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
-
First of all, let us dispense wth the false debate on the use of one word (mea culpa, btw). It was chosen to emphasise and ensure that Cde. Maratty fully understood that genuine regret for his part in past acrimonious disputes that led to his indefinite suspension was required and expected, and not just any token apology.As for giving our reasons for upholding a current embargo upon Cde. Maratty's posts, i fear it would only lead to unwarranted and unnecessary future dissension. Discretion and keeping our consultation confidential was deemed a requirement of our proceedings as moderators to permit a full and frank exchange among us.Vin in e-mails from myself, (and, more than likely also from other moderators, too), was told my reason for my adjudication.If this is not acceptable and we are seen as some sort of judge, jury, and executioner, then i suggest you return to the basics of this discussion forum and suggest reform or even the dismantling of its guidelines and the whatever enforcement of it that you believe must take place in its stead. Until then the moderators will moderate as they see fit under their remit. Moderation of the forum has indeed changed. Rather than one moderator who has been accused of bias and prejudice in the past, there are now three moderators collaborating in the application of the forum rules who must now be accused of being engaged in conspiratorial practices rather than employing a process of internal discussion leading to a collective decision.Our "crime" is, apparently, reviewing an existing previously imposed sanction when requested to and then upholding it, while recommending a course of action to Cde. Vin in an effort to remedy it……….oh, and that "crime" of the employment of one particular word which i believed had more than just one inference. I stand corrected, now and will endeavour to be more judicious in my choice of language in the future….a thesaurus will be by my side.
Logging out and then logging in as moderator 2 must have failed…that above post was posted as moderator 2
Vin said I am aure that as a new mod you were furnished with the IC dosiier on Cde vin maratty, If not then I apologise, but it seem very likely that there is a 'file' on me. My first question would have been 'Why have you complied and kept this on a forum member?I would respectfully request that the new mods simply review my last suspension and make a judgement as to the severity of my behavoiur on that ocaassion and make their own judgements as to whether or not it requires contrition and severe punishment.Comradely
Quote:I am aure that as a new mod you were furnished with the IC dosiier on Cde vin maratty, If not then I apologise, but it seem very likely that there is a 'file' on me. My first question would have been 'Why have you complied and kept this on a forum member? I would respectfully request that the new mods simply review my last suspension and make a judgement as to the severity of my behavoiur on that ocaassion and make their own judgements as to whether or not it requires contrition and severe punishment.If such a file exists, i am not privy to its contents, If such a dossier exists, i would not have used it to determine my decision.My view was reached from being an active and frequent participant in the forum ever since its onset, with the added advantage of experience from previously being a moderator on Spintcom and Spopen at a particularly rancorous time.We did not return to any specific incidents or look at any particular past suspensions. But sought to conduct the review of the indefinite ban imposed upon Cde.Vin that he is currently under, a review we carried out at his request. I am perfectly able to come to my own conclusions about the situation, although it helped immensely to have two fellow moderators to share opinions and exchange proposals with. Rather than some sort of sinister Star Chamber it was a fairly successful exercise in collaboration, if a distasteful one. No comrade takes satisfaction in restricting a member's means to express his thoughts and feelings.
Vin said:thanks Mod2. I know you are capable of making your own decision by 'f'ile I simply meant some form of record of past behavior and wished to draw attention to the 'level of seriousness' of my last one or two suspension which had nothing to do with 'abusive behaviour' ( more 'worky ticket') and certainly not in the same category of another forum member who is regularily and seriously abusive and has I believe refered to us as a 'bunch of bastards' .Anyway, you have come to your decision and I guess your decision is final and means a life time ban for myself as I have no intention of making an act of contrition to an EC who has rejected and ridiculed years of my hard work in a stroke of a pen.
Not being able to post on the Forum is not the end of the world, at least for a few members of the Party.We have as we know, members of the EC and members of important committees, who don't even bother to visit the forum to see what's being discussed, much less engage in the discussion.They perhaps feel less empathy when someone who is "not in the loop" at Clapham High St. is excluded from a crucial part of the Party's social media.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Not being able to post on the Forum is not the end of the world, at least for a few members of the Party.We have as we know, members of the EC and members of important committees, who don't even bother to visit the forum to see what's being discussed, much less engage in the discussion.They perhaps feel less empathy when someone who is "not in the loop" at Clapham High St. is excluded from a crucial part of the Party's social media.You are probably right but I did enjoy using the forum to exchange ideas.However, as I have no access to spintcom, I cannot download or view party ducumentation. Using someone elses account is humiliating and I do not intend to continue. So I am somewhat out on a limb.If the party doesn't want my support, I think I may join Jez and make a video for him, that would finally ruin him And judging by what the Labourt Party members call each other without being ssuspended or gagged, I will probably be more at home in such an open democratic environment.They even oppose each othe in public
Vin said: Ok, let’s bring this to an end. I do believe in capitalist courts the defence sums up without retort before the jury retires. Please allow me to close for the defence and for posterity so future generations of members don’t have to make the same mistakes. I thank the new mod team for posting their decision on the forum and allowing free and open discussion on the subject. This is a vast improvement. When I requested information on how they came to their decision, the moderators informed me their discussion and how they came to their decision is private. This is practice should be ended. I will therefore need to use evidence available and comments made to me by others. I cannot be banned for going of topic and making offensive remarks: there are members a lot more proficient at that than I, (see off topic and un-moderated post number 5) Logically there can only be one reason: The fact that I have challenged the democratic actions of the Internet Committee. LBird and other rule breakers have never done that. If I am incorrect, then I would have been treated as other rule breakers were treated. My gripe with the IC is in the past. It would not have been an issue anyway had I raised the matter at a face to face meeting . My cdes in the branch made it clear I had no support on the subject : unfortunately it was online. Something the party may have to get used to. The consequence of a permanent ban is complete isolation without access to party documentation.This is another practice that should be ended. If that is that I will leave this account alone and wish you all the best Comradely
It seems my post which simply contains Vin's appeal against the decision given in the OP has been removed, without expanation of how or why it was off topic.I premoderate Vin's posts, I can assure you that it broke no rules. His appeal and my post is in the 'offtopic' section Linda
lindanesocialist wrote:It seems my post which simply contains Vin's appeal against the decision given in the OP has been removed, without expanation of how or why it was off topic.LindaYes, I too was surprised to see that cde.V.Maratty's appeal against his lifetime ban from this forum had been relegated to the off topic section without any explanation.To those of us who are doing our best to help resolve this long-running internecine strife actions like this can only be viewed as provocative, churlish and counter-productive.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/moderators-decision-cde-marattys-indefinite-forum-ban
Mon, 22/08/2016 – 2:33am#1moderator1OnlineJoined:03/11/2013Send PM After due consideration by the moderators it was decided to reinstate the following post on this thread. The post was seen as a satirical and humourous contribution and was placed where all jokes go. The moderators now realise it is going to be part of a serious appeal to the EC and so its returned to the appropriate thread and express our apologies for mistaken the intent of the post. Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty's indefinite forum banSun, 21/08/2016 – 6:10pm#39lindanesocialistOfflineJoined:28/03/2016 Send PM After further consideration, Vin has decided to appeal against the decision to effectively ban him for life from party forums and has asked me to post this appeal: Appeal against Moderators decision on Vin Maratty Suspension dated 18th August 2016 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 As my main complaints were against the way Mod1 moderated my posts, surely he ought to have stepped aside for the sake of natural justice. 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. As for appealing to the EC Executive Committee is elected annually by the party membership, meets monthly and runs the day-to-day affairs of the party in accordance with the rules and democratic decisions agreed by the membership. Most EC members do not frequent online forums, and some have made it clear their bias towards me by dismissing my work with nothing but insults. How can we expect the present EC to come to an informed unbiased decision as it becoming increasingly apparent this present EC doesn't know its arse from its elbow. Some members don't know how to watch a video let alone make one. I submit that the Holy Trinity be dissolved temporarily to consider my appeal. ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.’ I ask that Mod1 steps aside for the sake of natural justice and the decision discussed again by the remaining two Mods YFS Vin Maratty
Vin said: Just to remove any confusion this is an appeal against the moderator's decision in the OP. Will my appeal be considered? For reasons outlined?
moderator1 wrote:Mon, 22/08/2016 – 2:33am#1moderator1OnlineJoined:03/11/2013Send PM The post was seen as a satirical and humourous contribution and was placed where all jokes go. Vin Vin said Odd, because the appeal is essentially a cut and paste from comrades that have spoken in my favour I was not trying to be 'funny' I just valued their contribution and wished to use the supportive comments in my appeal. But thanks for reposting -Appreciatedvin said Just out of interest, do all new members of the IC receive a copy of Catcher in the rye? ( Joke, humour )
- The topic ‘Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban’ is closed to new replies.