Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1213/hc07/0779/0779.pdfIt looks like this is the key paragraph:
Leveson wrote:It should be open any subscriber to a recognised regulatory body to rely on the fact of such membership and on the opportunity it provides for the claimant to use a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. It could request the court to encourage the use of thatsystem of arbitration and, equally, to have regard to the availability of the arbitration system when considering claims for costs incurred by a claimant who could have used the arbitration service. On the issue of costs, it should equally be open to a claimant to rely on failure by a newspaper to subscribe to the regulator thereby depriving him or her of access to a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. Where that is the case, in the exercise of its discretion, the court could take the view that, even where the defendant is successful, absent unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the claimant, it would be inappropriate for the claimant to be expected to pay the costs incurred in defending the action.What he is suggesting is an independent board, funded by publishers, to regulate and uphold standards. Such a board to be "recognised" by a statutory body, and the advantage to publishers of joining may be that it may costs more to defend libel actions if you haven't joined the regulatory body. That does effect us, slightly, but doesn't change our real position as we already stand at risk from libel actions.
I haven't called you a SPAMBOT or said you were disrupting meetings, in fact, I am not discussing you at all. I said as much right at the top. I am talking about moderators and the need for moderators. I am discussing how, substantially, the way we moderate this forum is how we moderate our public physical meetings.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:A forum is not comparable to a public meeting. A chairperson ensures that only one person is speaking at any one time. In a forum many people may speak at once and the ‘listener’ can read all contributions one at a time. No need for anyone to wait in a queue or for the chairperson to shut anyone up. ANYONE can contribute: You either read or ignore.Indeed, but we have seen that unconstrained posters can drown other contributions out, and "suck the air from the room" typically by making any topic about them rather than the subject at hand. Some effort is needed to make sure that people stick to the topic of debate and behave in an appropriate manner.
Quote:The ONLY reason I can think of for a moderator to shut a comrade up is if the member threatens or abuses another member and refuses to stop. I have never done this. I have been threatened and abused myself by a member and when I pointed this out, I was suspended. This is why I am not very happy. I am owed an apology and an explanation.That is one of the reasons, but, as we saw today, a SPAMBOT broke through and sent a lot of garbage to the General forum, which the Moderator had to nuke. Or should we give SPAMBOTs the vote? I don't think we need to wait for a threat, neither. I expect Moderators to break fights up.
Quote:There needs to be an open free discussion on the role and behaviour of ‘moderators’.We're having it, now.
Quote:For example, unlike a chairperson they are not elected at every ‘meeting’Neither are chairs at public meetings elected by the meeting, they are normally elected by the branch at the previous business meeting. Like public meetings, the members of the public do not have a voting say in how our meetings are run.
Quote:How would you like it if a chairperson at a socialist meeting told you to shut up at future meetings until you have taken the matter to your branch and the Annual Conference? I think you would probably leave the party.I'd raise the matter at my branch. Luckily, this has never happened to anyone, including you. At branch, I could be asked to leave the room if I was disrupting the meeting. If I carried on, I, like any member who persistently disrupted meetings could expect to be expelled from the party.
Quote:The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension.Yes, they do: there are seven rules members have to abide by, and breaking them is grounds for moderator action to prevent further breeches. If you post a long signature, forget to trim, cross post, abuse, flame, send personal messages or keep going off topic, you break the rules.
Quote:Comrade, perhaps you would have a change of opinion if YOU were suspended for nothing. Banning someone from a forum should be a last resort. Are you suggesting that the moderator should have the right to ban someone who offers an opinion he disagrees with? The forum rules do not stipulate the grounds for suspension. It is left to the mederator's whim. If you believe I wass rightly suspended. Perhaps you could explain. No one else has botheredI've no idea if you were 'rightly' suspended. I'm not the moderator, and I haven't been following your case. What I support is the concept of the moderator, and that the moderator is answerable to the party not to the participants of the forum. I doubt I would change my mind, I've been 'unfairly' shut up by a meeting chair before now, and recognise their job is to keep order and keep discussion flowing. Them's the breaks.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Rules:2. Resist forwarding messages.3. Keep signatures to a maximum 4-5 lines.7. DO NOT cross-post to this forum.8. Personal abuse, flaming and trolling will not be tolerated.9. Please keep your posts trimmed so not to include unnecessary text.10.Personal messages should be sent by personal email, not to the forum.new rule. to keep discussion on topicIf you look at the resolution that adopted the rules, only the above were actually mandated by the EC: "*Motion 7* – Poynton and Browne moved that all the above existing rules, except rules 1, 4, 5 and 6, and a new rule to keep discussion on topic, be adopted for the new forum. Carried (9 for, 0 against)"Rule 8 (as was) implicitly recognises the need for a moderator (though, maybe, going by the wording, it should be known as the Intolerator). There has to be someone doing the tolerating. Likewise, the new rule requires someone/thing to police the topics. You cannot will the ends unless you will the means.If you want this changed, write to your branch (or any branch), and propose an item for conference, or a motion to the EC). However, I'd say those rules are hardly controversial, IMNSHO.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:My topic inviting discussion on forum rules has been moved to website technical. My topic is not a 'technical problem' it is about democracy. I wish to open up a discussion on forum rules and moderation. […]If I receive no response to my post then fair enough I will leave, but to remove my thread to website technical is discriminatory against me.Discussion about the running of this forum/website belongs in the proper board. Questions about how the admins run things properly belongs in Website/technical.To be frank, General is a bad name for a board, and it should be something like Topical/theoretical.This topic should be moved to the technical board.
One question that interests me is the separation of price and value. It is possible for valueless objects to have a price (since anyone can agree to exchange anything for anything). Antiques, art, found objects, valueless but people may swap them to their hearts content. Say I swap a painting for a rock, for example. Now, if we have two valueless objects exchanged in terms of a third valueless object, we have an extended valueless exchange expressed in a price.Essentially, robots could trade virtual money for virtual products, almost endlessly. Markets could continue without value production, replacing system signals for value judgements. Thus, there is the prospect of markets continuing, and life with it, without descent into machine induced barbarism.Charles Stross, in his novel 'Accelerando' has a joke incident in which someone patents a method of central planning involving shell companies; but the idea does intrigue me, could robots (physical and electronic) eventually lead to a situation in which humans don't need money?
And just for ego sake:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjPpcP9hkpoThat's a varient version of the talk (I think a bit more detailed on the question of Singularity)
The Article wrote:“The relative advantages of humans and machines vary from one task to the next. Imagine a chart resembling a topographic cross section, with the tasks that are ”most human” forming a human advantage curve on the higher ground. Here you find chores best done by humans, like gourmet cooking or elite hairdressing. Then there is a ”shore” consisting of tasks that humans and machines are equally able to perform and, beyond them an ”ocean” of tasks best done by machines. When machines get cheaper or smarter or both, the water level rises, as it were, and the shore moves inland.” (“Economics Of The Singularity” (link))Specifically, it's not robots building robots, but robots designing robots that puts the dagger to the heart. (Hanson's article is worth a read too).To put the contrary case to ALB, in the 1960's the Wilson government had to seriously debate whether the economy could afford to raise the school leaving age to 15, in terms of lost workers. The Blair government tried to create an effective school leaving age of 21 (for half of all children). Look in agriculture and just how few are employed in what was once the most labour intensive of industries (and, as I saw someone say recently, look at all those Discovery channel documentaries on "How it is made" to just see how automated production is. Look at "Self-service" in supermarkets, one person works four or five tills now.I went round Cambridge Press's print works last year, they take up half the space they used to, and the handful of staff keeping the presses turning wouldn' take that much replacing (especially if you could create expert systems to do the design/layouts and editting).The summer school version of the talk, I used the analogy with Gold. When party speakers were defending the labour theory of value, some objectors would say a lump of gold found with no effort would have immense value. Our writers/speakers replied, that that value included all the time spent looking and not striking gold. So the digital economy goes, people write programme, practically for love, and some get lucky when their design proves popular.Those who strike gold will need services (servants, assistants, etc.), and in turn they will need services as well, so the growth of the service industry is in line with the rise of automation (and may, even, be an index of it).
Actually, here is the formal ideology of the leadership:http://www.etuc.org/a/10439
ETUC EC wrote:3. While supporting the objective of sound accounts, the Executive Committee consider that the recession can only be stopped if budgetary constraints are loosened and imbalances eliminated, with a view to achieving sustainable economic growth, and social cohesion, and respecting the values enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.[…]5. The Executive Committee note mounting opposition among citizens and workers in the countries concerned and reaffirm their support for affiliated unions fighting for decent working and living conditions. This situation results from the lack of coordination of economic policies and the absence of minimum social standards throughout Europe. In the context of free movement of capital, this gave free rein to competition between states, in particular in the field of taxation, labour costs and social conditions.[…]7. They recall that the Union is treaty-bound to “work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment”. They further recall that the ETUC’s support for the Lisbon Treaty was mainly predicated on the full application of those objectives.So, it's the old social democrat argument of improving living standards through growth: make the pie bigger, rather than change the division. Of course, the ETUC has to make its demands coherent to Eurocrats, but it is being a loyal opposition, rather than an insurgent. Useful infographic:http://strongerunions.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/14nov-info-1000.png
I reckon it is the class in itself, rather than for itself. The oppositional tone (against Austerity) and calls for vague "Alternative" and investment suggest it is more about adopting a negotiating strategy, and putting down a marker to show that the bosses can't impose whatever settlement they want. The lack, though, of any specific demand, or overall narrative suggests there is no advance in the situation of being a class for itself consciously taking control of society. As such it is part of the necessary political theatre of existing society.I've finally managed to source E.P. Thompson's distinction between plebeian and proletarian politics*:
E.P. Thompson wrote:A plebs is not, perhaps, a working class. The plebs lack a constancy of self-definition, in consciousness; clarity of objectives; the structuring of class organisation. But the political presence of the plebs, or "mob", or "crowd" is manifest…Even when the beast seemed to be sleeping, the tetchy sensibilities of a libertarian crowd defined, in the largest sense, the limits of what was politically possible[…] It bred riots, but not rebellions: direct actions, but not democratic organizations.Taken at this level, the ETUC should be seen in contrast to Occupy, in terms of its deliberateness and organisation. The fact that it has commanded a demonstration across many countries, and drawn in countless thousands participants more than Occupy managed.If it lacks socialist consciousness as such, it at least has those working class values that may build for a halfway decent defence of our interests within capitalism. The question is how we address ourselves to it. *Patrician Society, Plebeian CultureE. P. ThompsonJournal of Social History , Vol. 7, No. 4 (Summer, 1974), pp. 382-405Published by: Oxford University PressArticle Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3786463
I covered this in a Standard Article (and talk) some years ago. One possibility is that price and value totally separate, and computer generated prices, from robot markets, come to predominate (the mechanism would be absolute rent, charged on intangible fixed assets), that and taxation may well slow down the collapsing rate of profit. The other, scarier prospect, is that capitalist growth grinds to a halt, and decadance ensues, with huge megaslums of surplus population growing even in the advanced countries. With no economic muscle, the working class would be prey to strong centralised states, administering state capitalism, as the last capitalists fight between themselves for the diminishing profits. I'm afraid robots can't replace class struggle politics.
Just been reading up a bit more about the Gale-Shapley algorithm, and thinking a little about whether it would be useful to socialism.Now, their stable-matching algorithm is used in an example of pairing off men and women, so that in the end, even if people don't get their first preference, no better preference is available. That is, they are two-way allocations in which both parties have to agree, based on a expressed ordinal preference of the available options. So, it wouldn't be any good for, say, choosing tellies over oranges. It thus isn't much cop for consumer products. Yes, it would be very good for, say, housing (indeed, our speakers can now answer: "How will you handle housing in socialism with the confident answer "With the Gale Shapley Stable Matching Algorithm" – exciting).But, as the Miseans say, the problem for socialism isn't the consumer goods, but putting the means at the service of the ends, deferred consumption through intermediate inputs. I think this algorithm could help at that stae. Robin has often mentioned that we might have to, say, prioritise hospitals over hotels. So, the bed linen warehouse could well have a model of, say, proximity and priority (a hospital on the otherside of the planet would get a lower score than one next door, say). So, the hospital (or hotel) would "shop around, giving out a list of where it wants to get linen from, and then the information clearing houses could run the algorithm, and see which warehouse could provide them, and come up with the best match.Consumer "Co-ops" (for want of a better term) could bid on packages, so not just choosing between warehouses, but also packets of goods, say 10 tellies from warehouse A versus 4 tellies from Warehouse B (warehouse A could also offer a 2 telly package). The warehouse could rate its "customers" (How often, proximity, priority, etc.) and so both sides could negotiate to try and meet their obligations under a fairly general worldwide agreed plan.This could also, even, answer the infamous Platinum bicycle question. The platinum mines could well have their own allocation rankings, that would simply preclude any frivolous use of a rare resource (although such rankings could be open to renegotiation, outside the algorithmic calculation).The shorter version, though, is that those powerful minds currently beign turned toward calculating the latest odds for William Hill would be turned to working out the best way to organise production. What we have are glimerings of what could become possible.
Stuart, late of this parish, as found a good article:http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/a-nobel-for-planning.htmlSome of the articles linked to are very detailed, so not for the layman, but overall, the post makes the same point we do. We need to find some way to publicise this stuff more…
Let's not forget, one of the reasons for crisp packets is the common law of duty of care and vicarious liability: they provide a high standard of hygene and food protection (so greens who complain about food packaging have to answer how we can get round such measures).Admittedly, Alan's roadside vendor sounds more like what I was talking about, people would make and give out crisps (and otehr food), but, perhaps not on a street corner all day. It sounds like an obscure subject, but within such microscopic events lie macroscopic questions.
