twitter account @worldsocialism.com

[Bijou Drains]

Hi DJPThe problem may also be the way in which members express themselves as well as the interpretation. Without rehashing old arguments I did point out to Matt that the wording of his message about the Labour Party retweet did read exactly like a dictact rather than an opinion. To be exact "this is a breach of the hostility clause and should be removed" as opposed to "this could be a breach of the hostility clause and you might consider removing it". Another difficulty is that with some of the postings on here, it is difficult at times to distinguish between what is a personal opinion of an Internet a committee member, and what is the view of the Internet committee. 

[DJP]

Generally I'd say the internet committee would only be speaking as the internet committee in response to a message sent to the email address, or in communications sent to the EC or other branches. So seldom on this forum, unless repeating a communication made elsewhere.The way to contact committees is through the email aliases listed in the files section if Spintcom, in case you didn't know..

[Bijou Drains]

I'll make a note of that. And treat opinions expressed by IC members as just that, individual opinions. Thanks for your help

[lindanesocialist]

moderator1 wrote:

Vin wrote:

So I am warned 3 times for nothing but YMS can be insulting and denegratining and mod does nothing. Well , I can tack the shite so why cant others. if only Mod could understand plain English.  NB Nothing I have said in this post is any different from what anyone else has said to me – I am defending mysself -NO? But I will be referred to as abusive. Well Hock dickedi shit. And 'hell' and 'jesus' 'christ' and all those other words that upset the revolutionary socialist on this site   

Suspension:7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.14. Rule enforcement is the responsibility of the moderators, not of the contributors. If you believe a post or private message violates a rule, report it to the moderators. Do not take it upon yourself to chastise others for perceived violations of the rules. 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. Despite have a 3rd and final warning, plus a PM from myself this user has continued to breach the rules. This user is suspended for an indefinite period.

   I am finding it difficult to believe that there is any justification for one member censoring and silencing another member. Especially in the light of the fact that the two members are involved in a dispute on moderation expressed in a motion in the NERB branch. This censorship prevents cde Maratty from speaking on his resolution and embarasses and brings the party into disrepute.He was clearly remove for criticising and exposing the internet committee. Well you can run but you can't hide

[lindanesocialist]

 According to May's EC The central committee also intends to try and close or take this account which is doing good work for soscialism.   https://twitter.com/World_Socialism

[Brian]

lindanesocialist wrote:

 According to May's EC The central committee also intends to try and close or take this account which is doing good work for soscialism.   https://twitter.com/World_Socialism

As usual you are being disingenuous in your use of words.  In particular if this account indeed was "doing goodwork for socialism" how come these concerns were raised and addressed by the EC regarding accountability and authorisation by the branch?This is from the Report from the Internet Committee (1st May 2016)."The @World_Socialism Twitter account continues to occasionally post or re-tweet items which without comment could be construed as supporting other parties and movements. Some confusion exists between two very simmilarly named accounts [@WorldSocialism and @World_Socialism]. It is unclear just who “owns” the accounts. The committee finds the branch unresponsive to their enquiries." The EC rejects the accusation that the Internet Committee has exceeded its Terms of Reference and resolves to take no further action on this matter.” With regard to the Twitter account @WorldSocialism the EC also resolve:(1) To ask NERB to confirm whether @World_Socialism is their Twitter account, and if so, what arrangements they have made to ensure it is under editorial control. A reply is requested no later than the date of the next EC meeting (4th June 2016)(2) In the absence of any satisfactory reply the next EC meeting will consider further:(a) authorising the Internet Committee to take action as suggested in their Report of 26th March 2016,(b) whether any further action is required in respect of the actions of individual Party members.It seems you are determined to continue sowing seeds of distraction and confusion so the these two important issues of accountability and authorisation are not addressed under the party rules.  In short, you are deliberately avoiding the democratic decision making process as set out by Conference and the membership.

[lindanesocialist]

Brian wrote:

It seems you are determined to continue sowing seeds of distraction and confusion so the these two important issues of accountability and authorisation are not addressed under the party rules.  In short, you are deliberately avoiding the democratic decision making process as set out by Conference and the membership.

 Where have I done this?  I'v only just started to take an interest I am only passing information on. The account looks fine to me as do the videos. Why stamp on these iniatives by Vin? I find such behaviour disturbing

[moderator1]

Reminder: 8. Do not register or operate more than one account without first obtaining permission from the moderators. Do not share your password with others or allow anyone else to use your account.

[lindanesocialist]

This is the 5th time my character has been defamed on this site. I am operating a single account 

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

This is the 5th time my character has been defamed on this site. I am operating a single account 

If you are referring to the Reminder issued #169 your post #168 clearly breached rule 8.  If there any further breeches of this rule I have no alternative other than to issue a 1st warning.

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

This is the 5th time my character has been defamed on this site. I am operating a single account

If you are referring to the Reminder issued #169 your post #168 clearly breached rule 8.  If there any further breeches of this rule I have no alternative other than to issue a 1st warning.

For crying out loud!  Linda, as far as I can tell, is publishing a statement on behalf of Vin who is unable to publish it here himself; how can that be construed as operating two accounts? BTW, there isn't a #168 or #169 on this thread….  yet.

[lindanesocialist]

 I have removed the post, didn't realise it breached the rules

[moderator1]

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.

[moderator1]

lindanesocialist wrote:

 I have removed the post, didn't realise it breached the rules

Pity, for there was no need for you to go that far.  All you needed to do was to edit the post to make it clear you were posting the statement on behalf of Vin.  That would suffice and keep the post within the rules. 

[Author]

Posts