Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[lindanesocialist]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

and frankly I'm against appeals for spammers. 

So Vin was a 'spammer'   Spam definition. Unsolicited, undesired e-mail. Also used as a verb. Spam is the e-mail version of junk mail. Note: The name comes from a Monty Python comedy skit about a restaurant that served only Spam. Google

[lindanesocialist]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

  After all, persistent disruptive behaviour sufficient to get a member excluded from a branch meeting would be action detrimental in anyone's book.

What would you say of a chairperson who persistently removed  and excluded members of a meeting without reasonable justification? 

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

 I presume as a socialist you have followed rules when attending branch meetings? I presume you accept the principle/rule at the core of democracy, that the majority get their way? 

You make an interesting analogy SP. If a member was disruptive at a meeting, would you expect the chair to rule them out of order, I would guess the answer would be yes. If they continued to be disruptive would you expect the chair to ask them to leave the meeting, I would probably expect the answer, reasonabl would be yes. However if the member was subsequently disruptive at another meeting, would you think it consistent with the Socialist Party's democractic principles, that the chair of that meeting then goes on to  ban that member from attending SPGB meetings indefinitely? As a Shop Steward for many years there is no way on earth I would accept a member's appeal against a discilplinary decision to be undertaken by the very manager who made the original decision, any more than it would be acceptable that the decision making discussion and reasons for the dismissing the appeal would be kept completely unknown to the member I was representing. Alan (mod 2 or 3), you have written on several occasions about being an active trades unionist, could you say, hand on heart that you would have allowed a union member you were representing to be treated int h at way?I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.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.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

 

[ALB]

Tim, I've been a trade union representative too and often the solution found was a pragmatic one. This is the case here as in practice nobody is being prevented from posting here, i.e. a way round the "ban" has been found which has been accepted by everyone.

[lindanesocialist]

Not exactly ALB. You may notice that I only comment on that which affects Vin ie his ban and his video and I have already receive a couple of reminders

[ALB]

Why don't yous try and comment on other things like in this one.  I'm sure there'd be no problem.

lindanesocialist wrote:

Bill, workers are living on the streets, starving, cold and if lucky if they are sleeping on a friend;s settee. I couldnt give a fuck about the clubs of big business. The party needs to prioritise and the EU is of no relevance to us'How about a special meeting on HUNGER and HOMELESSNESS andPersonally I dont give a fuck about brexit

[SocialistPunk]

I keep reading now and then (recently on the thread about Vin's video), that Vin has been given a "lifetime ban" from the forum.This is not the case.Vin is on an indefinite suspension and has been advised on the forum, as well as in private emails, that he has options open to him to get reinstated. The main requirement being is that he will at some point need to persuade Party members that he is either willing to follow forum rules (like most forum members seem able to), or persuade Party members the rules need changing. Either way it will take some sort of presentation of a case.

[Bijou Drains]

I am often, with very good reason, accused of being the most pedantic man in North East England. Therefore I would like to point out that a lifetime is a definite period of time in as much that all lives come to an end, whereas an indefinite period may possibily be longer than a lifetime.

[lindanesocialist]

SP  vin has done this. and repeats yet again that he will stick by the rules,  What he refuses to do  is make an act of contrition to you  and the other mods or the EC.You seek to humiliate him. It is a complete farce as is the massive  hulaballo over the video. He has been suspended long enough. It is up to you and the other mods to end the – what is in effect –  lifetime ban.

[lindanesocialist]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I am often, with very good reason, accused of being the most pedantic man in North East England. Therefore I would like to point out that a lifetime is a definite period of time in as much that all lives come to an end, whereas an indefinite period may possibily be longer than a lifetime.

lolVin is 'getting on', so a lifetime ban would be preferable, as there would be light at the end of the tunnel  

[lindanesocialist]

ALB wrote:

Why don't yous try and comment on other things like in this one.  I'm sure there'd be no problem.

lindanesocialist wrote:

Bill, workers are living on the streets, starving, cold and if lucky if they are sleeping on a friend;s settee. I couldnt give a fuck about the clubs of big business. The party needs to prioritise and the EU is of no relevance to us'How about a special meeting on HUNGER and HOMELESSNESS andPersonally I dont give a fuck about brexit

Do I sense a touch of sarcasm there, ALB However, you merely prove my point. As the above post was followed by two reminders from moderation which usually precedes a warning.

[SocialistPunk]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.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.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

Actually this is not quite correct. The issue here is most definately about Vin somehow not being able or perhaps unwilling to use what is already in place. Something most forum users don't seem to have a problem doing.I raised the issue of Vin providing an alternative set of rules as it's all to easy to criticise, but another all together to offer constructive alternatives.  I've asked Vin on numerous occasions in private as well as NERB email conversations, to offer even a hint of some alternative, and when once more publicly put on the spot, all we get is out of context memes and insulting innuendo.Tim, you weren't around when the first wave of "The Moderation Wars" kicked off. It sparked a long drawn out bout of forum "soul searching", regarding moderation. After months of argument, an improved set up was put in place (I can't recall if it came from an EC directive or conference) and Brian signed up as moderator1. He has always held to the view that the forum procedures are a work in progress and to that effect encouraged users to post suggestions regarding moderation, on a thread in Web/Technical.The two issues you raise are good ideas, but they aren't new. I believe Brian himself stated he was in favour of a set up whereby a dedicated section for moderation issues, where decisions could be openly thrashed out, was set up on the forum. Brian may be able to shed more light on the subject but I believe the concept was never moved forward due to practical concerns and a lack of volunteers.Regarding the issue of appeals, I've previously brought up the idea the Party should have something along the lines of an appeals committee to hear Party members grievances. A committee that had the power to make decisions. Though I expect even such a committee would be unacceptable to some, if the decisions didn't favour them.But like everything we do, it takes volunteers, and right now there isn't a very big pool to provide the volunteer numbers we need to do everything. In the meantime the moderators are doing their best to make the forum as appropriate as possible. It's an ongoing process. We are not power hungry pigs from a George Orwell novel.Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

SP  vin has done this. and repeats yet again that he will stick by the rules,  What he refuses to do  is make an act of contrition to you or  and the other mods or the EC. He has been suspended long enough. It is up to you and the other mods to end the – what is in effect –  lifetime ban. 

May I point out the mod's decision contained an opinion for Vin to consider.  It has no bearing on how Vin decides to word his request to the EC for lifting the indefinite suspension.  If Vin is of the view a simple request will suffice that's entirely his decision.  Likewise if he's of the view that the request should contain a restatement that in the future he'll abide by the guidelines and rules that will also be his decision.What's clear is it's upto Vin to put either decision in motion, for he and he alone holds the keys to the door.

[SocialistPunk]

The idea of an indefinite suspension means the way is always open to find a solution that suits all parties. Whereas a "lifetime ban" is final.

[lindanesocialist]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

I believe the forum rules and guidance are not fit for purpose, for a Socialist forum. It appears they have been based on the type of rules you find on other message boards, however no consideration for the democratic control of the forum has been included. It is interesting that the EC is putting forward the case for strong control over members "publishing" materials, yet there is no specific mention of any form of oversight of the forum.Specifically13. Moderators may temporarily or permanently suspend posting and private messaging privileges for posters they deem to be in violation of the rules.This rule needs to be altered so that a formal, transparent and fair process of appeal against moderation decisions is included.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.Again this rule needs to be altered. Why should this be done through PM, it is, to my mind absolutely necessary that Mods decisions are open to the fullest possible scrutiny, a seperate area for this area of discussion should be created and open to scrutiny by all, in line with the history of the SPGB.This issue is not about Vin's behaviour or the rights and wrongs of his postings, it is about democractic process.

Actually this is not quite correct. The issue here is most definately about Vin somehow not being able or perhaps unwilling to use what is already in place. Something most forum users don't seem to have a problem doing.I raised the issue of Vin providing an alternative set of rules as it's all to easy to criticise, but another all together to offer constructive alternatives.  I've asked Vin on numerous occasions in private as well as NERB email conversations, to offer even a hint of some alternative, and when once more publicly put on the spot, all we get is out of context memes and insulting innuendo.Tim, you weren't around when the first wave of "The Moderation Wars" kicked off. It sparked a long drawn out bout of forum "soul searching", regarding moderation. After months of argument, an improved set up was put in place (I can't recall if it came from an EC directive or conference) and Brian signed up as moderator1. He has always held to the view that the forum procedures are a work in progress and to that effect encouraged users to post suggestions regarding moderation, on a thread in Web/Technical.The two issues you raise are good ideas, but they aren't new. I believe Brian himself stated he was in favour of a set up whereby a dedicated section for moderation issues, where decisions could be openly thrashed out, was set up on the forum. Brian may be able to shed more light on the subject but I believe the concept was never moved forward due to practical concerns and a lack of volunteers.Regarding the issue of appeals, I've previously brought up the idea the Party should have something along the lines of an appeals committee to hear Party members grievances. A committee that had the power to make decisions. Though I expect even such a committee would be unacceptable to some, if the decisions didn't favour them.But like everything we do, it takes volunteers, and right now there isn't a very big pool to provide the volunteer numbers we need to do everything. In the meantime the moderators are doing their best to make the forum as appropriate as possible. It's an ongoing process. We are not power hungry pigs from a George Orwell novel.Bye the way the forum is nothing like a Party meeting. It is a discussion platform capable of hosting many multiple conversations at once, without the need for a chairperson. It is essentially regulated by the forum members themselves who for the most part seem willing to abide by the rules/guidelines and only occasionaly needs moderator intervention.Just to add, I don't think members "behave" themselves because of any fear of breaching the rules, more a desire to contribute to the continuous smooth running of a socialist forum, discussion space/community.

 May I remind you that none of this 'behavoiur' such as posting memes has anything to do with his suspension. He is suspended for going off- topic and questioning moderation as a number members are doing right now. He was even suspended for questioning a moderators decision on a thread set up to discuss moderation.Moderator3  your claim that most members stick by the rules is completely inaccurate. It is simply that they are not 'moderated'You and others are breaking the rules daily In one of his suspensions he received two warnings for asking mod what was wrong with his last posts. Instead of continuing with the issue. He went over to  aske on a thread setup to discuss moderation and was suspended. Nothing to do with abuse or memes.Unfortunateley, I can't find these posts that prove the ridiculous over moderation applied to Vin. The fact that he has been suspended so many times is a reflection on moderation not on  him. Moderation needs to accept that there has been over moderation and personal prejudice which has contributed to the present farce  and make an act of contrition.    

[Author]

Posts