steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If it is, as you say Gnome and it does indeed include the SPGB forum, then the supporting statement itself, is inaccurately put together as to the intended discussion put forward by Lancaster branch. That aside, is that gloating I can hear? no, can't be, must be me MS.Steve.
Brian wrote: gnome wrote: It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch. Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference. You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer." Lancaster branch supporting statement for this item for discussion starts thus;"Due to large numbers of acrimonious posts on our internal e.mail lists, Lancaster Branch feels that tougher moderation of members who send such posts should take place."So you were correct in your initial assertion Brian, that this IFD did not include the SPGB forum. It must, in fact, come from certain members "hopeful" interpretation of the IFD but does not correlate with the facts. Steve.
Hopefully, it will not remain undiscussed until conference time because, as SP states, this issue affects non-members as much as members! So a little discussion on this Forum would be helpful to all "concerned"! Steve.
Sat, 02/03/2013 – 2:53pm#150gnome Brian wrote: gnome wrote: It's now an issue for the whole party (and in fact always has been) since a relevant item has been placed on the Conference agenda by Lancaster Branch. Not exactly, for the item for discussion from Lancaster Branch concerns the internal party forum Spitcom and not this forum. But that does not stop delegates or members from bringing it up under the Internet Dept. report to Conference. You've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. Having clarified the matter with the Lancaster Branch secretary I can assure you that their item refers to all the party's forums.Item for Discussion: Lancaster Branch"The need to be able to ban disruptive behaviour on net forums quicker and for longer." Does this mean fair, equitable and unbiased moderation? or did you not ask Lancaster Br whether this was their intention! If this is not the case and members of Forums are to be banned far quicker and for longer, then this will change nothing but make the moderation and by definition and abstraction, the moderators, even more Draconian and lead to even "more serious" claims of censorship!Steve.
The Lords is usually referred to as "the other place", is this where the matter is being discussed?We can but hope! Steve
Make up your mind, Steve. What do you want: a practical solution to the problems that have arisen or the moderator's head on a plate?Thanks Adam, you've just proved a thought I had! Read the following, "Afraid from where I stand, you are not talking about the whole problem Adam! I've been consistent all the way. I would like to see inconsistent, unfair, biased and immoderate moderation dealt with as well as moderation queues etc. Something that seems to be being lost and overlooked." Does the above state I want anyones head on a plate? I've consistently stated what I would like to see. Yet you traduce me, why What kind of agenda are you running that you would "dare" accuse me of the above?Yes, I've had fall-outs with moderators, but to suggest this, I would previously thought beneath you!Retract it, it was, I thought, unworthy of you. Please tell me it is?Please retract this unworthy accusation Adam. Steve.
Afraid from where I stand, you are not talking about the whole problem Adam! I've been consistent all the way. I would like to see inconsistent, unfair, biased and immoderate moderation dealt with as well as moderation queues etc. Something that seems to be being lost and overlooked. Steve.
I' ll answer you Adam about what I want! I want consistent, unbiased and fair moderation across the board, nothing more nothing less. For anyone who thinks that is what has been happening, a look at quite a few threads and posts over the last few months prove otherwise. If this still cannot be seen, a trip to the local branch of specsavers may help. Steve.
Well all, come Saturday, or when at last my form F will be accepted or processed, mods will have one less "problematic poster" to deal with, as I will not be involved on the forums. Some may be breathing a sigh of relief, none more than me!Steve.
These are some of the most erudite and moreover incisive comments I have read of late. No one, even those of a particular bent, in regard to this discussion, can help but be swayed by this! Forget please, your preconceptions, if any and read SP's post on it's merits. Cogent, thoughtful and considered they most assuredly are. The perceptions of someone who is, A SOCIALIST! No apologies for the capitalisation, as it is most definitely worthy of the use. Please consider this post in toto, absorb it and respond in kind. This post could bring US ALL, back together, in the spirit of felicity, comradeship and fraternity, in the name of our stated goal, Socialism.We have a chance to do something, together, let us not waste it. Yours in a spirit of brotherhood and comradeship, Steve Colborn
Your last paragraph Adam, is to the point of this thread. Throwing "child pornography" et al into this discussion is, as Vin has stated elsewhere, merely to introduce an Aunt Sally into the thread, as I suspect you know only to well. Colborn
PS to suggest that the thread has veered off, is not supported by the posts To answer the question, implicit in your final paragraph above, would indeed, veer off the intended intention of this thread, as I suspect you know quite well! Colborn.
Adam, you know quite well that this thread was started, by Socialist Punk, for the express reason of getting to the crux of the matter as was stated in the threads title.As you are also quite well aware of, SP is not against "moderation" but against forms of "regulation" that are used in a censorial way and moreover, in a biased and partial way.If this had not happened, there would not be any problem but it did and there is! Colborn.
Sun, 24/02/2013 – 10:21am SocialistPunk wrote: Why does the SPGB use methods of censorship to control behaviour on their online communication sites? It doesn't. Quote: I hope the party members who support the deletion and disallowance of certain posts will have the courage of their convictions and provide some sort of explanation as to the principle at work behind the use of censorship on the party online sites. This issue has been dealt with extensively on numerous threads over the past four months. It's all played out. Finished, finito, fertig, fini.Comrades are concentrating on, and putting their efforts into, various upcoming activities.The Debatehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/will-there-be-economic-collapse…The By-Electionhttp://spgb.blogspot.co.uk/The Conferencehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/annual-conference-2013to name but a few…You could be helping us in the struggle Gnome, it is "your" conclusion, that censorship is "not used " to control behaviour. A conclusion that I, and othersas well, would disagree with. You go on to say, in four different languages by the way, that this is"played out"! Once again others, myself included, totally disagree with your conclusion, no matter how many languages you choose to say the word "finished" in, even if you include, Finnish.Finally, I take exception to your implied assertion, that this issue is taking presidence over more "important" matters, some of which you mention above! Do you really believe, we are not taking part in the "struggle"? The three examples you have given and I suspect others you were going to give, are all taking place in London or the South! If you did not know, or in fact don't care, some of us are a bit further away.Not to start a, we did this, you did that, playground kerfuffle, when we were active in the N.E. I cannot remember "outsiders" coming up to the boonies to help. Surely you do not need your hands holding do you? Steve Colborn.
"We've got a very general set of guidelines which we try to apply in as fair and sensible a manner as possible to specific situations. Whist trying to be as consistent as possible, " That's fine but what happens when the Moderators very actions are in and of themselves problematic? When these general guidelines are, "not" applied, "fairly and sensibly"!. Unless there is a claim that that this does not, nor cannot happen.But as everyone has seen, unless they were, or are, wearing blinkers, immoderate and biased moderation "has" occured. This very moderation has, in itself, caused many of the problems it is claimed it is set up to deal with. A bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Before anyone puts forward the claim that this trouble was itself caused by a few recalcitrant and self-obsessed individuals, look at the threads in which these events occured, they prove beyond possibility of refutation that this is not the case.There has to be and moreover, needs to be, acceptance on, "both sides", that there has been problems and these problems "have, been caused by, 'both' sides". Until this happens, nothing will change and change there definitely needs to be.Steve.
