USGENWEB-ALL-L Archives
Archiver > USGENWEB-ALL > 2007-09 > 1189544652
From: "Concetta Phillipps" <>
Subject: Re: [ABChat] Fwd: USGenWeb National Mail Lists
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:04:12 -0500
References: <003101c7f4ab$290755c0$a648bcd0@duffy><187863.96702.qm@web80611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <187863.96702.qm@web80611.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
That sounds like a very balanced approach, Scott - I agree. Having dealt
with a GC outside of GenWeb - its not a pretty process and won't end with a
happy resolution for either side of the argument. I think in most cases,
people cool down quickly after sending inflammatory emails and if they
understand moderation is a fairly easy punishment to deal with, they would
be pretty understanding - and they might even catch the lesson that Teresa
was referring to in the moderation time.
Heck, in my mind moderation is more of a punishment on the administrators
because they have to manually go through and check all of the messages and
that takes a lot of time.
Perhaps the GC could get involved in conjunction with the twelve month
moderation period? I think it would make sense at that point since that
would be the third violation and a resolution would need to be made - if
someone's carried an argument out that far, they need to have someone
intervene.
Concetta Phillipps
NENC CC
On 9/11/07, Scott Burow <> wrote:
>
> I would tend to agree with Nola on this one in part.
>
> Generally, appeals or grievances will not be held
> where there is no relief that the reviewing agency can
> grant. Grievances only deal with specific situations,
> and the outcomes do not set precident or have the
> ability to establish rules or guidelines for future
> cases. It's a specific resolution to a specific
> situation.
>
> The Grievance Procedures themselves have built-in
> timeframes which are longer than the moderation
> periods. Once the moderation is lifted at the
> expiration of the indicated time, there is no relief
> for the situation that the GC can give in that case.
>
> In formal terms, any decision made by the GC would be
> moot since the situation self-resolved with the
> expiration of the term of moderation.
>
> I would suggest that it remain as it is for short-term
> moderations, but that in the case of long-term
> moderations that a review by the GC be an option.
>
> Scott Burow
> RAL
>
> --- Nola Duffy <> wrote:
>
> > Teresa,
> >
> > My only thought on the question about providing the
> > option
> > of a grievance is that I can not see how it would
> > be
> > beneficial. The terms of moderation are such that
> > the
> > period of moderation would be over before the
> > Grievance
> > Committee would get around to a formal grievance
> > hearing.
> > If the period of moderation has passed and the
> > person is
> > already re-subbed, why tie up the Grievance
> > Committee for a
> > matter that is already past tense.
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
This thread: