Unexplained and unjustified binning of a discussion

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Oct 29 2010 12:02

So basically someone from Organise asked you to bin it and you agreed despite the points I made being "fair enough" as you have a "good relationship" with Organise.

Do you think that is an even handed approach?

Please detail what parts of my argument, up to the point you binned it, could be described as flaming?

_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Oct 29 2010 12:48

My main issue with all of this is that Steven decided to bin a discussion simply because he was asked to by the organisation who were being criticised in the discussion. The fact the the discussion was simply binned without explanation definitely gives the impression that someone was embarrassed by the issue and wanted it swept under the carpet and Steven did so.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 29 2010 12:55
_LIAM_ wrote:
So basically someone from Organise asked you to bin it and you agreed despite the points I made being "fair enough" as you have a "good relationship" with Organise.

Do you think that is an even handed approach?

Please detail what parts of my argument, up to the point you binned it, could be described as flaming?

Maybe I didn't make it clear - I binned it without reading it properly, and later read it thinking some of the points you were making were fair enough.

However, one thing which I also thought was fair enough and would have been polite was you taking notice of the request of the original poster to stop derailing the thread (which is against the forum guidelines) and start a new thread to discuss your concerns.

This would have been the sensible and reasonable thing to do.

You haven't answered if you use to previously post as Liam Derry. Your styles seen similar in that I agree with a fair bit of what you say, but often you seem to say it in a rude and objectionable way which actually harms your argument.

If people want, I could move the discussion instead into libcommunity, but I think the derailing of the thread is grounds enough for binning. in terms of flaming, reminding myself of the contents that wasn't that much of a problem.

flaneur's picture
flaneur
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Oct 29 2010 12:56

Could of got auld Captain Moonlight in and averted this PR disaster. Bertie Ahern is a dirty cunt and all that.

_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Oct 29 2010 13:03
Steven. wrote:
However, one thing which I also thought was fair enough and would have been polite was you taking notice of the request of the original poster to stop derailing the thread (which is against the forum guidelines) and start a new thread to discuss your concerns.

I was not derailing any thread. I was expressing an opinion in opposition to that which was posted by the original poster when I simply questioned the inclusion of a republican. It is a discussion forum. That is what happens. Did they post the event in a discussion forum in the hope that no one might express an opinion?

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Oct 29 2010 13:27
Weeler wrote:
Steven. wrote:
In general, I think the points Liam made were fair enough, although I think the tone was needlessly aggressive. But also I think that having someone do a benefit for you is completely different from having a political working relationship with someone, or even politically supporting someone.

If you only ever had benefits put on by people you agreed with politically on everything, the best you could get would be someone like doing some god awful grindcore shit or revol68 doing some sort of spoken word thing about how he could get him job he wanted, if he could be bothered. And no one is gonna pay to see that.

I think it might be important to point out to the British posters, who may or may not have an understanding of the cultural context in the north of Ireland. Ciaran is open about having served time as a 'dissident' republican prisoner, is a relatively high profile member of a 'dissident' republican group, supports national liberation 'armed struggle' in Northern Ireland and sings songs that often reflect same. This is no problem for Ciaran since he is open about his background and politics, it is however a problem for Organise! who tend to be quite explicit about anarchists not pandering to republicans.

A punter from East Belfast, looking for working class politics outside the business as usual shite offered in Ireland might reasonably be quite uncomfortable about having to stand beside Ciaran's 32csm fans, etc. That siad, they might just as easily be moved by his tune about prod-done-good Joy McCracken - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPH-5zMjNo

Ciaran are you involved in 32CSM?

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Oct 29 2010 13:27

I don't see why the thread can't be kept where it is and the substantive points raised by LIAM addressed. I don't see how LIAM was derailing anything by expressing his concerns about the issue of overt nationalism infecting the workers' ranks.
It would also be useful for an argument to be put forward as to why the thread should be censored - possibly by someone or the organisation that asked for it.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Oct 29 2010 14:19
Steven. wrote:
I binned it without reading it properly

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 29 2010 15:16

actually, , the first thread is still in the bin. There is a second one with the same name in the Ireland Forum with the same discussion. So to be honest I think it might as well stay there to avoid having two threads with the same name in the same forum.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Oct 29 2010 16:33
wrote:
So? We do the site in our free time, for free.

Shock horror, an admin (in a rush and il!l) binned a thread too hastily after being asked by someone from a friendly group, the same group who posted the original post. Note the thread was binned and not deleted.

After realising this was perhaps too hasty, the thread was unbinned. While I can understand Liam being a bit irritated (and on the political issues I probably agree more with Liam than Steven), certain people with no actual involvement deciding they need to jump in and have a little cry about abuse of power is frankly a bit sad. Especially people who seem barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions.

Put simply, the site is moderated. This moderation is done by real people with time constraints. Sometimes mistakes are made, sometimes people make decisions you don't agree with. Where mistakes are made, they will be fixed. If it's just that you agree, it won't.

If "Especially people who seem barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions" is aimed at me then it is a lie and anyone can view my "Track" list to check that. Call it a "little cry about abuse of power" and "a bit sad" if you want but when moderation decisions are involved it's important for others to stand with the underdog (who is usually arguing against moderators & other higher-status users who usually tend to stick up for each other) so he doesn't feel alone, something that can knock the wind out of almost anyone's sails. I realize that from your point of view in this case it looks like Steven is the one who is being ganged up against, which is fair enough, but I still think he is in the wrong (Liam's post #33 is pretty clear and difficult to argue against). It's true I didn't realize the difference between binning and deleting.

As for whether I have any "actual involvement" in this case or not is besides the point, I have actual involvement in this site as a whole, I use it, post news items, have made translations for it, participate in discussions, read and so on. So of course I pay attention to moderation decisions. I am naturally distrustful of concentrations of power and I had taken it for granted that a forum like this is based on the users and the administrators keeping each other in check. Who decides what is a "mistake" or not, obviously the users should have a say too. I am a bit surprised you react like you do, it is an anarchist site after all what do you expect?

On the other hand it's true that we often forget that administrators spend a lot of time doing work that we don't see (deleting spam etc) and don't acknowledge it or thank them. I think overall it is a good site and that is why I contribute to this one and not others like it, so thanks to everyone involved in keeping it up and running.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 29 2010 16:59

That said, we do value and try to take into account people's feedback and views. Especially as we will make mistakes sometimes. Most of the things we do, though, are reversible, and I never deleted or censored anyone's comments here, just moved it into a different area.

I don't think that there is anything we can do now to improve this current situation, however, as there is a new thread with the same title which people are currently contributing to, so I think we should probably draw a line under this.

Thank you also for your kind comments Costas, it does take a lot of time and effort doing boring stuff behind the scenes to keep the site running.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Oct 30 2010 08:52
wrote:
Quote:
If "Especially people who seem barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions" is aimed at me then it is a lie and anyone can view my "Track" list to check that.

I did. As can anyone else who wishes to. You obviously have quite the predilection with moderation decisions - tho I have far more time for genuine comments like this one than the sniping most of your others have been.

And in all likelihood I will continue to do so, so if you want to discredit me next time you should pick a better strategy than using such obvious lies.

_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Oct 30 2010 09:46
Steven. wrote:
That said, we do value and try to take into account people's feedback and views. Especially as we will make mistakes sometimes. Most of the things we do, though, are reversible, and I never deleted or censored anyone's comments here, just moved it into a different area.

I don't think that there is anything we can do now to improve this current situation, however, as there is a new thread with the same title which people are currently contributing to, so I think we should probably draw a line under this.

Thank you also for your kind comments Costas, it does take a lot of time and effort doing boring stuff behind the scenes to keep the site running.

I agree that it is best to draw a line under this now. The reason I pushed it was that I feel very strongly that dissident republicans have no place in progressive politics in Ireland and should be shown up as the backward looking bigots that they are. I was unhappy with how the thread was binned without explanation in an obvious attempt to save Organise some embarrassment.

However I also recognise that Libcom is a splendid resource that serves a very important purpose. Moderation of a forum is not easy and mistakes and poor decisions do get made.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Oct 30 2010 12:19

Agree fully with LIAM above. I can't find where the discussion continues, but a piece of authentic proletarian poetry here: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/7/connolly.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Oct 30 2010 18:43

cheers Liam. And Costas, I'm sure there was no intention to offend you, so apologies if that's how it came out.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Oct 31 2010 05:07

Costas:

Quote:
wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
If "Especially people who seem barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions" is aimed at me then it is a lie and anyone can view my "Track" list to check that

.

I did. As can anyone else who wishes to. You obviously have quite the predilection with moderation decisions - tho I have far more time for genuine comments like this one than the sniping most of your others have been.

And in all likelihood I will continue to do so, so if you want to discredit me next time you should pick a better strategy than using such obvious lies.

Steven:

Quote:
Costas, I'm sure there was no intention to offend you, so apologies if that's how it came out.

I know Liam wants to draw a line under all this, and Costas is obviously very capable of defending himself, but it constantly amazes me, Steven, how - in your diplomatic role - you can consistently pretend that things are not what they are.
Firstly, why is it up to you to claim that there was no intention to offend Costas on the part of ? is not your alter ego, is it?
Secondly - there was a very clear intention to offend on his part: he lied, so as to grossly exaggerate something that clearly grated with him - namely, that Costas had dared to be critical of moderators' censorship decisions, that Costas had dared put his oar in where angels fear to tread, to express a solidarity with someone embroiled in an issue that didn't directly concern him - but then what is solidarity but a refusal to "mind your own business"? Apparently it's fine if posters comments on things that don't directly concern them if they go along with 's ideas, but not if they don't.

I realise, Steven, that you've not been well, with a fever or heavy cold maybe - but cut the habitual "trying to maintain some semblance of order by minimising very obvious antagonisms" bullshit, please - it's almost pathological and unnecessarily irritating. It's part of your role in libcom, but it can't be very comfortable for you, doesn't develop ideas and surely there must be a way of helping the site without always trying to be nice to everyone. Does it create too much anxiety to upset people?

I know a moderator's lot is not easy and often boring, and I agree with Costas that all of you at libcom admin expend a great deal of energy and effort keeping up, "behind the scenes", what is basically a pretty good project overall - particularly the news and the library, which I, and loads of others, find very useful. But let's have some explicit list of reasons why some people get deleted or binned or censored and others, who, as far as i can tell, remain immune to this even though their "crimes" (extreme aggression, in particular) are no better. I guess it's more a question of who you know, who you're friendly with, whose feathers you don't want to ruffle because it would cause too much tension, who's 'in' and who's 'out' - purely subjective reasons given, usually self-contradictorily, some 'objective' criteria (I've seen loads of aggressive posts and lies that never get even a bit questioned).

I've been deleted twice in the past without any explicit reason; but worse - no mention of the deletion (the post just simply disappeared whilst the thread continued as if I'd never posted - no message or anything). The first one I could see the reason for - I'd virtually said something like "you're bound to delete me" but i didn't expect a deletion without the usual "this post has been deleted because of derailment of the thread" or whatever wording (in fact, it wasn't entirely a derailment at all, but that's not worth going into here). Unfortunately I somehow lost my reply to the last, the2nd, unmentioned deletion (my kid probably knocked it off by mistake), and can't remember what it was about as loads of other things have come up since (particularly the movement in France). But I was wondering if anybody else , other than spammers, has been "disappeared" in the middle of threads without the deletion even being mentioned? And what can be the reason for this?

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Oct 31 2010 05:55

It's an amazing likeness of you wheeler, except the mouth seems upside down - like your perspective on life.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 31 2010 09:17

Seriously this is not the Paris Commune, and the mods have pointed out repeatedly it's not a democracy either, it's a forum on a website which they pay for and work on. Why aren't people up in arms at their inability to force Suma to charge less for their soup? Because it's a workers' co-op not a buyers' one. Same thing here.

By all means try and persuade them to change their behaviour when you reckon they've done something wrong, but whinging about them being little dictators is singularly unproductive and actually misunderstands a good portion of why the site exists (ie. to push a specific, albeit sometimes evolving ideological line).

Also Samotnaf, it'd be nice if you, as one of Libcom's worst offenders when it comes to dogmatic screaming and kicking on subjects you don't know much about, didn't criticise Steven for doing his best to be reasonable.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Oct 31 2010 09:50

:

Quote:
"lied" - catch a grip. Check Costas' tracker - literally no need to make any argument here tbh, the posts are right there.

I've just looked and all I can see is his comments on this thread, the "Hakim Bey and Ted Kaczynski threads" thread where I queried the sudden disappearance of Tor SR Thidesen's thread (which was shifted somewhere else,\,as I only found out afterwards), and the " deleted from the union thread? " by fort-da game - as being criticisms of moderator's decisions - 3 out of a total 18 - i.e. less than 17% of his contributions to the site becomes in 's eyes an example of someone who's

Quote:
barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions

- catch a grip.

RobRay:

Quote:
Samotnaf...one of Libcom's worst offenders when it comes to dogmatic screaming and kicking on subjects you don't know much about

I certainly like to scream and kick - but what you think is dogmatic and what you think is a subject I know little about are clearly very different from my notions of these things. But then any significant criticism of journos and I am, in your eyes, by definition, dogmatically screaming and kicking against something I don't know about. Or do you have any other specific examples of my dogmatic ignorance?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 31 2010 09:54
Quote:
Check Costas' tracker

I count three out of the last 15 he's contributed to, so

Quote:
barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions

is too strong but

Quote:
quite the predeliction

Probably isn't, it's a high level given that it's not a massively regular topic (as I suspect mine would be).

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 31 2010 10:02
Quote:
But then any significant criticism of journos and I am, in your eyes, by definition, dogmatically screaming and kicking against something I don't know about.

Without getting back onto that conversation, I don't have a problem with criticism of journalists or journalism - hell I like an awful lot of Chomsky's propaganda model and he's never worked a day in a newsroom afaik (though for the sake of accuracy he has sat in them while other people worked).

Your "analysis" on the other hand was about as nuanced as my slightly racist gran on the subject of travellers, and despite having flaws in your outlook repeatedly pointed out to you insisted that you were right and all journalists MUST be doing outright evil deeds all the time with nothing more in their heads than "how can I fuck over the working class." So yes. Dogmatic screaming. Which frankly I'd rather have less of than of Steven being reasonable.

This isn't, btw, to say you're unintelligent or ignorant, alot of your stuff on France for example is useful and informative. But I think you're less sorted than you think you are on some subjects.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Oct 31 2010 10:57

All that is necessary for mod fascism to triumph is for good posters to say nothing cry

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Oct 31 2010 12:46

RobRay:

Quote:
despite having flaws in your outlook repeatedly pointed out to you insisted that you were right and all journalists MUST be doing outright evil deeds all the time with nothing more in their heads than "how can I fuck over the working class."

This is veering way off-topic, but i can't let this (typically journalistic) parody/falsification of my point of view stand without defending myself.

Where exactly have i said this?

Others can be the judge. My main analysis of journalists - in the specific situation of the 1999 Kosovo war - is here. (particularly relevant is the little bit about Pilger).The most general critique I have of them is that , apart from the least ideologically-imbued journalism (sports, maybe, accident reports, reports on village fetes, etc) they are a hierarchical part of the division of labour, in which identification with their intellectual paid work is utterly incompatible with a critique of this society even when the journalist has some radical content in his/her writings (work and revolt are 2 utterly separate things, for one). See also this.

As for "reasonableness" - this society insists people reason without emotion or passion, that reason and anger are separate. Hence the put-down of people for their hysteria. The violence of critique is often accepted by 'revolutionaries' when it's in the streets or wherever, but when it's theoretically armed anger, then it is considered unreasonable, regardless of its content. "Dogmatic" is the put-down of anyone who holds to a passionated point of view, one that demands decisions be made.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Oct 31 2010 13:41

The fact that you use the phrase "typically journalistic" while attempting to portray me as a liar pretty much proves my point I think - conflating the person with the role in the most tediously mechanistic, dogmatic way possible.

As I say, I'm not interested in driving this off-topic or indulging a sixth round of "snipe and run away when you lose," so I won't bother replying to your general critique - after all you've already provided links to a couple of your greatest hits.

The only thing being "insisted" on here is that people not act like aggressive arseholes because it kills off the prospect of getting anything useful out of the situation - the logical conclusion of a "let your emotions hang out" approach is basically a massacre.

However that is still not what I meant by dogmatic, by that I meant your tendency to repeat your views even when people who know substantially more than you do - often from that personal experience you say you have such high regard for - point out their failings.

Edit: no wait, tell a lie, this is probably your greatest hit.

Guerrillawarfare
Offline
Joined: 31-10-10
Oct 31 2010 16:38

This is nothing new, the libcom elite are known for their fascist anti-revolutionary line (views which oppose the top dogs of the site are regularly dismissed).

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Oct 31 2010 17:07
Guerrillawarfare wrote:
This is nothing new, the libcom elite are known for their fascist anti-revolutionary line (views which oppose the top dogs of the site are regularly dismissed).

is this The Outlaw?

Guerrillawarfare
Offline
Joined: 31-10-10
Oct 31 2010 17:09

?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Oct 31 2010 17:20
wrote:
"lied" - catch a grip.

i'm slightly relieved to see that i'm not the only poster to whom samotnaf has imputed lying.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Oct 31 2010 17:32
petey wrote:
wrote:
"lied" - catch a grip.

i'm slightly relieved to see that i'm not the only poster to whom samotnaf has imputed lying.

Sam thought I was a cop once.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Oct 31 2010 18:36
baboon wrote:
Agree fully with LIAM above. I can't find where the discussion continues, but a piece of authentic proletarian poetry here: http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2010/7/connolly.

ba ha ha ha laugh out loud