great words.  I like 'concatenation', too.  I get laughed at at work for using phrases like 'this motherfucking concatenation of motherfucking villains want to expropriate us of the fruits of our motherfucking labour!'

    Nobody at work moderates me, or tries to.  They just ask me questions about what the fuck I'm talking about. Which is a good thing, as I'm sure you'll understand…

    But I digress.  More matter and less art, perhaps?

    The case for socialism is robust and needs little moderation.  Different carriers of the message will express the message in different ways, and this is well and good.  It's also inevitable, by the way.  Language – and the use of language – didn't stop evolving in 1904!  Sometimes the seed will fall on barren ground, to use a biblical expression, and other times it'll hit the egg precisely even if you've given it to them right up the poo-chute, so to speak.  You never know.

    This much I do know: Two weeks of knowing that anything I wrote might be rejected on the grounds that it contained words that some might find offensive – which, I might mention, happily coincided with nine days in which I had little or no internet access – did me no harm at all.  I wrote – offline – a lengthy and spirited reply to Brian's ripport which I have no intention of ever publishing.  I thought a lot about the importance of allowing people – whatever their chosen vocabulary – a platform, and I came back from the wilderness of moderation a slightly better person.

    Moderation? I recommend it.  Especially, we ought to moderate those who – mischievously – snipe from the sidelines.  You all know who I mean, don't you?

     

    Chambers. Finger-pointing Motherfucker.

    #92354
    steve colborn
    Participant
    Jonathan Chambers wrote:
    Moderation? I recommend it. Especially, we ought to moderate those who – mischievously – snipe from the sidelines. You all know who I mean, don't you?

    Actually Jonathan I, do not! Could you enlighten me?By the way you state, "Nobody at work moderates me, or tries to. They just ask me questions about what the fuck I'm talking about." So in the same tone and after reading your post but not understanding its quintessential symbolism, what the fuck does it mean?Steve.

    #92353
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hello Jonathan nice to see you back and in a conciliatory mood, too. Ever wonder why you are allowed to discuss your own moderation? Without being censored like ex-cde Maratty. (c) Cde Vin Maratty's complaint against the moderation applied by themoderators of the SPGB forums. Cde Vin Maratty provided evidence tosupport his complaint that he believes his posts on the SPGB websiteForums are being censored. The EC also considered the InternetDepartment Report into Cde Vincent Maratty's 'Forum Moderation'Complaint, dated 22^nd December 2012.Motion 14– Buick and Mercer moved that the EC notes that Comrade VinMaratty's disallowed posts do not concern general discussion but his owncase and therefore that the moderators have applied the current rules.Carried: 8-0-0.

    #92355
    SocialistPunk
    Participant

    I have been away for a weekend visiting friends "int" Leeds and what do I find upon my return to this forum but a strange post entitled "Moderation is Good". I have little idea as to what it is about, but the opening post is a little sparse on the truth.

    Jonathan Chambers wrote:
    For those who don't know, I got moderated for using words like 'motherfucker'. And 'villain'.  Now, I might be a bit perverse – I certainly like to think so! – but I actually like those words.  I embrace them.  Celebrate them, even.  Great words.  I like 'concatenation', too.  I get laughed at at work for using phrases like 'this motherfucking concatenation of motherfucking villains want to expropriate us of the fruits of our motherfucking labour!'Nobody at work moderates me, or tries to.  They just ask me questions about what the fuck I'm talking about. Which is a good thing, as I'm sure you'll understand…

    Actually, Jonathan was moderated from SPintcom not just for simply "using words like "motherfucker" " that he seems to love so much, but for using those exact words directly aimed at two party members in a rather unkind, critical manner. Given the fact he moaned on about bad behaviour and forum loudmouths, made his colourful contribution perfectly hypocritical. But as the post was deleted from SPintcom, it has been removed from public record forever. Chalk one up for the power of censorship to alter events and the historical context.When I read this opening post, I asked myself what does it contribute or seek to achieve? The forum posting guidelines ask the same questions. I couldn't find a thing in this post that had anything constructive to add. It seems to suggest, in a rather crude way, that there is nothing wrong with being moderated?Given the fact that those who are questioning forum moderation have never advocated a "no moderation" approach, there is no need for such a thread as this. Then I figured it out.TrollFrom the Oxford Dictionary: verbno object[..]2 informal submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response

    Jonathan Chamber wrote:
     This much I do know: Two weeks of knowing that anything I wrote might be rejected on the grounds that it contained words that some might find offensive – which, I might mention, happily coincided with nine days in which I had little or no internet access – did me no harm at all.  I wrote – offline – a lengthy and spirited reply to Brian's ripport which I have no intention of ever publishing.  I thought a lot about the importance of allowing people – whatever their chosen vocabulary – a platform, and I came back from the wilderness of moderation a slightly better person.Moderation? I recommend it.  Especially, we ought to moderate those who – mischievously – snipe from the sidelines.  You all know who I mean, don't you?

    In essence this thread looks as though it was set up to say "stop #?>!@#! moaning about being moderated", and in doing so, seeking out emotional responses. I could be wrong, in fact I hope I am wrong.

    #92356
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    Hi Socialist PunkThe intention behind  this thread is obvious – but no moderation.The party has no answer to your logic apart from ignoring you. If my experience is anything to go by you will receive personal emails telling you to fuck off in an attempt to drive you away.Strange but the party is more interested in attracting Leninists at the moment.

    #92357
    Anonymous
    Inactive

     The intention behind this thread – and yes, as its author I am privy to that – was quite simple.  I wanted to make the point that it's a good thing for your party buddies to step in and help chill things when they seem to be getting agitated.  Why would such a message be moderated? A few observations, though… It's quite comical to see the 'public' face of The Old Greybeard whining about 'personal e-mails telling you to fuck off' when he's no stranger to sending obnoxious e-mails himself.  If I'd been collecting obnoxious private e-mails from those associated with the movement who object to me not thinking the way they do, well, I'd have a collection of obnoxious private e-mails.  But I can't be bothered collecting them.  I read them for the amusement they contain then bin them for what they are.  Which is nothing more than the momentary rantings of people who have mistaken virtual reality for reality itself.  Indeed, only this morning I was accused of being an 'archetyple [sic] internet warrior'.  Well, actually – and the inference that I'm somehow hiding behind a fabricated persona was not lost on me – I'm a motherfucking warrior in real life, too! Those people who have – risibly, in my opinion – resigned from the party over some shit that has been written about online have done nothing more than make a futile token protest about their perceived ill-treatment.  They need to wake up and realise that the material struggle for socialism does not, will not and, indeed, cannot take place online.S.Punk asks me what I want this forum to be.  He like simple answers, does S.Punk.  Demands them, even.  Can't help him there.  And anyway, what I want is inconsequential.  It's a fucking internet forum, for Marx's sake! Never going to be anything more than that.  The revolution won't be starting here.  You might get a few people getting interested in the case for socialism by writing stuff on here and elsewhere online – I can justifiably claim that at least two people on the planet are now socialists as an indirect result of shit that I've written online – but there are limits to the medium.  And – unless you're going to run a closed internet community – you got to take the rough with the smooth.  Best you can hope for is that when things look like they might be getting out of hand there'll be people around to attempt to placate the antagonists. But what do I know? I'm 'contemptible', apparently. :)Off to motherfucking America for two weeks now.  Catch you soon, fellow socialists.

    #92358
    steve colborn
    Participant

    A motherfucking warrior in real life? really! You are not even a passable internet warrior. Been a real life warrior in actuality, not just said I am but done it, bought the T.shirt brother.It is really educational that most of your posts lately, the ones that have been abusive, were done at a time, early morning, when it would appear that they were the scribblings of an, alchohol fuelled depressive. Or at least someone, when they were out getting tanked up and not having young lads or women to take their angst out of.Most sensible people, do not want to be "moderated". There are times however, when one must ask pertinent questions, again and again, especially when ones queries are not being answered in any meaningful way.This is the crux of the matter. In actuality, if we met face to face, we would probably like one another, as you appear as driven as I, to get rid of the shit world we are forced to live in.Let us both, together, agree to put this behind us. Enough of the "barbed" communications from us both. Agree to differ. We are, in reality, fighters after vthe same thing, Socialism. We may, or as I have stated, not be destined to be best buddies, but we can and do, share a "shared objective" of getting rid of Capitalism.Enough of the online fencing, let's get on with trying to achieve our common goal, Socialism. A better world for us both and everyone else in our "class".Enjoy your US trip, speak to you when you return to Nazi blighty, OK? Steve.

    #92360
    SocialistPunk
    Participant
    Jonathan Chambers wrote:
    S.Punk asks me what I want this forum to be.  He like simple answers, does S.Punk.  Demands them, even.  Can't help him there.  And anyway, what I want is inconsequential.  It's a fucking internet forum, for Marx's sake! Never going to be anything more than that.  The revolution won't be starting here.  You might get a few people getting interested in the case for socialism by writing stuff on here and elsewhere online – I can justifiably claim that at least two people on the planet are now socialists as an indirect result of shit that I've written online – but there are limits to the medium.

    I do like simple answers actually. It is what attracted me to the SPGB in the first place when I was a teenager. All around me, from the media, politicians, teachers and religious leaders, I heard people spewing complicated waffle about the problems that faced society, poverty, starvation, needless disease, war, racial hatred, with little in the way of actual solutions.The Socialist Standard cut through the bullshit and got straight to the point.The supporters of capitalism like to give complicated definitions and answers, designed to confuse. By contrast, how complicated is the WSM definition of socialism?

    Quote:
    The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

    So forgive me if I seem to like simple answers.Jonathan says the Internet has limitations, of course it does, every form of communication has limits. But seeing as global digital communication looks like it is hear to stay, and in fact looks like it will continue to become a bigger part in the lives of future generations, I think the SPGB presence on the Internet is a very important fact that should not be underestimated.But it seems Jonathan mistakenly underestimates its potential. By his own admission it has played a part in his making two new socialists. Well done, I say.If the 300 or so SPGB members could make two new socialists each from the online community, that would make 600 new socialists. (I presume Jonathan does not mean he has created two new SPGB members) So if the 600 new socialists each made two new socialist we would have 1200 new socialists and so on and so on……..Now, we couldn't expect all those new socialists to join the SPGB, but some would, and as the new socialists passed on their knowledge we could expect to see a few hundred new SPGB members over the years.Any arena for planting socialist seeds of awareness should not be underestimated. This forum is very important. In my opinion it is vital it should reflect socialist values of fellowship, positive communication, support and co operation. (Apologies if I missed anything) Without these simple values a socialist society could not function. So they should be a part of any online socialist space.Of course questioning and debate are to be encouraged, disagreement will be common place among socialists, it is part of the learning process?What I do not expect to see among socialists is abuse. I am afraid Jonathan has been just as colourful with his targeted language as those he has accused. I do not advocate censoring such behaviour, but hypocrisy should be consciously excised from socialist thought and deed, wherever possible. If we cannot maintain a positive slant on the only alternative to the vile nature of capitalism, then how do we expect potential converts to socialism, to trust our opinions?So with the bigger picture in mind, I join Steve and The Old Grey Whistle in burying the hatchet of animosity, between myself and Jonathan, as deep as possible in the flank of capitalism.Jonathan, I hope you enjoy your  two weeks in America.

    #92359
    Anonymous
    Inactive
    Jonathan Chambers wrote:
      But what do I know? I'm 'contemptible', apparently. :) 

     From all us  'contemptibles' and  'motherfucking warriors',  welcome to the 'contemptible motherfucking warrior' club :) 

    #92361
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    I think Jonathan's response to moderation is similar to my own and Steve's.It seems that 'off topic' is flavour of the day on spintcom. No moderation in sight. Proves that the rule was only used to control and censor ex-memebers Steve and Vin. 'Moderation' did not like what we were saying so they used the 'off topic' rule as censorship.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.