Moderation Suggestions
- This topic has 293 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well I meant a break from moderation, comrade, nothing else. I thought you were looking forward to that? I am sure you have already indicated such.But I agree, I have tried but I cannot avoid capitalism and the unavoidable urge to do something about. Wish I could.
Quote:It allows users to conduct a private conversation away from the forum. Much like a telephone conversation.It allows the main forum to be focused on conversations relating to socialism rather than clogging up the main forum with discussion on the: deliberations of the moderators; complaints; private suggestions on moderation; and subjects which are irrevelant to the main forum.Hear, hear. I come to this forum to read about socialism and discuss socialist ideas, not to see five year olds complain that "Its not fairrrrrr!!!!"Obviously, one small problem is when the five year olds start whining, and breaking the rules, those of us who support them, can't post because we'd be breaking the rules. Especially my own ones about not gettign dragged into this infantile crap.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Hear, hear. I come to this forum to read about socialism and discuss socialist ideas,Lol. Is this supposed to be serious or are you pulling my leg. Infantile crap?Science for Socialists? Free sex in socialism? Advertisements for post cards. More important than democratic control of party meetings and committees?
lindanesocialist wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Hear, hear. I come to this forum to read about socialism and discuss socialist ideas,Lol. Is this supposed to be serious or are you pulling my leg. Infantile crap?Science for Socialists? Free sex in socialism? Advertisements for post cards. More important than democratic control of party meetings and committees?
The time and place for discussing the "democratic control of party meetings and committees" is on the party mailing lists SPINTCOM and not here on the forum. The forum is for the public discussion of questions relevant to socialism.
moderator1 wrote:The time and place for discussing the "democratic control of party meetings and committees" is on the party mailing lists SPINTCOM and not here on the forum. The forum is for the public discussion of questions relevant to socialism.Who said so? Are you talking with your Mod hat on?Is this a Warning?Where has it been decided that discussion of party democracy and democratic control is prohibited on this website? And when was it decided that the democratic nature of the Socialist Party is not a 'question relevant to socialism'?
lindanesocialist wrote:moderator1 wrote:The time and place for discussing the "democratic control of party meetings and committees" is on the party mailing lists SPINTCOM and not here on the forum. The forum is for the public discussion of questions relevant to socialism.Who said so? Are you talking with your Mod hat on?Is this a Warning?Where has it been decided that discussion of party democracy and democratic control is prohibited on this website? And when was it decided that the democratic nature of the Socialist Party is not a 'question relevant to socialism'?
The setting up of the party mailing lists was approved by conference.Yes I'm talking with my moderator hat on.No it's not a warning.There's no prohibition on the discussion of party democracy and democratic control on the forum.It has never been an issue that the democratic nature of the Socialist Party is always a question relevant to socialism.However, to make myself clear: despite the fact that party business is indirectly discussed on the forum, the forum is not part of the decision making process for party business. For that party members need to post to SPINCOM, approach the EC or a branch, make representation to Conference with a written resolution.
lindanesocialist wrote:Science for Socialists? Free sex in socialism? Advertisements for post cards. More important than democratic control of party meetings and committees?I don't think anyone claimed these were more important than you're belief that party meetins and committees are the most important thing to people. Although that's an interesting question you might think about seriously. The relevant argument is if they should be discussed here, not whether they are the most important thing to discuss here. Unless you want a discussion forum that's all comittees and only comittes and meetings because that's all socialism needs to succeed. Marx didn't confine his thinking to meetings and committees, as far as I know. I think the argumen is that attempts at solutions using committees and meetings have failed more times than any other discredited idea. Meetings and commitees are not socialism. They have nothign to do with socialism. there wlll be no commitees in socialism, seems to be the answer from the old guard. Comittees and meetings have been tried and discredited for times than any other idea for step forward. Commitees and meetings give rise to a special class of people who don't produce anythign and the take time and resources from people who do produce things. Or, maybe you want to be more open to alternative ideas for advancing socialism since the ones you have aren't working out very well.
Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:lindanesocialist wrote:Science for Socialists? Free sex in socialism? Advertisements for post cards. More important than democratic control of party meetings and committees?I don't think anyone claimed these were more important than you're belief that party meetins and committees are the most important thing to people. Although that's an interesting question you might think about seriously. The relevant argument is if they should be discussed here, not whether they are the most important thing to discuss here. Unless you want a discussion forum that's all comittees and only comittes and meetings because that's all socialism needs to succeed. Marx didn't confine his thinking to meetings and committees, as far as I know. I think the argumen is that attempts at solutions using committees and meetings have failed more times than any other discredited idea. Meetings and commitees are not socialism. They have nothign to do with socialism. there wlll be no commitees in socialism, seems to be the answer from the old guard. Comittees and meetings have been tried and discredited for times than any other idea for step forward. Commitees and meetings give rise to a special class of people who don't produce anythign and the take time and resources from people who do produce things. Or, maybe you want to be more open to alternative ideas for advancing socialism since the ones you have aren't working out very well.
I am going to add Anton Pannekoek to the reading llist Marx was a very active socialist on his time, and he participated in many workers activities and workers organizations including the Workers International, and some of them like the Communist Leage asked Marx and Engels to write a Manifesto
Sat, 19/11/2016 – 5:41pm#6robbo203OfflineJoined:06/11/2011Send PM The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary, Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd, even if I can understand the frustration behind it. I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades. Kiss and make up. This is just ridiculous falling out like this
Sat, 19/11/2016 – 10:55pm#8gnomeOfflineJoined:14/10/2011Send PM robbo203 wrote: The discussion on the other thread on the suspension of L and V Maratty has been locked for some reason but I felt I needed to say something about it on this thread because it is connected I think this whole saga is so sad and so unnecessary, Tempers are flaring on all sides and, Linda, I think your post no 48 on the other thread was bang out of order and some of the comments you made were, frankly, quite absurd, even if I can understand the frustration behind it. I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated.Though I am not a party member can I suggest that all sides in this dispute take a deep breath and start again to reach a cordial agreement on the way forward. And Alan should you be reading this I would urge you to return to the forum, Your ever interesting posts would be sorely missed if you did notC'mon comrades. Kiss and make up. This is just ridiculous falling out like this Spot on Robin, and the stifling of free speech by the moderators' constant and increasing interventions is merely fanning the flames. A classic case, sadly, if there ever was one, of power corrupting.Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 2:55am#11moderator1OnlineJoined:03/11/2013Send PM lindanesocialist wrote: robbo203 wrote: I don't myself agree with the idea of a permanent suspension – on principle – and I am one of those who think Vin should be reinstated. As does the SPGB 2016 Annual Delegate Meeting and the SPGB November Executive Committee. Dear Vin, – 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. YFS, Oliver Bond Acting General Secretary The Internet Committee is acting in flagrant breach of party democracy and displaying disrespect and contempt of the decisions of the membership. Like a leadership it knows what is best for the rest of us. But this will be hidden and swept under the carpet because I will now be permanently banned from this forum as was Vin for expressing the same opinion. 3rd and final warning: Rule 15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.This user will be inform by PM that a further breach of the rules will result in a further suspension.Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 3:01am#12lindanesocialistOfflineJoined:28/03/2016Send PM ALB wrote: Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks. He is not allowed to post through my account and he didn't open a second account. I have explalined this to on a number of occassions but you are obviously not listening. The wording of the EC resolution was so therefore they lift your suspension and you are invited to enjoin this does not require any action from the IC. Vin's account was blocked 10 months ago by the IC so he did not have an account. He opened an account with the sanction of the EC and he was blocked by a moderator as a 'sock puppet' account. By definition a sock puppet account requires two active accounts by one user to 'support' and talk to each other. As usual the IC distorted and used the rules to suit their purpose and to prevent Vin from posting.The account was a pseudonym to avoid continued persecution from the Internet committee. Many members including yourself, gnome and Robbo use pseudonyms. Like you he is entitled to anonimity.We are all off topic now but only I will be blocked by the Mods. Wonder why? Topreport editdeletequotereply
Sun, 20/11/2016 – 9:44am#13gnomeOfflineJoined:14/10/2011Send PM Well done, Moderator1. I too am withdrawing from the forum until such time as suitable personnel changes have been made to the Internet Committee and those 'entrusted' with 'laying down the law'.Topreport editdeletequotereply
moderator1 wrote:Sun, 20/11/2016 – 3:01am#12lindanesocialistOfflineJoined:28/03/2016Send PM ALB wrote: Instead he chose to break the rules by opening a second account in a different name. For which he was again suspended but not "indefinitely", only until the next EC Meeting on 3 December, i.e for 2 weeks. "He is not allowed to post through my account and he didn't open a second account. I have explalined this to on a number of occassions but you are obviously not listening. "A correction is in order here. If this is the case how do you explain #45 and 47 on the 'Suspension of Cde. V and L Maratty' thread for which I issued a 1st and 2nd warning for breaching Rule 8. ?I posted them. I have posted comments for him, if that's what you mean. Like Robbo, the SPGB ADM and the SPGB Executive Committee I oppose indefinite suspensions and I believe he should be allowed to speak on the forum and be treated as an equal.Despite the fact that you have been instructed by the EC to allow him to speak on the forum you issued warnings when I allowed him to speak. Your actions are grossly undemocratic.. It also seems like you have been fiddling around with the forum again. I am unable use 'quote'
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.