Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ISTM that a flare up of tempers occured, during which OGW was apparently called a liar, and after which the thread was closed. the accusation was not the sole reason, AFAICS, for closing the thread, but it was certainly part of it. The offending post has been removed. That is my perception of the events, my own honest opinion of what transpired as I recall them now. I am not a moderator, member of the internet dept nor on the EC, my opinion is my own for you to accept or reject as anyone wants.
AFAICS the recent post complained of has been removed. I can't see anything further to be done. Your complaints have been heard, and acted on. A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss, the admin isn't there 24hrs a day.
I answered the question. If you had followed the set out procedure, and clicked on the report button, and then continued the substantive discussion, nothing would have happened to you. You could also have PM'ed the moderator, if you wanted to flesh out your grievance.
1) The originator of a thread does not own the thread, it belongs to the board. Thuswise, it is not for the originator of the thread to declare what is on or off topic, but for the moderator.2) Closing threads does not reflect on the originator of the thread, but on the state of discussion, and the threat to good order on the forum.3) I too was given a final warning, when the moderator issued a general one, and I didn't even take part in the thread. You don't see me complaining.4) People who jump up and down everytime the moderator makes an intervention are more likely to attract their attention than those who duck and cover.2) All Yorkshiremen are liars, you must know that.
Locking threads was another option that was mooted for a 'no attribution' moderation approach. No one is blamed, but the discussion is stopped to prevent tempers flaring. Let's get on with discussing socialism. the authority is the democratic authority of the EC asking the moderators to keep the forum rules.This is an informal list, where the admin is here to join in the discussion under their own name (and to be clear when they are speaking as admin and when not).Finally, that thread had been derailed before Admin's 'C'est n'est pa une pipe' joke, which was a comment on the one preceding it (and to be quite frank, was perfectly on topic IMNSHO, even if some people did not get it).
OGW wrote:If I am included in all posters then I am warned am I not? This final warning is aimed at me as well as 'Ed' telling me that if I respond once to being attacked by one of your members I will be suspended. If this was normal and fair moderation then the warning would have been directed at the person launching the attack and not to all members who are completely innocent of such an offence on the relevent thread.A lot of people have called for soft touch moderation. The first step of which must, Shirley, be general calls to knock it off, without naming names. If infractions continue, named informal warnings, followed by named final warnings, and then banning/moderations follow.The job of the moderator isn't judicial, it's not about who started it, but keeping the forums clear of noise (and the causes of noise).If individuals feel particularly aggrieved, they can report infractions to the moderator, and ask for specific restitution, but we have all been asked not to do this on list. Just as we have been asked to not make pointless posts of the 'I agree' type. All individuals have to do is keep to a few simple rules. Don't flame, don't respond to flames. f you are aggrieved, report via the button.
I'm glad that appears to work; though we should have some reason for caution in such activities:1) Everyone else is doing the same, and there are diminishing returns in the attention economy.2) Relatedly, a few years ago, we had a member who was an enthusiast for Spamming, which we had to curtail. I realise on social media people on your feed want to receive your messages, but, again, too many can lead to a drown out effect, where people may not link through.3) The chief task is to make the debate engaging and informative and to the topic of socialism. That way people will stay and discuss, rather than be driven away.
What they want us to do is get into heated debates about the redistribution of poverty, rather than questioning whether "The poor will be always with us", the bottom line for the Government is that the Tories don't want to give benefits to the undeserving poor, while the Liberals want to give benefits to the deserving poor. Labour has just given up openly espousing giving according to need. What this whole argument opens up, though, is the incompatability of the wages system providing for our needs, when they compare benefits according to need as being unfair compared to the fruits of wages, they are saying, in effect, that the wages system can't provide those things. Perhaps this is where we can point our propaganda.Also, no-one asks the question, what would have happened to this guy's seventeen children if the welfare state hadn't been there to look after them: not in a happy condition, I'd imagine. Let's not forget, that what he did was intimidate and brutalise women to have them serve him, so he pocketed their benefits. If they'd had to work, he'd have still managed to live off them.
In some ways, the project is not as nonsensical as it seems, it has identified, empirically, several major groupings within the British community, and it's terming these 'classes': in reality, you can classify people any way you want, by hair colour, height, hand span, etc.What came out of their list is that really, they were differentiating between different types of people according to their job, with only the Elite (and to some extent the Precariat) outside that. It is fair, in a way, to look at non-monetay factors, such as personal networks, which can be associated with power and ability to play a system.We've never claimed, unlike some leftists, that the working class has a monolithic culture (or that there is some virtue in that culture), but that everyone who receives a wage/salary has the same interest. This is demonstrated most in that the employment case law is often made up of fairly well heeled workers taking their employers to court, and shaping how the rest of us are treated.
There is an official party position on how our delegates to elected bodies will behave, the answer to W.B. of Upton Park (link).
The EC wrote:[our] presence [in Parliament], backed, as it must needs be, by a wide-awake electorate (suggestive of more to come and the threatened "end of all,") would in all probability evoke the initiation, by one or other of the capitalist parties, of measures that may conceivably contain some small advantage for the working-class. Now intellectual vitality requires the continual absorption, and digestion of new facts as they occur. So with Socialism and proletarian politics. The S.P.G.B. is always ready to consider new facts and phases when these present themselves, and therefore the question of whether Socialist representatives should support any such measures in Parliament, is one that we do not, in January 1910, pretend to answer. We can only say as to this, that as we progress and new situations arise, our membership, ever guided by the revolutionary principle of NO COMPROMISE, by our general understanding of Socialism and the requirements of the greatest interest of the working class, its emancipation, will DEMOCRATICALLY direct the action of its representatives.This answer was endorsed by conference and party polls. We would, in Morris' words, go to parliament as rebels and not reformers. Our candidates stand pledged to carry out the instructions of branches locally, and the EC nationally; and they stand on the party's platform, not on their personal attributes/achievement/endevours. Hence why we don't do pictures of candidates on our election material, it's the case, not the face. The only criterion for being a candidate is that a member should have passed the speaker's test, which is a test of whether their understanding of the case is robust enough to answer thjose tricky questions we get in public.
Since no one else has replied, those symbols are working fine on a networked Windows PC using Mozilla…
That would have been twice the damages, say, if they had been exemplary because they were unregulated: plus, maybe a change in culture could come about because the new arrangements may encourage people to turn to the courts, especially against small opponents. It would all depend on how exemplary the damages are, and how much it'd cost for a licence…
My concern was for ourselves: we paid about £4 when we were sued for libel in the early 1900's, now it would be a minimum of several tens of thousands, plus about half a million in costs, before they decide that exemplary damages are due becuase we wouldn't have paid the licence fee.Unfortunately, a rule big enough to take the big boys on would crush us under foot…
Interesting, and much as I'd hope we'd behave: going to parliament as rebels and not reformers (although I'd hope we'd refuse to wear the ties). Of course, that doesn't mean that their politics are laudible, but it still remains an interesting phenomena, and one worth watching. Admittedly, it will lead to further elections, so will their 'revolt' keep going?…
Technically, we do have a ban on factions:
Rule 6 wrote:6. A member shall not belong to any other political organisation or write or speak for any other political party except in opposition, or otherwise assist any other political party(my emphasis — key word is "organisation"), any Militant style faction would have to avoid being a political organisation (with formal membership, officers, policies, etc.) Unlike then SWP, though, we certainly don't forbid agitation for a particular point of view, with a rule that dates back to some arguments in the Social Democratic Federation when our founding members were agitating as an internal tendency:
Rule 5 wrote:Members have the right to attend at meetings of Branches other than their own, and speak with the permission of the Branch, but shall not have the right to vote thereat. Central Branch members, however, shall be informed of a party vote and forwarded a voting paper and shall be allowed to vote through the post or at any one Branch meeting on production of membership card. All members may attend the meetings of the Executive Committee, Delegate Meetings, or Conferences, and with permission may contribute to the discussion.(my emphasis). The SWP actively prevents lateral communication between branches, in a method to ensure that the central organisation retained the control of information, save at regional aggregates (run by full timers). These rules, I'd suggest, would be useful devices to preventing subversion of the party.Equally technically, we do sort of operate a slate system, as our EC is elected by bloc vote, and in the advent of a serious schism, the largest plurality of the party can take all the seats (if it ever becomes that open and formal). Other methods, such as the right to attend and ask for permission to speak, do counteract that, a little.
