Bijou Drains
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Well I've got to say mate , if the one on the right is your sister in law, any chance of an introduction "ding bloody dong". If she played her cards right she could be the future Mrs Kilgallon.
lindanesocialist wrote:He is referring to this account as being a sockpuppet , referring to vin and myself as trolls. He is bringing into question the intergrity both of us. His own post OP is by his own definition 'trolling' and it is a technique he uses to avoid direct reference to a member., while launching an attack. He is attempting to sow discord and provoke an emotional response, in this case he is the troll.In no way can this account set up be described as a 'sockpuppet' . Both Vin and I attended online branch meetings and everyone is/was aware of what is going on. Indeed member encouraged it: SP ALB, TIM etc A member of the party arguing for change should not be referred to as a troll.Bill Martin should withdraw his implied attack on the two members's integrity or be suspended from the forum.Vin and LindaI've got to say Linda & Vin, if YMS is having a pop at you, which is by no means certain. You can't really complain (neither could I if I felt it was directed to me, by the way). If you are prepared to use sarcasm you can't really complain when it comes back your way. YFSTim
