Posted by Lou Pilder on May 16, 2005, at 16:24:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k's reply to Lou- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 22:02:34
a_k,
You wrote,[...the point that you are trying to make...].
I am in agreement with others here that there could, perhaps, IMO, be a better way to have an administrative sanction to a statement be written here. Phillipa wrote,[...more human...].
My suggestion is for an administrative sanction to have the following criteria to be included in the statement by the moderator:
A. That there was a statement that was not acceptable in relation to the guidlines of the forum and that the particular guidline is identified.
B. That the statement in question is identified as to show that it is connected to the guidline that the statement is not acceptable to
C. That the reason is written as to the statement is not acceptable in relation to the guidline in question.
D. That at least one post's URL be cited as to the past practice being followed.
E. That there be an appeal process that does not include any moderator on this forum.
F. That if a past post can show that the statement had been previously allowed, then the sanction could be recinded.
G. That if the moderator can not post a previous URL to show the past practice of the sanction, then the sanction be recinded and a new policy be written for the FAQ to now include the statement as unacceptable.
H. That while there is a possible appeal in progress, the the poste in question not be kept from posting , but that the poster's post be limite to 3 per day untill the adjuducatiojn process is comp[leted.
I. Other good and just suggestions
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:493677
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/498589.html