steve colborn
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
" But to be fair, intemperate and inexcusable language was employed by both sides of the debate at times and is to be regretted." Good as far as it goes but to be fairer, one side of this, "inexcusable behaviour", rather than language, was treated far, far more leniently than the other. This, is the main reason, that there was so much acrimony on this site.You say you don't think that anything is broken? Is that not because the side you supported was the one not being immoderately moderated? Think it was!In your conclusion you talk of "trust"! No I do not trust that I will be fairly moderated by moderate, moderators. If you cannot see the implicit bias in the recent moderation, then that just proves the point."However, if those resigning members think the current disagreement on moderation is one of serious democratic principle and that the party is as such undemocratic and not a fit organisation to promote socialism – so be it. Personally, I think they are throwing the baby out with the bath-water."Interpreting again? It is not the Party I see as undemocratic, but immoderate, biased actions of certain, "moderators" that I find, not merely undemocratic but uncomradely, biased and problematic! They have used, "moderation" to exercise, "power and control", a turn of events I find alarming and repugnant. Done, because there is no code to follow for moderators, just their individual interpretations and opinions of events.There has been no evidence of "people skills" that are necessarily required by "moderators", merely the use of "dictat" and that is something I cannot countenance.If you, as I have said, find nothing wrong with the events that have transpired, then so be it. My commitment to Socialism is unswerving. It will merely be carried out, outside of "my" party and more then three decades of working for Socialism, the knowledge and experience gained during this time, from myself and others has been lost to "my" party.Hope you and others do as much over the next 30 years for the cause of Socialism, as we have over the preceeding 30.Steve.
"Most of us have that inbuilt sense of solidarity." I don't think so. Mankind survived in it's earlier forms, not by a sense of, "solidarity", but from being social animals, by necessity. Solidarity is something else entirely. Steve.
By the way, I agree with OGW. I also could care less whether the forum is fair or not, as on 2nd Feb my Form F will be passed by the EC and I am sighing already. Steve.
AJ states, "Again personally, I believe the fact that it has gone on for so long, taken up much of members time and involved party departments and the EC, demonstrates that we take democracy very seriously and every member is permitted free expression (within sensible acceptable limits). I think any reasonable outside third-party would concur with my view." Who decides what are acceptible limits? At the moment, and this is the problem, it is individual moderators who do so, apparently not in a "joined up way", but in a piecemeal, ad-hoc, post by post manner! This is one reason we need strict rules for moderators as much as for those who post.AJ goes on to state, "Members have voted with their feet and departed the debate that some so earnestly wish to continue. Soon they will be addressing an empty house as members will no longer read the thread and delete from their inbox the thread's messages." No one I know that takes this issue seriously wants this debate to continue, and it is disingenuous to claim they do. Quite simply the situation has been pushed upon those who have been continually moderated. Sometimes in a biased way, ( as "others" have gotten away with exactly the same kind of posts). Sometimes moderated wrongly, as I have been. And inconsistently. Your post 67 has proved what SP has previously said, there are those who look upon this thread as one frequented and contributed to, by discontented, malcontents, which your post proves you also belong to this train of thought.By your post it is proved you believe there is nothing wrong! but that it is a minority of problematic posters who are the problem.That rules and regulations for moderators are needed is beyond refutation. Moderation that is, "made up as one goes along", is neither impartial nor unbiased, as has been proven, nor can it be proved to be so.A framework is needed, the sooner the better. Your post (67) has included no recommendations, positive or negative, towards the debate. It has been full of negative comments, indirectly of course, on members who are taking part in this thread, (most of whom have fallen foul of inappropriate moderation) and, by lack of others participation seem to be a clique. I'm not surprised that those who should have been moderated but, for one reason or another were not, are not participating, guilty consciences.By the way Alan, this, as I was informed, is shouting, " It seems to me that they do NOT view recent disputes on moderation as fundamental to internal party democracy despite what other members may like to think" Capitalising the word "not", was completely unnecessary. Notice no quiet whisper in, "your" shell-like!Steve.
Brian, there can be no excuses for the length of time a persons posts, (those in the moderation queue) are taking to clear, as, as far as I'm aware, there is only one person bein subjected to the "moderation queue at the moment. Therefore it should be easy, at this time, for posts to be dealt with quickly and a fast turnaround of these posts managed.One of the regulations that could be applied and a suggestion I should have mentioned earlier but will do so know, is that no moderator who has been in "contention" with a member of a forum, should be allowed to be involved in any decision re that member, at any stage in proceedings. If necessary, a moderator from a different forum, should be asked if he/she would be prepared to step in and officiate. I imagine this procedure would not happen many times and again, would prevent the possibility of accusations of "bias", or at least cut down on the chances of such an eventuality. But all of this can only be done through "trust". Trust that these procedures would be followed and that "involved moderators" would not make these decisions anyway but claim they had been made by others and that there was no collusion "between" moderators.Finally, and in direct relation to this last point but others as well, there should exist, an ability for independent "oversight" completely seperate from the internet department.Before I finish, I must draw attention to something mentioned by SP. Why are not more people contributing, to what is, after all, a very important issue? Is no one else concerned about an issue that could shape, at least in part, an important democratic process within the party and set standards for the future?This issue is at least as important as a book reading club! Steve.
An addendum to my post above. Contributors to this thread may find it helpful to acquaint themselves with KLOE's, if they are not conversant with this term, possibly by googling it! It would give an insight into what it is that we are trying to achieve.Steve.
Brian, I totally agree with your comments above. The use of, "a friendly comment drawing *attention* to any breach", would be more appropriate to the term "moderation" than an instant warning. It would apply the precept of facilitator, rather than any perception of "contoller in chief". It would be more in line with the feelings of "comradeship" and comradely discourse that, in the case of this Forum, it should be all about.This thread that you started should be drawing on, "best practice" that have been garnered from the, "wider world" by comrades and contibutors. We should, as you have said, look to revise and then set up a set of principles and directives that would avoid the conflicts we have seen, by guidelines which would avert ill feeling and circumvent, as far as is possible, any accusations of "bias".The use, as you have pointed out, of KLOE's to help us devise such a system, as I have found out in my role on a local ALMO, is pivotal in helping the conclusion we need.A collection of human beings who have come together to fight for an alternative to Capitalism, should find this simple by comparison. All it takes is reasoned, rational discussion.Hope you achieve it Brian. Hope it comes about before my form F goes through. Yours for an end to this insanity, Capitalism,Steve.
This is off-topic. OGW posted at 11.35, his post is still not up at 258, why not. How long does his, "moderation queue probation go on? how many weeks? You just doing his moderation queue on an ad-hoc basis?This is wrong comrade!Steve.
This is off-topic. OGW posted at 12.26, his post is still not up at 2.47 am, why not. How long does his, "moderation queue probation go on? how many weeks? You just doing his moderation queue on an ad-hoc basis?This is wrong comrade!Steve.
Well said Brian, you have put it in a nutshell and backed up what a lot of comments on this thread have stated. Immoderation of posts, as well as inconsistency. This is the reason for my resignation. Be well comrade, keep up the good work on this thread, Steve, the mad northern numpty.
Tom, this is the language I, as a worker use. It is all I need to use. You talk of posters on this thread using, intellectual language! I do not, never have, even when I did my degree. I do not use, for instance, language such as this, "I should certainly be in a better position to respond to you if you would convey your thoughts in clear English rather than wrapping yourself in academic terminology and…well…sesquipedalian rumination". What does that mean to anyone. Is it not "intellectual jargon"? The case for a sane society is basic. No equivocation, or prevarication, just simple prose.Let "our betters" and those they employ to justify the unjustifiable use this rubbish. Cuts no ice with me, or The Socialist Party. Our arguments are, as they have ever been, incontestable and unaswerable.,Steve.
It is useful for the ruling class, of any given epoch, to promote differences between the class that is ruled. It gives justification and legitimation to any discrimination they would like to purport to exist whilst, at the same time, setting the "ruled", one against another.The perfect example, made much of in recent times, which has nothing to do with race, sex, or for that matter any other kind of stereotype, is that of the "skiver or striver", the "shirker or worker". It legitimises the actions of our betters, and moreover, takes the debate away from where it should be, the debate of the inequality, that exists in "class based society". The inequality that causes all of the problems inherent in these societies.That a minority own and control the means of life itself. Instead of us "plebs" debating what would be in "our interests", the ruling elite have us debating the minutiae of the irrelevant, as in this discussion. It has been mentioned of what we think about as we walk down, in this instance, any street in a muticultural area? I, personally, don't think of blacks, or any racial stereotypes, sex, age, or any of the other, discriminatory aspects so beloved of those who would drive a wedge amongst workers. I do not look at someone with a, "carry out" and think, "oh theres a doley with his booze, instead of the lazy bastard getting himself a job! Or a person with a walking stick and me thinking, oh theres someone, "swinging the lead", pretending to be disabled, in order to live the life of Rielly on benefits, instead of contributing to society.You may consider, that these arguments are not relevant in a discussion on the existence or not, of racial "types"! I would say they are all, much of a muchness. All of these discriminatory debates are for the simple purpose of keeping workers fighting each other. Black against white, worker against doley, the disabled against the able-bodied. They are not debates we, as workers, should give credence, credibility, or house room to.The minority ownership of the means and instruments to produce what we, as human beings, need to live is where "our" attentions should be! It is this, that causes hunger, homelessness, war, depletion of "scarce" resources, degredation of the planets biosphere. So-called racial groups do not cause this, nor do doleys, the disabled, the old, ad-infinitum.They are nothing more than red-herrings that suit the ideological hegemony of these, so-called betters. Of the ruling class. To get involved in them, detracts from our focus. The realisation of a fair and equal society. Where the world and everything in it and on it, belong to us all, and is used for the betterment of humankind. Regardless of sex, age, or "supposed racial" distinctions.That we have to engage in debates with those who put forward these, unsupportable arguments, draws us away from where our "attention" should be and gives aid and comfort to the present owners of the world.Steve.
I'm afraid Adam, you are missing the obvious! All of the armoury of thought suppression are being brought to bear. When was the last post from OGW allowed? even though there has been a "moderator" on this site, for a considerable time tonight. Think about it Adam?It's not moderation, it' censorship! Steve, the mad northern heed banger.
Brian, you say Vin is stuck in a moderation queue? Are you aware Vin has not been apprised that this type of moderation has been applied to him? Vin has served his suspension, so to me, this is nothing more nor less than the individual censorship of a party member. Where have these people recieved this "power". Nothing about this type of high handed moderation has been discussed, or passed by the EC! Now do you see what I have been on about?Steve.
