Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[SocialistPunk]

Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago. 

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?

This issue is being addressed, Tim. It has not been neglected. As a union negotiator, you know you wait until the negotiations are finished before presenting them. You also know, they are rarely speedy. 

[moderator1]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

 Hi Alan, I asked a question in a previous post, which I think kind of got lost in the deluge of posts, but I'll pose it again.As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?

Tim may I reassure you we are addressing this very issue at this moment in time.  Presently we are deliberating on the draft document and once we decide our efforts are acceptable they will be communicated to the full IC in their draft form for further discussion.  If the IC agree in principle to the document then its open for amendment and alteration and will eventually end up in front of the EC.On the other hand if a majority of the IC do not accept the principle we start again.  Not that I think its likely to happen.  If I may say so it is not a narrative on "guidelines" but a working document invoking Direct Participatory Democracy for all users of the forum.  And as such it will be a new departure for the party in terms of involving non-members in the rules for conversations on the internet.In this respect we have also had to take into consideration internet etiquette so it matches with the party's practice of DPD, common complaints procedures, how to handle a grievance which is acceptable and appropriate to all parties and last but not least the setting up an independent panel.Hope this helps.

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago. 

StephenWhat you actually said was and what I object to was that "Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it."I have demonstrated clearly that I haven't just make sarcastic comments, and that in the past, contrary to what you have posted, I have made contributions which pointed out where I think you have gone terribly wrong and made suggestions about how I think the mods could have hamdled the situation better. So I ask again, are you, as you are keen to get others to do, willing to withdraw that remark?

[Bijou Drains]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

As an ex trade union rep/steward, would you have found acceptable a management procedure that involved an apeeal/review against a disciplinary matter or a dismissal, being undertaken by a panel which contained the manager whose decision was being reviewed?

This issue is being addressed, Tim. It has not been neglected. As a union negotiator, you know you wait until the negotiations are finished before presenting them. You also know, they are rarely speedy. 

To be fair Alan, I wasn't asking that question as part of negotiation process, I was asking a straight question, which is would you have accepted that process or would you have objected to it , it really is a yes or no question.

[SocialistPunk]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim,I was aware you brought up a couple of good points about the rules and I explained that they had been discussed a few years ago.My comment was directed at your suggestion (below) that myself and the other two moderators handled the situation very badly.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

When criticism is given in such a manner it usually gives the impressions that the person doing the criticising could have done better.Alan has already explained the "contrition" thing. But I guess it's too good a side show to ignore when it comes to point scoring. Pity unproven accusations against members is seen by some as acceptable opinion.As for Vin's request. The decision essentially lay with Alan and myself, as Brian had already stated his view early on. But say for the sake of argument, let's pretend Brian had not been involved.The two of us could have made one of three decisions. We could have agreed to lift Vin's suspension, we could have agreed not to lift Vin's suspension or we could have been in deadlocked disagreement. I'm not giving anything away when I say, we weren't in deadlocked disagreement.The indefinite suspension was already in place before Alan and myself signed on as moderators. I believe Vin had been informed of the appeal procedure, and to my knowledge he chose not to use it. So in effect Vin could have been on the forum long ago. 

StephenWhat you actually said was and what I object to was that "Instead of just coming out with sarcastic comments, any chance you might be able to point out where the moderators have gone so terribly wrong? If there's a better way I always want to know about it."I have demonstrated clearly that I haven't just make sarcastic comments, and that in the past, contrary to what you have posted, I have made contributions which pointed out where I think you have gone terribly wrong and made suggestions about how I think the mods could have hamdled the situation better. So I ask again, are you, as you are keen to get others to do, willing to withdraw that remark?

Tim,I've no problem with withdrawing that remark. I also apologise if I caused any offence, it was not my intention. I just got a little annoyed with your comment (see below) and let slip a word, "just", that changed the slant of the question and had no place.

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Similarly I accept that it was wrong to make a comparison between the three moderators and fathers Ted, Dougal and Jack. it was an unfair comparison, although I must say Alan, at the time I had you in the Father Jack role, and he was always my favourite. In all of these issues, I now am fully contrite. As a result I will do my best not to give the impression that i think the mods have been inept, cack handed and sanctimonious in their handling of this whole affair.

There is a question I wanted to ask you, regarding the sentence highlighted in bold above, but I don't have time right now. Perhaps I'll come back to it later.

[Bijou Drains]

Hi StephenNot a problem and I accept that at times my sarcstic approach can be annoying. As a child Cde Kilgallon senior used to say to me "If you can't think of anything nice to say don't say anything at all", which was ususally followed by several weeks of complete silence on my behalf, whilst I desperately tried to think of something nice to say.

[lindanesocialist]

Why is the banning of the member of the SPGB from party forums considered under 'website an technical issues?' When it is clearly business of the WSM? 

[lindanesocialist]

moderator2 wrote:

After full consultation the moderators decided, Cde Vin Maratty be informed:The indefinite suspension stays in place until further notice from the EC for it to be rescinded. We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded. Cde V Maratty should take the initiative himself of seeking redress from the EC and present his case so to ensure it contains a sincere contrition for past conductAgreed by Moderator 1 (Cde. Johnson), Moderator 2 (Cde. Johnstone) and Moderator 3 (Cde. Davison)

Vin said:Can I ask why the EC is mentioned in this OP? Surely it was Mod1 that suspended me?  

[lindanesocialist]

I have moved these questions to the relevant thread anf hope Mods understand why. Can we expect a reply to some of the questions raised earlier? moderator1 wrote:Neither really.  The mods are saying they can't reinstate Vin with his suspension being passed by the IC to the EC.   So it's now down to the EC to reinstate him.  But the EC hand's are tied until they have a request from Vin to lift the appeal.If the EC orders the IC to reinstate Vin we'll do the business this end, no problem.  But Vin has to approach the EC before we can do anything.Moderator2 wrote:The moderators have already confirmed an earlier decision to impose an indefinite suspension. We advised that if Cde. Maratty sought to have this suspension revoked, he had an avenue to do so – – to request that the EC over-rule the moderators. These are contradictoryMod1 is saying he would be willing to reinstate Vin but he needs EC permission. Whereas Mod2 is saying that Mods have made the decision and it will take EC decision, conference or party poll before HE will agree to reinstate.Which are we to be guided by?I think this is a straight forward and simple question. Who has imposed the ban, the mods or the EC. Where is the EC resolution? Another straight forward simple question is that Vin is constantly asked to 'follow procedures', which he is willing to do, but whose procedures?. Where is it written down  or decided that a suspended member of the forum must seekEC absolution before being reinstate?These are genuine concerns as I am very confused about this and it should be easy for mods to clarifyIdeally, like Vin and Tim, I would like to see you get your heads together on these issues on an open thread on this forum. It would be a massive move in the right direction and remove any concerns members may have about how decisions are arrived at and what is taken into consideration when arriving at these decisions.One thing we all have in common is openness, right?

[lindanesocialist]

I can see we will get no public explanations or answers to these questions. Can Mods stop sending  emails to Vin. Anything you have to say can be said like good socialists: in the open. Remember? The basis of our case.?

[moderator1]

Rem,inder: 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.

[lindanesocialist]

? I am simply requesting clarification of the OP as are other members: Tim, Alan, SP et al. Where is the EC resolution banning Vin from the forum?If it doesn't exist, then we can end this farce. Instead of dragging it onIf it does exist then show it then we can move on from there? Comradely

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

? I am simply requesting clarification of the OP as are other members: Tim, Alan, SP et al. Where is the EC resolution banning Vin from the forum?If it doesn't exist, then we can end this farce. Instead of dragging it onIf it does exist then show it then we can move on from there? Comradely

1st Warning: 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.

[lindanesocialist]

Vin has taken the advice of the OP and and a friendly comrade and written to the EC. We will see you all in a few monthsWe really need to speed up our democratic processes To the EC I had not realised that the EC had suspended me from the SPGB Party forum and this led to some confusion with the IC and Moderators . I request that the EC lift my ban and reinstate my account. I undertake to abide by the rules of the forum. May I also ask that the EC reconsiders my nomination as a member of the AV committee as I feel I have something to contribute to the party and our movement? Please seehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roJc5Ytu8LY Yours for socialism vincent Maratty   Attachments area Preview YouTube video Proposal Regarding Party Video Production  Proposal Regarding Party Video Production           

[Author]

Posts