[Bijou Drains]

moderator3 wrote:

Obviously some users fail to grasp the reason the rules encourage us to contact the moderators regarding moderation decisions.The idea behind contacting the moderators off thread, regarding moderation decisions, is to allow a dsicussion to take place between moderator and forum user, that doesn't clog up the thread.   

Actually, let's be honest, the rules don't "encourage" us to contact moderators re moderation decisions, they forbid us from certain actions with regards to Moderation decisions.With regards to clogging up threads, it has been suggested on several occasions, that I am aware of, that a moderation discussion thread be started Such a thread would allow free discussion of moderation decisions, and stop the clogging up of threads. This suggestion has been turned down by Mods in the past, but to me would seem to be an easy way to resolve a very tricky problem.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Many thanks for your legal opinion and the lawyers latin, (a subject which never appeared in my school's timetable so i had to look it up) 

Quote:

*Forum rules* Your use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these.

I was amiss in not citing that earlier 

Quote:

should be applied to all participants in the forum, including moderators

As it did to this moderator who received a suspension for his post in reply to one of your own that tried my patience one time too manyBut, you have rightly deduced from my post to Cde. Lindanesocialist that it was indeed a threat of  me now drawing a line in the sand that any more breaches and i will automatically suspend her from the forum. Again, i hope she fully and clearly understands this and takes care with her future postings.   

Forum rules do indeed state that posters agree to abide by the decisions of the moderators.As I have stated very explicitly previously, no where in my posting, or in Linda's posting is there any indication that there is the intention of not abiding by any moderator's decisions, merely commenting.I also stated, and you clearly agree with this, that your posting to Linda was a threath "that any more breaches" will result in automatic suspension. However as I feel I pointed out earlier, neither Linda, nor for that matter myself, were querying or appealing against any decision, Linda commented on a moderation decision and I commented on her comment. Neither of these actions was in breach of the rules.As for interpretation, as you state the rules state that all posters agree to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing the rules. Linda did not state that she did not abide by any decisions you made in interpreting the rules, any more than I did.The problem here does not appear to be in understanding Latin, it appears to be more in understanding English.The only other possible way I can think of interpreting what you are saying is, that as a moderator you are able to interpret the rules in anyway that you see fit and that it is a breach of the rules for any forum member to comment on that interpretation or to publicly state that they disagree with the interpretation.I do not think for one moment you would be silly enough to place that kind of interpretation on the wording of the rules.I understand that at times that being a moderator must feel like a paret trying to sort out bickering kids. I do not want to add to your voluntary workload in this area, however perhaps the way forward here is a little moderation when undertaking moderation.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

And Lindanesocialist, just how many times do the moderators have to accommodate your repeated breaches of the guidelines?How many times do you require to be told not to take it upon yourself to perform the moderators' task by deciding what action  is warranted and what is not? For those of you who have forgotten RULE 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.You are already just one small step away from suspension, Lindanesocialist, and no more formal warnings from the moderators are necessary yet you persist in breaching the rules.Pay heed to this message and simply note its serious intent and there is no need nor cause to reply on the forum to this posting. 

Moderator 2, the rule you quote states:"queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message"Linda's posting was a COMMENT on a moderation decision, not a query, or an appealt. If it had been an appeal, she would have probably started the sentence with "I wuld like to appeal" if it had been  query, it would have probably started with words lke "why" or "what", etc. Her sentence would also probably have ended with a question mark. Therefore Linda has clearly not breached any of the forum rules.Similarly, as you did not make a moderation decision, merely issued an implicit threat, my COMMENTS on your contribution are also within the guidelines and the rules, as they neither query a DECISION or appeal against a DECISION.I think the implied threat which you have made is clearly a case of a moderator acting "ultra vires". Whilst I respect and am grateful for the role of the moderators and genuinely understand the difficulties you face trying to moderate the forum, I am also of the personal opinion that the current rules, especially those which ban the questining of moderation decisions in public are unfit for a Socialist Orrganisation, However I am happy, until new rules and guidance are developed, to go along with them as they are written. I also think that this is a principle which should be applied to all participants in the forum, including moderators

[Bijou Drains]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

If I could enact any law, I'd ban surveys and fuckin postcards as well

I have written that law for you and have a plan to enact it. Of course I made a postcard to get the news out and get support to pass the law.  Here's what it says on the postcard I made for you. . . https://docs.google.com/document/d/12N92wl74vQathQT1hJmNkJsl_DsKrdU7XrO_O66ZH8o/edit#heading=h.3w86cm3wtzd6for your convenince the postcard desgin at the link above (wich looks nicer because you can format text in a google doc better than in this discussion forum) is copied here below. . . 

---

We can stop junk mail and surveys that waste your time. We have a plan to stop it for good. Our political mailer philosophy is to prove we value your time and information by giving you 5 minutes of our time for reading this and completing a survey telling us how you want us to spend 5 minutes. It’s that easy to stop junk mail. We are going to make sure that junk mail solicitors value your time equal to their own like we do. We want you to vote YES on  “Public Good for Public Time in Mailers Law”. Once enacted, every time consuming non-profit survey or mailer will have to give you an equal or greater amount of time for every minute of your time that they take!   Imagine if every political mailer you received came with a 5 minute favor for your use? You could collect favors from that pile of political mailers on your coffee table and turn them into a new tree planted in the forest or on your sidewalk!  Wouldn’t that be a better world?  If you want to help more, we have other projects you can donate your 5 minutes towards like, “what if EVERY bank statement you received in your mailbox came with a 15 minute favor of your choice?”  Well, I’m getting ahead of myself, but if you like the idea, then join our brainstorming branch and upvote it for more attention and time resources. make a suggestion, or vote to encourage our next choice for legislative action for the people, of the people, and by the people.  This message was endorsed by and time data verified by a generous donation of time from the world socialist of Great Britain. Join with us to help stop junk mail.  

---

my mistake. I should have said a law that bans twats that post about surveys and postcards

[Bijou Drains]

If I could enact any law, I'd ban surveys and fuckin postcards as well

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

[Well all I can say is I can prove my superiority through violent means as well.

Dream on Bonny LadIf your theseis is that lack of sex produces violent threat, does the above quote back up my thesis that you're clearly not getting any

[Bijou Drains]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

@Robbo203,You wrote. . .

robbo203 wrote:

I can very easily imagine an organisation such as this continuing to operate and do useful work in socialist society catering for the sexual needs of men and woman who perhaps might find it difficult to do this on their own and  need someone to advocate on their behalf in a caring and respectful manner.  The big difference of course is that these sexual services like all human labour  will be provided on a completely free and voluntary basis which is the logical corollary of the free access to goods and services that will be hallmark of a socialist society 

I don't think we need an "organization" and I think any organizations in a post socialist revolution society need to be considered with skepticism. How do we ensure the organization isn't extracting surplus value from the workers? Maybe that's the nature of organizations? If the "organization" you descibe did exist after the socialist revolution, then how would socialist leaders ensure the suruplus value extracted from any free assoication and exchange wasn't used by the organization in ways not of benefit to the people?  Even if we had the power and authority to stop these organizations in a socialist world, We'd still need to monitor and endorse or veto almost every voluntary free exchange offer between people and that would take a lot of time for someone or some "organization".   

You seem to understnad the principles of post cards fairly well, however it is fairly clear your struggling a little with the ideas of the Socialist Party (exchnge, surplus value, leaders, power, etc. not really compatible with Socialsim)

[Bijou Drains]

mcolome1 wrote:

Subhaditya wrote:

At the height of the Victorian Age there were 80,000 prostitutes in the streets of London.The Britsh army had an elaborate system to ensure their soldiers got sex from 'non local' prostitutes, probably for security reasons 'local' was avoided.Disabled people(men and women) make use of them as 'sex surrogates' and pay them for their services….. to say such a service is not required in a thoroughly monogamous society is a joke.If you fail to add this 'pleasant/unpleasant' task (which I understand will be voluntary like every other task) in a socialist society will mean socialism will fail in its promise to meet people's needs through peaceful cooperation.

I thibk that 80,000 prostitutes is nothing compared with the ring of child prostitution that exists around the world. Doesn't;it   bother you to know that children are being  used as prostitute ?  Those are sexual slaves, and many of those children are already suffering from venereal diseases, and probably they will die at a very young age. That ring of prostitution is also tied to drug traffic, and some are also used  to transport drugs Personally, I do not care if the socialist society is going to be monogamous, or polygamy, what is really  worrying  me is this society based on profits who is  using children as prostitutes, and a bunch of perverts are having sex with minors, and are destroying their personal life. Those are the social issues that socialists must worry aboutThere is a big ring of women who have been forced into prostitution, only the rings from the Major Antilles is bigger than the 80 000 that you have mentioned, and those women are distributed thru different countries, and the most affected one are women because there is male prostitution too

You are right on the money there Comrade. The commodity based "society" that the upholders of Capitalism laughingly describe as "freedom" casually ignores that fact that slavery and especially sexual slavery still exists and thrives in most parts of the world.The idea of the "happy hooker" who chooses the so called sex industry as part of a life style choice. which Subhaditya appears to go along with, is a propaganda myth created for those making millions out of the misery of men, women and as you so rightly point out many children. A recent survey in the Uk by the charity Barnardos reported that of female prostitutes they surveyed over 70% began working in the sex industry as children.The fact that capitalism reduces everything to a commodity that can be bought or sold, leads to a situation where children are traffiked and forced into being sex slaves and creates a mind set where those abusing them think that it is ok to do so. The scandals in Rochdale and Rotherham, that hit the headlines are only the tip of a very large ice berg.I'd rather live in a Socialist society with the problem of some people being sexual frustrated, than a capitalist society with millions being sexual exploited.

[Bijou Drains]

The subjective bit, presumably, comes from how we determine what is socially necessary labour time.. If your the immobilised patient in bed no2 dying for a crap, the usefulness of the consultant, who is going to examine your dandruff, might be less than the nurse with the bed pan!

[Bijou Drains]

Just out of interest, I know it's slightly off topic, but do warnings expire like driving licence points? I've had a few of those in my time. It would seem fair that posters can reduce their culpability by prolonged good behaviour. 

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

[Tim I have heard many people like you… in the name of respecting women's honour you enslave them…. in the name of batting for the retards you keep them castrated… Here I am batting for better sex lives for them and look at you… you are diverting attention to terminologies. So what is the earth shattering difference between the term intellectual disability and retard both qualify a person as intellectually inferior to the average person in some way or you would call them 'normal' not use special terms to describe them.You know all that matters is if you actually care for them or not, thats far more important than stupid terminologies.

To deal on a personal level with the ridiculous insults you throw at me. I have spent the last 35 years of my working life as a Social Worker. A good proportion of that time has been spent working to protect and support people with Intellectual disabilities and working to actually enhance the lives of people who have intellectual disabilities. As opposed to merely talking shite on a website (battling for a better sex life my arse).As part of that work I have been directly involved with assisting people with intellectual disabilties gain their freedom from the Long Stay institutions which they have been incarcerated in, many for a large proportion of their lives. I have indeed actually come across individuals who have been castrated, women who have been sterilised, individuals who have had their teeth removed, denied the right to have intimate relationships by arbitrary hospital rules, been forced to live in squalid crowded hospital  wards, etc. etc. All carried out by people who like you claim to have "their best interests at heart.I have spent much of that time batting with people who have attitudes like you, people who view people who have those disabilities as, to quote you "them" not as part of us. The "earth shattering difference between" using the term people with an intellectual disability" and "the retards" as you so ignorantly put it is that people with an intellectual disability, expressed through groups like the People First movement" have strongly lobbied that they find the term "retard" insulting and pejorative.The use of a term like "the retards" is not only insulting, it is also part of a process of dehumanization. If we dehumanise people we can do what we want to them, they are not humans any more. If we call them retards it makes it easier when we lock them up in institutions, take their freedom and choice away from them, they are inferior, we can do what we want. The process of dehumanizing groups of individuals has a log and sad history, you are part of the process of dehumanizing a group of people who you wish to label as retards, you should hang your head in shame.This leads me to the question, why, if a group of people find a term insulting, why would you as an individual insist on continuing to use that term?,Perhaps it is because, despite your protests of liberation, actually don't think that people with intellectual disabilities are capable of making such a distinction for themselves, that the "retards" you refer to are not capable of self advocacy, they need to be liberated by leaders like you.Well I have got some news for you, not only are people with intellectual disabilities advocating for themselves, lots of people with intellectual disabilities are advocating how they will develop their own loving and caring, adult relationships. I have come across many people with intellectual disabilities who have very active and varied sex lives. Perhaps you find that hard to believe, that people who by your own words you describe as inferior are actually managing to develop their own sex lives, without the support of patronising, creepy individuals like yourself. Isn't that ironic, the people you deride as inferior, are getting plenty of it, but judging from your comments here, you are clearly not getting any. To find the answer to why that is, perhaps you could look in the mirror and ask yourself, what would you rather by a "retard" or a virgin!

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

All of which is why I reckon that placing a member of the forum on pre-moderated is a better way forward than banning, we should investigate that option.

That particular option was considered and rejected when the forum moderation was reviewed 3 years ago.  

Surely we of all people shouldn't be arguing that proposals to change systems should be rejected on the basis of "we thought about that three years ago and decided against it". At the last election the electorate rejected the idea of Socialism, are we saying that that proposal should never be looked at again?

[Bijou Drains]

Subhaditya wrote:

Matt wrote:

I am pretty promiscuous but your post is creeping me out.

Lol, I just realized this will be one of the unpleasant tasks … to ensure everyone gets enough pleasant sex… because well there are always many who are arent getting any sex thats worth calling it sex… money and power can go a long way in addressing that which of course only a few will have enough of… and money wont exist in socialistic society… and yet socialism isnt complete if your critical needs arent met through cooperation… So I suppose to meet peoples sexual needs in a socialist society without money…. there will be the unpleasant task of giving sex to those with whom no one they are attracted to wants to have sex with… and it cant be done by those they are not feeling attracted to…. or we can pair up 2 guys not getting any and make them ejaculate each other which is probably not going to meet these two guys sexual needs especially if they are attracted to women.So I guess for socialism to deliver on its promise of 'to each according to their needs from each according to their ability', to the list of unpleasant tasks will need to be added the unpleasant and voluntary task of giving 'pleasant sex' to those who arent managing it on their own. If I can get any cruder it would be giving 'pleasant sex' to the uglies and retards of the world who arent managing any on their own.I guess it would be managed the same way as the other unpleasant tasks that need to be done to meet peoples needs.

The use of the term "retards' is completely unacceptable on a Socialist Forum and is highly insulting and pejorative to people with an Intellectual Disability.You appear not only to wish to insult women but also appear to wish to insult other groups of people who do not meet your Benchmark of acceptability.Can I suggest you go off and educate yourself on the societal position of people with intellectual disability and the struggles that have faced to overcome dehumanising attitudes like yours. You appear to want to join in the societal devaluation of people with intellectual disabilities. Can I suggest that instead of giving vent to your bizarre sexual fantasies you take the time to find out about the struggles of other workers and their families, 

[Bijou Drains]

steve colborn wrote:

I like this, I really like this! Where do I send my order and the money? Well done, Steve Colborn.

if the fashionistas of Seaham Harbour are wearing these this season, then they'll be the talk of the Paris catwalks, I'd better get one too, don't want it said that Newcastle lags behind Sunderland in the fashion stakes.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Tim, the protocols on etiquette between members was laid down by conference which as you are well aware of, supersedes the guide-lines, the rules and the moderators authority…and you can check which conference resolutions which mandates a certain amount of civility and respect between members by going to Spintcom files and searching out the year yourself. Once more, why do you not read what Mod2 actually responded when the same point was raised earlier. I was replying to Cde. Mcolme query about what he considered was a more lenient treatment of LBird and the reply was not accusing Cde Maratty of the same breach but an explanation to clarify for Cde. Mcolme that because of their different status, LBird can be more accusatory in his posts..again within reason.   Yes, we do hold members to a higher standard than non-members…Tough being an SPGBer, isn't it?Let it be clear what this moderator is saying and has said.I intend where possible to moderate with a lighter touch that what might have been the previous case. I'm not pointing the finger but simply saying my attitude and approach is my own. This means that i may well hold a different position from fellow moderators. I am one of three. I can be out-voted. I am also a democrat and accept decisions that go against my own view. Or would you like it if three individual moderators kept making individual idiosyncratic but conflicting decisions and kept reversing actions back and forth?If Mod1 infringed the rules as you claim by saying you were anti-democratic (again, i am not going to track back into history for the message) then banning would not have been the immediate response but a warning would have been issued. Has he repeated the claim? If not, then, we can assume he has understood he had gone further than he should have. I'm not going to return to the relevant messages for the context but let us be clear, many members in the history of the Party have accused others of not acting democratically and, in itself, does not warrant to be considered as questioning the member's socialist credentials and qualifications to be a member of the Party. Moderators have often been accused ourselves of behaving anti-democratically and, again depending upon what context, it can be considered as fair and acceptable comment. At other times, it can be seen as an unjustifiable slur that will evoke an official response. It appears to me, Tim, that you are  personally very concerned from the number of times you have posted about the moderation process and its implementation by ourselves. Cde. Maratty will vouch that i frequently in the now distant past when difficulties were arising and evolving suggested he puts himself forward as a moderator and shoulder some of the responsibility of maintaining some order on the forum. I now suggest the very same to you. If you feel you can bring your own expertise and knowledge to the task then come aboard.But if you believe that constantly highlighting what you perceive as the failings of fellow members and comrades, all volunteers for what i think many would see as an unenviable party position, is constructive contributions to the Party organisation, so be it. We, the moderators, will continue to defend ourselves and our actions when we think we are in the right and beg forgiveness if we tresspass and transgress.    

with reference to the conference motion which I think you are alluding to, my recollection of this motion (passed some time in the mid 80s if I remember correctly) stated that a speaker AT CONFERENCE OR ADM who questioned the socialist integrity of another speaker AT THAT CONFERENCE OR ADM, would be ruled out of order.That resolution clearly applied to speakers at conference or ADM, not this forum, I really feel you are grasping at straws now to further justify the indefinite banning of Cde Marratty.Even if I was to accept (which I don't) that the spirit of that resolution should be applied to this forum, there is a world of difference between ruling a part of a contribution out of order, or even ruling a speaker out of order, and imposing an indefinite ban. Would it be acceptable to impose an indefinite ban on a member from speaking at conference or at a branch meeting because they had made a comment that was out of order? If such an action has ever been taken, I would be very grateful if you could give me details. Also if you are going to make questionable use of this motion at conference to justify the ban, at least have the good grace to fit your actions in with the actions recommended in the motion.You then go on to say that based on this flawed reasoning, that as L Bird is a non member he can "be more accusatory in his posts". I ask again, where in the forum rules, the party rules or in the terms of reference for moderators is this stated, and please do not quote conference resolutions which clearly do not apply to this situation.You then go on to state that you will moderate with a lighter touch, and that you may not take the same view as other moderators, yet I have asked in PMs for information about which way the Mods voted on the continuation of the ban on Cde Marratty, I was told that it was not relevant which way individual Mods voted. I would argue in a democratic party, where all officials of the party are accountable, that knowledge of the voting pattern of the individual members is essential in order to maintain democratic accountability. Would you not agree?Just to clarify I am politically concerned, rather than personally concerned, with regards to this issue. If it was L Bird who was being banned, I hope (despite our various bouts of handbags at dawn) that I would be raising the same issues.With regards to your comment on Mod 1 calling me anti democratic. Just to be clear, I have no wish for Mod 1 to be banned, he explained that he took my comment out of context and withdrew it, I'm more than happy with that and I have absolutely no animosity toward Brian, in fact I am greatly looking forward to seeing him again at ADM and maybe sinking a few jars with him. Vin described a member as a little Hitler, which was a very unpleasant thing to say, Vin apologised and withdrew the comment, same as Brian. Surely that should be the end of the matter.My own view of moderation is that we should moderate the comment, not the commentator. Remove comments if they are inappropriate or break the rules by all means, but do not stop the poster posting other comments, which don't break the rules. It seems to me that we are refusing to give Cde Marratty the chance to say something constructive and appropriate, because he has said things that are inappropriate. Or to put it another way, we are banning him from saying something sensible because he said something stupid!

[Author]

Posts