Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban
- This topic has 252 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Murderers and rapists eventually get out of prison without contrition. The Mods are giving out a lifetime ban and I think they should reconsider. Linda
moderator2 wrote:We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.Vin saidWhen did it become an appropriate procedure for a suspended forum member to send an act of conrition to the EC?Have any other member followed this procedure?
jondwhite wrote:I don't think it's appropriate term even without the religious connotations.Totally inappropriate but then there has been a tendency in the past for the party to take punitive measures against members who were perceived as 'detractors', continuing to do so when, on occasion, they had showed 'contrition'. I really thought we'd moved on from those times…
SocialistPunk wrote:No reference to "sin" as far as I'm concerned. But then I have no history with christianity.Vin said:I was raised a catholic so I know all about contrition and sins; there are venial sins (minor) and mortal sins (Really major).Admiting your sins – veniel and mortal – and seeking forgiveness from God wipes the slate clean so to speak and your soul, which I always believed was around the chest area, becomes lilly white.Just as a side – buggery was and still is a Mortal sin in the catholic church while raping and seizing land from the natives wasn't and still isn'tYou may remember an absent cde from the NE who trained as a priest, to his mother's delight, but after visiting the vatican to witness the contrasting wealth and poverty he thought 'bugger this'.He left for the club every Sunday morning swearing to his mother that he was going to Church (which by the way is a Mortal sin)But that didn't matter as he no longer believed in sin or contrition. To give him credit he drank in the 'Catholic ClubI miss Kevin Catholicism Terrible religion See what your missing having me banned, I have lots of useful information. Especially on the history the SPGB and its members in the North East and Catholicism. I may write a book on it someday, If I ever get access to the files on Spintcom again edit: Or a video lolComradely
This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.In English law there is the concept of "natural Justice".Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). Clearly the question here is as much about the decision to ban Vin as it is about his behaviour on the boards, so quite clearly at least one of the mods has been a judge in his own cause, secondly Vin has not been given the right to any kind of hearing, never mind a fair one.The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalised by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. Quite plainly the process that has been used here meets none of these criteria. Surely the type of process that Democratic Socialists use as part of their dealings, should be demonstrably fairer, more transparent and more accessible than the "Justice" meted out by Capitalist Law.As a way forward can I suggest Father Ted, Father Jack and Father Dougal (aka as Mods 1, 2 & 3) take a step down from their pearly thrones and have a think about how they have gone about this process and then come up with a just, generally acceptable and efficient way to handle bans and appeals against bans, which meets the rules of natural justice at the very least.On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.As I am also a "recovering Catholic" I can see Vin's point about the use of the word contrition, however from my experience of Catholicism, he should just be glad he was only asked to make an act of contrition, One of our priests liked the lady parishioners to show their contrition by having a quick blow on the "pink oboe", p.s. Vin, I miss Kevin a lot as well, but he would be chuffed to know that Socialist activity is restarting in the North East
Tim Kilgallon wrote:On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" (he knows what that means). Perhaps all parties could agree to move forward, with Vin's right to post restored and some form of sanity restored.Vin said:Remove the word very and I will support every word. But then I have admitted all this in the past. And have been left humiliatedIt became personal, I was a target, slightly off topic and I was warned etc etc.Now that we have more mods I think it will see and end to that. I am willing to move forward and will stick to the rules. By the way Tim, your one to call someone a 'worky ticket',
Tim Kilgallon wrote:This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.Moderator2 wrote:We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.What we have is a situation whereby a forum member, Vin, was suspended prior to two additional moderators joining the IC. Once Vin found out who they were, he asked our opinion on the matter, presumably with the view to have us overide the previous IC decision.To date, as far as I'm aware Vin has not contacted the EC to put his side of the story forward and request a removal of his suspension.It now appears the focus is being directed towards one word.
moderator3 wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:This is starting to look a little farcical. The way the "judgment" on Vin has been made has set the three Mods up as a Star Chamber. We have the guilty verdict, but we don't have any reasoning for the verdict, we have the sentence "contrition", what about fair process, has Vin been able to put his side of the story, it appears not, has he the right of appeal against he "sentence" apparently not, he has the bizarre option of being contrite.Moderator2 wrote:We advise he follows the appropriate procedure and makes a formal appeal to the EC for the ban to be rescinded.What we have is a situation whereby a forum member, Vin, was suspended prior to two additional moderators joining the IC. Once Vin found out who they were, he asked our opinion on the matter, presumably with the view to have us overide the previous IC decision.To date, as far as I'm aware Vin has not contacted the EC to put his side of the story forward and request a removal of his suspension.It now appears the focus is being directed towards one word.
Mod 3Vin has stated that (with some dispute about the word very) he accepts the following statement:"On Vin's side, if he could acknowledge that he has stepped out of line at times, has been very offensive, at times and has been provocative at times, I'm sure this would help. If he could also agree that he will try very hard not to be as difficult, accept that the mods have a difficult job to do and agree to try and stop being such a little "worky ticket" for the uninitiated:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=worky%20ticketWould you accept that he has therefore met the requirements put forward by the three Mods?YFSTim
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Would you accept that he has therefore met the requirements put forward by the three Mods?YFSTim"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 conduct"Has cde Maratty taken the initative and engaged with the appeals process? Not to my knowledge. Until he does that any consideration on "apologies" are irrelevant.
Reminder: 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.
Vin said: as I have no access to party docs on spintcom. Could a Mod give a reference for 'appropriate procedure' Including the refence to 'contrition' and an example of another forum user having to use the procedure.Also may I have a link to the EC resolution banning me permanently from all party forums? The EC is an administrative body whose function is to administer the affairs and decisions of the party as decided by the membership via Conference, ADM and party poll. My understanding is that the membership have not given me a lifelong ban from all forums. The EC has no authority to do so without a mandate from the membershipAs far as I am aware the mods are in charge of the forum
Mod 1Could you please explain two things.1. Is your post #25 intended as a restatement of your personal opinion of the current situation, or a repost of the decision posted on this thread by the Holy Trinity.2. What was the reason for the inclusion in that decision for the recommendation that Vin should show "sincere contrition", surely the clear implication of that statement is that he must accept his "guilt" in order for the appeal to be successful, surely if his appeal is that he was not in the first place guilty of anything, then such a stetement is clearly prejudicial to his appeal. I am not posting this in relation to this particular case, but it is important that things are done fairly, to not do so would create a dangerous precident within the party Furthermore, surely his contrition is of no importance whatsoever, contritiion implies a feeling of remorse, what is the relevence of Vin's feelings one way or the other.As I stated in my post, the principles of natural justice follow the maxin "Nemo iudex in causa sua", no one should be a judge in his own cause, as Vin's main complaint was against the way that you moderated his posts, surely the just thing would be for you to have no involvement in this process, yet by the very fact that you have been part of a team that has come to a "decision" (your words) that Vin's suspension would continue you clearly have not stepped aside
These are the Terms of Reference for the Internet Committee
Quote:1. To secure the Party’s electronic presence, including the maintenance of appropriate domain names.2. To maintain and moderate the Party’s websites, blogsites and forums.3. To arrange electronic dissemination of Party material, including the Socialist Standard.4. To report to the EC annually in January on the results of work done and money spent in the previous calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to Annual Conference.5. To report to the EC annually in July on future plans and financial requirements for the coming calendar year. This is intended to be part of the EC report to the Annual Delegate Meeting.6. To be composed of at least four members appointed annually by the EC from nominations made by branches; one to be nominated to act as a contact with the EC and departments and provide technical advice and assistance to the EC, officers and committees in order to maximise the potential benefit of ICT to the party. The committee to agree and maintain for each position a “role description” which will be made available to members being nominated. The role description may include details of how duties are carried out.Apart from "maintain and moderate the Party websites, blogsites and forums" I neither see, nor am aware of, any specific reference to this sub-committee of the Executive Committee having been given the authority to dispense 'summary justice' in the form of an indefinite ban upon a forum user. In the case of an infringement by a party member, should the transgression be considered so egregious, the appropriate course of action would be for the Executive Committee to instigate a charge of action detrimental to the interests of the party as provided for under Rule 31.
- The topic ‘Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban’ is closed to new replies.