I understand from Alf that he's been banned - can I ask why?

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 19:38
I understand from Alf that he's been banned - can I ask why?

Has posting a link to another site become a banning offence or is it just because it's the ICC? Most people who've been banned in the past have been given 'public' warnings - I don't remember any such here.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 5 2011 19:40

He's been temporarily banned for spamming ICC links, ICC members having been repeatedly warned for this before, so please save the faux-innocence. The stats are pretty damning.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Apr 5 2011 19:46

Ok so its a temp ban. I thought it was permanent. Not such a libcop decision afterall wink

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 19:55
Joseph Kay wrote:
He's been temporarily banned for spamming ICC links, ICC members having been repeatedly warned for this before, so please save the faux-innocence. The stats are pretty damning.

There's no 'faux innocence' here, if you're referring to the so-called 'debate' (in actuality just another excuse for mobbing) in December about posting links, as far as I remember there was no definitive outcome - and if there was, what was it exactly? That people shouldn't post so many links to other websites, or not post any links at all? It can't be the latter, looking casually through the threads, so I'd be interested in knowing what these 'damning stats' are since then.

Sorry, I'm finding it hard to think it's anything but the petty hatred some people have on these boards.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 5 2011 20:13

I've sorta noticed that I've founds threads much more easier to follow now for some reason. Now I know, much less ICC spam. If you notice miles, Devrim is still alive and posting. Difference is that he bothers to actually write up some shit (or at least paraphrasing the ICC line) rather than a fuckload of links to the ICC website. Not so much derailing of threads anymore.

And miles, it's not hatred. It's fucking sensible moderation. Especially important now that the site appears to have gotten a lot of new posters in the wake of the goings on in the UK.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Apr 5 2011 20:28

i've found Alf to be pretty sound, and polite in discussions, which is more than i can say about myself.

i don't like the ICC line, and i agree with the general idea of making sure ICC don't use libcom to gain referrals, but i'm surprised to hear that Alf is supposed to be the culprit.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 20:34
Khawaga wrote:
I've sorta noticed that I've founds threads much more easier to follow now for some reason. Now I know, much less ICC spam. If you notice miles, Devrim is still alive and posting. Difference is that he bothers to actually write up some shit (or at least paraphrasing the ICC line) rather than a fuckload of links to the ICC website. Not so much derailing of threads anymore.

And miles, it's not hatred. It's fucking sensible moderation. Especially important now that the site appears to have gotten a lot of new posters in the wake of the goings on in the UK.

I'm still trying to understand how posting a link 'derails' a thread. There are plenty of threads that are 'derailed' but this is mostly because posters go off subject or all the little cliques on here start nodding and winking to each other. Sorry, does putting a link in a thread force you to look at it? Have you seen how many links there are in the read on Lenin and state capitalism? Have you seen how long the some of the copy and paste jobs are (not just in that thread)?

According to the 'guidelines' it says

Quote:
Copy and pastes
Do not post up large chunks of cut and paste text, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.

Can anyone explain why, for example Samotnof and others haven't been censured for huge copy and paste jobs?

As for

Quote:
And miles, it's not hatred. It's fucking sensible moderation. Especially important now that the site appears to have gotten a lot of new posters in the wake of the goings on in the UK.

well, all I can say is that the first response of some on here to these new people arriving was

Peter wrote:
No doubt most of them will fuck off of their own accord within a few days but can the clowns who've signed up just to parrot the outrage of the media about a minor amount of vandalism please be banned. They add absolutely nothing to libcom and many have no desire to debate in good faith.
baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Apr 5 2011 21:20

Telling quote from Peter above from Miles that went unremarked upon while Alf is banned from the boards for trying to contribute to the discussion. There are volumes of cutting and pasting going on on these boards.

How many agree with Peter that new people can fuck off of their own accord or if they disagree with him and his positon they should be banned? This appears to be the nub of the question.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 21:36

baboon, the best reply has already been given, perhaps unsurprisingly, by Django, on the same thread

Django wrote:
Peter wrote:
No doubt most of them will fuck off of their own accord within a few days but can the clowns who've signed up just to parrot the outrage of the media about a minor amount of vandalism please be banned. They add absolutely nothing to libcom and many have no desire to debate in good faith.

This is ridiculous - people can register to debate, that's the point of a discussion board. If you're unwilling to defend or argue for your politics when its as easy as it is on the internet then what's the point in having them?

ludd's picture
ludd
Offline
Joined: 4-05-09
Apr 5 2011 22:26

I also feel that Alf was unfairly banned for posting a link to that article. Often I expect threads to devolve into obscure discussions of ICC position so I understand why mods want to discourage posting of links to their site, but in this case the link was useful and very much on topic.

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 21:53
Tommy Ascaso wrote:
We have established that ICC members have been spamming, we offered figures that backed this up, we have warned people about this and Alf has been given a temporary ban for continuing to do it. Peter making suggestions we don't accept has nothing to do with this.

I notice you haven't actually answered my points about copy and paste.

According to your guidelines:

Quote:
Spamming/direct linking
Flooding the boards with links to your site is considered spamming.

First of all, what does 'flooding' mean here? Has Alf been 'flooding' the boards with links? I ask again, what are the 'damning stats' since the tirade in December?

The reference to Peter was in response to Khwaga saying that this was all just "fucking sensible moderation" and nothing more. Actually, in reality it's indicative of the general attitude to people who certain posters don't like or find politically disagreeable. I get the sense it's a kind of 'letting everyone know who's boss' moment.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 5 2011 22:03

You can stamp your feet and play Paxman all you like, but we've been over this before, you don't accept the decision, you didn't before, and you're not going to. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact ICC posters were warned over spamming links, now it's happened again after a spell of improved behaviour they've been deleted and the offender temporarily banned.

What other people may or may not have done in breach of the forum rules is absolutely irrelevant, since other people haven't been formally warned since other people haven't spammed anywhere near as much as the ICC. "Links are not the only issue of course, but they're an easily quantifiable one, and the quantity is frankly quite shocking."

miles's picture
miles
Offline
Joined: 21-09-08
Apr 5 2011 22:07
Joseph Kay wrote:
You can stamp your feet and play Paxman all you like, but we've been over this before, you don't accept the decision, you didn't before, and you're not going to. Fine. But that doesn't change the fact ICC posters were warned over spamming links, now it's happened again after a spell of improved behaviour they've been deleted and the offender temporarily banned.

What other people may or may not have done in breach of the forum rules is absolutely irrelevant, since other people haven't been formally warned since other people haven't spammed anywhere near as much as the ICC. "Links are not the only issue of course, but they're an easily quantifiable one, and the quantity is frankly quite shocking."

Stop being Michael Howard and evading the question - what are the 'damning stats' since the tirade in December that you link to?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 5 2011 22:10

The answer to your question is that ICC posters have been warned, have reoffended, and that's been dealt with. Asking over and over again doesn't change that.

If you don't like the moderation policy, i suggest posting on http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056

Cooked's picture
Cooked
Offline
Joined: 6-04-10
Apr 5 2011 22:13

I can't disagree with the suggestion that there is a tone of spammyness to some ICC posts. But as I said last time links are way better than pastes or less considered posts.

I'm sorry to say but I cant see any reason for the ban beyond a rather petty wish to prevent the ICC from profiting on the libcom infrastructure. Links to sites and writing beyond the libcom domain will only enhance the utility of the site.

Get over the ownership thing it's counterproductive on teh interwebz. Is it a problem if the ICC is top ranked on lots of search engines? (worst case scenario)

(Also you should torrent the library/database to allow "backups" to be made. If the site goes down due to technical or personal reasons all that work will otherwise go to waste.)

Just to add that I am currently not in any org and ICC is not on the list of options.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 5 2011 22:14

Just to be clear (as I was the one that removed the posts), it's not for posting up a link to the ICC site that Alf has been temporarily banned. It's because of the ICC's past behaviour on these boards, some of which admittedly isn't quantifiable but some of which are. When we looked at the percentage of posts with links to their group's websites, the ICC were racing ahead of everyone, with some ICCers having as much as ten times the amount of links as AF, SF and IWW members.. given that context, I think it's fair enough not to treat it the same as someone else posting a link to their group's website as no other group exhibits that kind of pattern of behaviour..

Now the posts that I removed contributed basically nothing to the discussion. I don't mean that in a "the ICC are a bunch of cockmunchers who had nothing to discussions" sense.. I mean the literal, it was just a short blurb and link to an article on their website, sense. That isn't contributing to discussion any more than me leaving a couple of books outside someone's house and ringing the doorbell is a discussion.

A discussion is an interaction, an exchange of ideas.. now since we last warned the ICC they quietened down, which was good and as Khawaga pointed out, discussions have been fairly good of late (and yes, we have had a massive jump in site traffic recently so this is very important). But old habits die hard (for all of us, it's not an ICC-specific failing) and in the libcom group we knew we'd have to keep an eye on it reappearing. Hence we took a firm stance when it cropped up again.

So the ICC are not being banned, and definitely not for their politics. We are temp banning one member for the continuation of past disruptive behaviour that they were warned about.

That's about it, like.. smile

playinghob's picture
playinghob
Offline
Joined: 5-05-07
Apr 5 2011 22:26

I posted my initial response on the original economic blockade thread. I repeat it here:

Quote:
Admin edit - ICC spam, not contributing to discussion and posting a link to the ICC site - Ed.
Quote:
Since when did an ICC link become automatically banned? Yes, sometime ago we discussed excessive links to the ICC site and this was taken on board by the comrades involved.

However, the link in question talks about economic blockades from a French perspective. Solfed made reference to French workers and economic blockades. Mouvement Communiste is also quoted in this thread when discussing economic blockades. So how can an article written by French communists about French economic blockades not be contributing to the discussion?

So would it have been better to post a six page article than a link where people can check it out if they want.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 5 2011 22:37
playinghob wrote:
So would it have been better to post a six page article than a link where people can check it out if they want.

It would have been better to put forward an argument, summarise or pull out key points or facts that seem relevant to what others have said. That would be a contribution to the discussion, from which the discussion could've gone forward. The only place that saying "we wrote this article, you guys should read it" takes a discussion is to the merits of said article, in this case turning the thread into yet another thread about the ICC line on an issue. This happened in the past and ICCers were warned, a return to that kind of behaviour is what we don't want. If the ICC members go a long time without doing that then that's cool, but considering how bad the behaviour was for a time I think it's fair enough that we're taking a more cautious approach..

playinghob's picture
playinghob
Offline
Joined: 5-05-07
Apr 5 2011 22:58

Yeah but the original thread also contained links from Solfed, Mouvement Communiste, The Commune and Red Pepper! And anyway, no matter what I, Miles, Baboon and others say in defence of Alf and the ICC you will all stick to your decision. To me it all seems part of a sustained campaign against the ICC, which never really seems to be far away, it's like waiting to pounce at the slightest excuse. There is little point in continuing with this dialogue.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Apr 6 2011 00:05

Can i ask the mods who have the statistics, how many links are there to the Guardian compared to links to the ICC site?

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 6 2011 00:55
Cooked wrote:
I'm sorry to say but I cant see any reason for the ban beyond a rather petty wish to prevent the ICC from profiting on the libcom infrastructure. Links to sites and writing beyond the libcom domain will only enhance the utility of the site.

Just to repeat what was said on a previous thread; I do know people who avoid this site because of the tedium that the ICC bring with them. And I have been at meetings where their open remarks/questions have killed what looked like a promising discussion. So I don't see the benefits of being bombarded with the ideas of this miniscule grouplet on an open forum like libcom.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Apr 6 2011 01:24
Miles wrote:
I'm still trying to understand how posting a link 'derails' a thread. There are plenty of threads that are 'derailed' but this is mostly because posters go off subject or all the little cliques on here start nodding and winking to each other. Sorry, does putting a link in a thread force you to look at it?

I almost never ever read links, so no-one is forcing me. But a link is kinda like bait. I might not bite, but someone else bites. Bam! All of a sudden someone has an issue with what the ICC wrote in an article or some historical minutae that they diasgree with which leads to derailment. Presto you get a thread yet again bashing ICC and the ICC defending themselves. This used to happen a lot, less so no after the moderation policy was tightened. We're all better for it.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 6 2011 02:40
Cooked wrote:
(Also you should torrent the library/database to allow "backups" to be made. If the site goes down due to technical or personal reasons all that work will otherwise go to waste.)

Just to add that I am currently not in any org and ICC is not on the list of options.

This would need some thought but it's not a bad idea. We'd need to very, very carefully scrub the db before doing anything like this though.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 6 2011 02:50
dinosavros wrote:
Can i ask the mods who have the statistics, how many links are there to the Guardian compared to links to the ICC site?

See when you say things like that, how can I resist...

There are 889 links to the guardian, and 865 links to the icc site.

However, of the links to the guardian, these were posted by a total of 197 unique users, compared to 107 for internationalism.org, so the same number of links have been posted by just over half the number of people.

In terms of individual users this is about the same, the top linker to the guardian has posted 119 links (this is Mark. who did the Tunisia/Libya/Egypt threads- I'd imagine the majority of those links were from those threads, so I'd call this an exception).

The second top Guardian linker has posted 57 links to it - they're also an ICC member, and (somewhat bizarrely) have posted exactly 57 links to the ICC site too (ranked 4th in ICC linkers) - if anything this reinforces our point about posting behaviour. Alf is the top ICC linker, at 217 links (this doesn't include ones edited out by admins like the post being discussed here).

rata
Offline
Joined: 26-09-06
Apr 6 2011 03:34
Cooked wrote:
I'm sorry to say but I cant see any reason for the ban beyond a rather petty wish to prevent the ICC from profiting on the libcom infrastructure.

Moderators made clear what is the reason for temporary ban, but even if the reason is what you say it is, what is the problem with that? Why libertarian collective wouldn't prevent authoritarian grouping from using its infrastructure for promotion?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Apr 6 2011 06:14

miles:

Quote:
why, for example Samotnof and others haven't been censured for huge copy and paste jobs?

I was censured/censored for one recently - they cut the whole thing out (on something by "fish" about the window-breaking on March 26th); I re-pasted just a bit of it later, because otherwise what I had to say wouldn't have made sense. What other stuff are you referring to here?

shug's picture
shug
Offline
Joined: 12-11-06
Apr 6 2011 07:12

Jeez, the mods on this fecking site have a curiously authoritarian take on the idea of LIBertarian COMmunism. Having been accused in the past by the ICC of parasiticism, gangsterism, theft, blah, blah, blah, I’m sure as hell no fan of their organisational practice. But it seems to me to be beyond debate that both their archive and current publications offer a resource that far out-weighs any other group's in our milieu. The notion being voiced here that new-comers will be in danger of being groomed by them bad peoples if they get tempted in by an ICC link is bloody silly. Whatever their faults, the ICC doesn’t suck in the gullible innocent - they are not Trots. (And anyway, their pompous, holier-than-thou self-righteousness would have prevented it even if that was their aim.) I’ll say it again – a link is just a fecking link! You don’t have to click on it. Despite my antipathy towards the ICC’s organisational practice, I find their links almost always worth looking at – but I CHOOSE to look at those links. Thanks for taking the choice away.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Apr 6 2011 07:27
Quote:
I’ll say it again – a link is just a fecking link!
Quote:
"Links are not the only issue of course, but they're an easily quantifiable one, and the quantity is frankly quite shocking."
Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Apr 6 2011 07:51
shug wrote:
The notion being voiced here that new-comers will be in danger of being groomed by them bad peoples if they get tempted in by an ICC link is bloody silly.

None of the admins have said this and it isn't one of the factors behind the decision. Maybe others have said it and yeah, it's silly, the ICC aren't a communist paedo ring. But that doesn't take away from our point, which is about how the ICC generally conduct themselves in discussions (I'll accept that Devrim is an exception here).

playinghob wrote:
Yeah but the original thread also contained links from Solfed, Mouvement Communiste, The Commune and Red Pepper!

I think the fact that there are as many links to the ICC site as to the Guardian posted by half the amount of users is pretty telling as to why you can't compare these groups (not to mention that MC and RP don't have members posting on this thread so it's hardly self-promotion).

playinghob wrote:
To me it all seems part of a sustained campaign against the ICC, which never really seems to be far away, it's like waiting to pounce at the slightest excuse.

See, this seems unfair to me. The ICC have an article on their website about 'interventions in web forums', they have far and away the highest number of links to their own website per member on libcom (in fact, I think the highest overall) and (certainly in the recent past) had a habit of turning all discussions into "ICC line: discuss".. then when we moderate them it's part of our 'sustained campaign' against them. It may seem like a sustained campaign on our part but that's only because it's a sustained pattern of behaviour on theirs..

playinghob wrote:
There is little point in continuing with this dialogue.

Serious question now, would it have been better if I'd just told you I'd written an article about this and gave you a link? Would that have counted as a dialogue? Not being sarky (really, not sure how to convey that properly over internet), this was the first thing I thought when I read your post and reckon it's fairly illustrative of the point we're trying to make..

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Apr 6 2011 09:40

ban revol!

Android
Offline
Joined: 7-07-08
Apr 6 2011 10:02
playinghob wrote:
To me it all seems part of a sustained campaign against the ICC, which never really seems to be far away, it's like waiting to pounce at the slightest excuse

I agree, it is undeniably in my opinion that some posters want the ICC banned form using the forum.

Ed wrote:
The ICC have an article on their website about 'interventions in web forums', they have far and away the highest number of links to their own website per member on libcom (in fact, I think the highest overall) and (certainly in the recent past) had a habit of turning all discussions into "ICC line: discuss".. then when we moderate them it's part of our 'sustained campaign' against them.

While I see the point that the posting of links with a blurb doesn't necessarily advance the discussion. As far as the ICC's 'intervention' goes I don't really see what the problem is, they participate in a discussion forum in order to put their politics across and to that end they post links to their website that are usually related to the discussion. I know this has been stated before but people have the choice to ignore the admittedly relatively high volume of links if they have no interest in the ICC's perspective.