| Subject: | [SPIF-Feedback] Forum Management | |||||||||||
| Date: | 5/3/2007 3:58:40 A.M. Central Daylight Time | |||||||||||
| From: | Rick@RickMons.com | |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
| Sent from the Internet (Details) | ||||||||||||
I've been waiting a while to post this as I wanted to post it to Feedback rather than the Issues Forum. So, here's how I intend to manage the Issues Forum ... suggestions are always welcome.
• Rules Violations: Unless the violation is egregious and/or repetitive, I normally won't issue a warning right off the bat. Instead, I'll typically send a member a "cautionary note" telling him or her that I think a post _may_ have violated a rule and asking that they be sensitive to the rule in the future.
Members who have received warnings in the past -- from me or my predecessors -- will probably get less slack than members who haven't received warnings. Newer members who haven't posted previously -- or post infrequently -- will probably get more slack than members who have been around a while.
I'll also issue cautionary notes if I think the member is living "just barely" within the rules. For example, I think at times we have posts that have a real minor St Paul hook but are really written to address their area/state/national agendae.
• Warnings: If the member is receiving their first warning within a twelve-month period, I'll not post their identity on Feedback but I will let folks know at the end of the month whether warnings were issued and the general rule violation. I know that folks can usually figure out who got the warning but I can't stop that and I'm not doing this to "shame or blame" any member. I think it's important to let members know when warnings have been issued in order to let the general membership know that the rules are being enforced.
• Suspensions: The rules provided that if a member receives a second warning in a twelve-month period, that member is subject to a two-week suspension. A third warning within the twelve-month period results in a six-month suspension. I intend to post notices of suspensions in the Feedback Forum once the suspension is given (rather than at the end of the month). Again, this is to make the process more transparent -- a concern I've heard from others and shared prior to becoming forum manager.
• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
For the record, during April I issued two warnings. One was a member's first warning and was prompted by a violation of these rules:
"4. Be Civil - No insults, name calling or inflamed speech. Personal one-on-one arguments, disagreements or personality conflicts are not appropriate on the public discussion forum.
5. No Attacks - Personal attacks ... are not allowed."
The member who received the warning acknowledged that they had "gone over the line."
The second warning resulted in a suspension. Sharon Anderson was suspended for two weeks as a result of her second warning within a twelve-month period. The warning came from a post she made on Apr 15, 2007 entitled "Re: [SPIF] The immediate removal of Aaron Foster from St. Paul Police Department" where she wrote:
EDem-postsFoster
"It is prudent to cite /name redacted/ with Conspiracy to commit Murder."
• Rules Violations: Unless the violation is egregious and/or repetitive, I normally won't issue a warning right off the bat. Instead, I'll typically send a member a "cautionary note" telling him or her that I think a post _may_ have violated a rule and asking that they be sensitive to the rule in the future.
Members who have received warnings in the past -- from me or my predecessors -- will probably get less slack than members who haven't received warnings. Newer members who haven't posted previously -- or post infrequently -- will probably get more slack than members who have been around a while.
I'll also issue cautionary notes if I think the member is living "just barely" within the rules. For example, I think at times we have posts that have a real minor St Paul hook but are really written to address their area/state/national agendae.
• Warnings: If the member is receiving their first warning within a twelve-month period, I'll not post their identity on Feedback but I will let folks know at the end of the month whether warnings were issued and the general rule violation. I know that folks can usually figure out who got the warning but I can't stop that and I'm not doing this to "shame or blame" any member. I think it's important to let members know when warnings have been issued in order to let the general membership know that the rules are being enforced.
• Suspensions: The rules provided that if a member receives a second warning in a twelve-month period, that member is subject to a two-week suspension. A third warning within the twelve-month period results in a six-month suspension. I intend to post notices of suspensions in the Feedback Forum once the suspension is given (rather than at the end of the month). Again, this is to make the process more transparent -- a concern I've heard from others and shared prior to becoming forum manager.
• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •
For the record, during April I issued two warnings. One was a member's first warning and was prompted by a violation of these rules:
"4. Be Civil - No insults, name calling or inflamed speech. Personal one-on-one arguments, disagreements or personality conflicts are not appropriate on the public discussion forum.
5. No Attacks - Personal attacks ... are not allowed."
The member who received the warning acknowledged that they had "gone over the line."
The second warning resulted in a suspension. Sharon Anderson was suspended for two weeks as a result of her second warning within a twelve-month period. The warning came from a post she made on Apr 15, 2007 entitled "Re: [SPIF] The immediate removal of Aaron Foster from St. Paul Police Department" where she wrote:
EDem-postsFoster
"It is prudent to cite /name redacted/ with Conspiracy to commit Murder."
LantryObeseApr07
Code-Corruption
I determined that this was a violation of these Rules:
Rule 5. No Attacks or Threats - Personal attacks ... are not allowed.
Rule 7. Avoid False Rumors, You are Liable - Rumors of a personal
nature are not allowed.
Her suspension ended on May 1, 2007.
Rick Mons
Tanglewood n'hood, Shoreview
More info: Info about Rick Mons: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/rickmons
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/CO7iTDRyPTammsgGFf0DC
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: stpaul-feedback@forums.e-democracy.org
To unsubscribe type "unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the
subject line and send to: stpaul-feedback@forums.e-democracy.org
More info about St. Paul (SPIF) Feedback Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Special thanks to our friends at OnlineGroups.Net
for their technical support in maintaining this site.
http://onlinegroups.net
Code-Corruption
I determined that this was a violation of these Rules:
Rule 5. No Attacks or Threats - Personal attacks ... are not allowed.
Rule 7. Avoid False Rumors, You are Liable - Rumors of a personal
nature are not allowed.
Her suspension ended on May 1, 2007.
Rick Mons
Tanglewood n'hood, Shoreview
More info: Info about Rick Mons: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/rickmons
This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/CO7iTDRyPTammsgGFf0DC
-----------------------------------------
To post, send your message to: stpaul-feedback@forums.e-democracy.org
To unsubscribe type "unsubscribe" (without the quotation marks) in the
subject line and send to: stpaul-feedback@forums.e-democracy.org
More info about St. Paul (SPIF) Feedback Forum:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-feedback
E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Special thanks to our friends at OnlineGroups.Net
for their technical support in maintaining this site.
http://onlinegroups.net
