[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

" I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum."This an old debate about having no moderation and it was settled a long time ago. Your or my personal individual feelings have nothing to do with it anymore. The decision has been made about the structure of the forum. I'm afraid there is no point in resurrecting it unless your branch is formally proposing its end at Conference and indeed decided that it is prepared for the unintended consequences that will arise in a free-for-all forum without any moderation And, yes, moderators have assumed certain responsibilities but are fully cognisant that our actions do not always carry the infallibility of a judgement from Solomon. We will not always be right.However, when we prove to be malicious or incompetent or dictatorial, we hope there will be a move for our dismissal as moderators but until that time, we can only take the silence from the majority of forum users as implied approval of our actions.  

Mod 2, are you seriously suggesting that because a decision has previously been made that this topic is closed for further debate? It's a bit like saying "the issue of captialism or socialism was decided at the last general election and there is no point debating it anymore as the issue is now settled". Surely the point of the forum is to generate debate and the purpose of moderation is to moderate that debate, not to lay down which topics can be discussed and which cannot? Am I not as an individual member, within my rights to discuss any issue about the running of the party on this forum, without recourse to my Branch?So taking on that right to discuss these issues, I will!I am not of the opinion that there should be no moderation, I think the process should be what could be termed "moderation lite". I think that if individual posts are insulting, provocative, etc. should be removed and a public request made to the user that made those remarks, to withdraw them. I also think that it is a very important principle that members of the forum are able to discuss and object to decisions made by moderators in the forum itself, where they are open to scrutiny by all, not restricted to PMs where reponses (or failure to respond!) cannot be monitored by party members. I also think the principle of banning forum members and esp[ecially party members is wrong. It is in effect saying that because somebody posts something which breaches the rules, they are barred from contributing to other debates in a sensible fashion, so if you say something stupid, you are not allowed to say something sensible. Moderation should be about the postings and the contributions, not the individuals.i also think, in line with previous posts, that appeals or protests against moderation decisions, should not be handled by the party against who the appeal is made. I have asked you this question three times previously Alan, and you have so far avoided giving a straight answer, would you as a trades union official, have accepted a process where  an appeal on behalf of a member had contribution from the person who had made the original decision? it's a very straightforward question, with a yes or no answer.

[Bijou Drains]

I wasn't wishing to be provocative, Adam. Just thought Kilgallon's law might catch on and I would get that covetted wikipedia entry, (shuffles off enviously)

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Here, Timhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/september-2016-ec-minutes#comment-34461Message #6We are not trying to police private e-mails. We are not trying to impose censorship. A rule already existed but it could be and was being purposefully disregarded.  If in the context of your own message you cite a banned person's view or opinion, that is permissible. But if you are deemed to be deliberately posting on behalf of a suspended user so as to deliberately circumvent the suspension then that is not allowed. Certain suspended members may be in the unique and fortunate position of having a person to act as their proxy, but there will be others who will be under a suspension who will not have this advantage. But if they possess a legitimate and valid reason to communicate with the Party through the forum, our rule permits ourselves, the moderators, to temporary lift the sanction in the interests and benefit of the Party as a whole.  

thanks for the link, I had overlooked it. I blame Messers Woods and Co and their 57% abv rum (my current tipple of choice).So you are saying that if a poster who is banned can post if s/he has a "legitimate and valid reason to communicate….  " presumably it will be for the Mods to decide what is valid and legitimate!As I have said on numerous occasions, and I know you disagree with me, this is not about Vin, it is about the principle of control of what is or is not discussed on what has become an important part of democratic discussion within the party. I know it's a little ironic considering my post about "Kilgallon's Law" but the idea that what is judged as valid and legitimate for discussion should be decided by a Party sub committee, appears to have more in common with Leninist Parties than ours. I am not for one minute suggesting that the mods are acting like Leninists, however there is always the law of unexpected consequence. I personally would rather put up with insults, abuse, ravings, etc. than have a member of the SPGB indefinitely suspended from posting on the forum. Be careful what you wish for.

[Bijou Drains]

moderator2 wrote:

Tim said "It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it?"Perhaps, you overlooked this message of mine, Tim, that i posted."It was not the IC nor the EC that proposed the rule amendment but the three moderators ourselves so that there should be no ambiguity on who is responsible. We are also in the process of deciding other future changes to the guidelines, as i think we have indicated in earlier posts." And indeed we did purposefully include that a suspended user could post a message via another party (which could well be ourselves) with agreement of the moderators so that important party business or information would not be hindered by a suspension of posting privileges. If you want to have specifics, Tim, Cde. Vin's response to his video's rejection would fall under the criteria as being an exception to the suspension and would have been authorised by the moderators. Some of his other messages via Cde. Linda would have fallen outside that and would have resulted in our sanctions procedures. As will now happen in the future if the path the moderators have created is not followed.  How is it to be policed? Simply by applying common sense in reading any suspect posts. You don't need to be Rumpole of the Bailey to spot the Rule being breached.   

Hi mod 2 I have overlooked this post, and to be honest I still can't find it, could you be a dear and point it out to me, I genuinely can't find it.It seems from what you say that in this instance, Linda would need to get the Mods permision for every posting, as opposed to an overall permission to post, is that what you are saying your interpretation of this rule would be?The questions I asked ( I won't comment further on Mod 1's uncomradely remarks) actually, in my opinion demonstrate how unworkable the whole rule would be. To take it further, if Vin were to send me an email about an issue, are you seriously saying that I would have to seek Mods permission or I wouldn't be able to quote from his email as part of a posting I made? To test the rule to its logiical extreme, what if a banned contributor wrote a book about his or her expereinces of being banned from the forum, are you suggesting that no quote from that book could be used on this forum? Are you seriously saying that the views and thoughts of a member of the SPGB are forbidden from being discussed on this forum, whilst the views of everyone from Saddam Hussein to Leon Trotsky, can be? I thnk this is an example of the legal maxim, "difficult cases make bad law"

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

I have no comment to make on the undemocratic suggestions being made in this post.

Mod 1, I object strongly to your saying that the postings I have made are in any way undemocratic and I politely ask for you to withdraw them and apologise. I think that you have made a completely uncomradely remark.Not only that, you are factually incorrect. I have made no suggestions, I have merely asked two questions. I am surprised that you do not know the difference between a question and a suggestion. I would also ask you (this is a question by the way, just in case you get a littel confused) how can a question be undemocratic?

[Bijou Drains]

moderator1 wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Report from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?

It would have been better for further discussion if this part of the message had been posted on the Website/Technical section.  I shall duplicate this particular post and post it on the Website/Technical section under the title of 'Amendment of Rule 8.'.  

Mod 1 I completely disagree with you, further discussion should take place under this heading, as it relates to the functioning of the EC. This post is about the minutes of the EC. The Executive Committee is part of the democratic functioning of the Party. it is important that this is not seen as a technical issue about the website, it is about the function of The Executive Committee (and the sub committees of the Party). I would encourage members of the Party who have comments about decisions made by the EC to post their comments on this thread, rather than being sidetracked on to other threads. I have posted a link to the comments I have made to your comments on the thread that you created rather than posting them here. I did not want to be thought of as posting multiple threads:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/amendment-rule-8

[Bijou Drains]

So presumably if Linda asks, once the rule is amended, you will give this prior permission, working on the basis that all three of you have previouisly replied and responded to Linda posting Vin's comments, the three of you will have no problem with that, as long as it's in line with the other rules of the forum?It also begs the question, if Linda was to post a message along the lines of "my opinion (and incidentally that of Vin's) is…….." that wouldn't be in breach of the rules as Linda would only be indicating where her opinion was in harmony with Vin's.

[Bijou Drains]

Re The EC Minutes:(3) Resolution from NERB (Email 30 August recording votes at a meeting of 15 August)“Could the EC please clarify why Rule 17 has been taken literally in the case of the video produced by cde Maratty, when there have been many other instances of similar publishing of video and other materials by members of the party which have been tacitly accepted without being approved.” [Carried 4 – 0 four members present]Resolution 13. (Thomas and Skelly):“The EC cannot consider this motion because there is no supporting evidence for the allegations of the publishing of video and other materials by members of the party without approval by the EC where this is required” Carried 6 – 0Perhaps if the EC walked up the stairs to the balcony at HO, they would find on the shelves to their right several copies of "Capitalism and Other Kid's Stuff". A video which does not have EC approval, but due to the fact that it is promoted on party website and is for sale in HO, could be said, in my humble opinion, to have tacit acceptance.AlsoReport from ……..Internet Committee (with a suggestion that Forum Rule 8 be amended by the addition of the following words at the end: “Do not use your account to post messages on behalf of any suspended user, without prior permission from the moderators.”Resolution 7. (Browne and Scholey):“That the Internet Committee be permitted to carry out their suggested amendment to Forum Rules re improper use of registered user accounts.”This seems to preempt the changes in moderation rules being proposed by the Moderators, as well as being unnecessary (and provocative?). Let's be straight, there is only one situation where a user is posting messages for a suspended user (Linda for Vin). As the moderators are aware of this, lets face it they are joining in discussions with Linda/Vin, surely that implies that there is prior permission. It raises the question why was the report sent and why was the resolution passed. I cannot see that it was designed to pour oil on troubled waters, unless it was oil of vitriol! It also appears to be a case of the internet committee attempting to do the job of the moderators, if the moderators had wanted this amendment to rule, surely they would have asked for it? As the moderators are the ones doing the moderation, surely they must be the ones best placed to take comments from users of the forum into account (as they have stated they are doing) and produce alterations to the Forum Rules?

[Bijou Drains]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Ozzy can admit when he's made an error, so can I. Such a shame some have such difficulty.

I agree with you entirely, and in the unlikely event that I am ever actually wrong about something, I'm sure I will be able to admit it (probably)

[Bijou Drains]

Surely many "self employed" workers are nothing but wage slaves in fancy dress. Many are working for employers who are exploiting their labour power in exactly the same way as waged workers, just with less employment protection.

[Bijou Drains]

I think the way forward is for the AV committee (whoever that might currently constitute, I'm honestly not that sure) is to quickly develop a set of guidelines for the production of party Videos, seeking professional advice if necessary, taking account issues such as copyright, liable, etc.. Ensure that the EC and if necessary conference agree to those guidelines for the production of Part Videos and then get on with making videos and helping those who want to make videos, make those videos in line with Party procedures.I think that as things stand I am the AV Committee, so I will begin that process by clarifying with the Gen Sec if that is the case. Begin the work and if necessary seek funding from the AV for technical/legal support.If the guidelines can be prepared for approval for the November EC meeting, then that should ensure that videos, acceptable to the party in general can be produced by those members who wish to.Any constructive comments would be welcome.

[Bijou Drains]

Another issue that nobody seems to have considered is the Bosman ruling in the European Court of Justice. In this and other cases the European Court holds precident. Does that precident continue after Brexit?

[Bijou Drains]

lindanesocialist wrote:

A branch is not divided by holding different opinions but I appreciate I shouldn't have used the word 'divided' , I appreciate your comments re video SP Can anyone confirm if the party is open to prosecution re my post 204 above?

as far as I'm aware, copyright matters are usually a civil law issue and only rarely have criminal consequences

[Bijou Drains]

Perhaps a sensible way forward would be to set up a working party to produce a brief for the AV committee 9and perhaps the SSPC) with regards to the use of materials used in videos, the SS, etc.Or better still pay a professional organisation to come in and give us a full brief of what we can do, what we can't, where we should apply for permission, etc. (I am sure there are companies who have these ready as off the shelf documents). If we ensure that these service providers are fully competent and have full liability insurance. That way, if we follow their guidance and something crops up, then we have fall back to the liability insurnace provided by company that gave us the guidance. That might be a far better approach than relying on our own interepretation of the legal situation.

[Bijou Drains]

Don't really understand how the viewers could sue, or am I being thick?

[Author]

Posts