Re[4]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Earl,

Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 8:04:34 PM, Earl Heather wrote:

> and therein lies your error
> "The moderators must be able to act independently."

> No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret 
> or without appeal.

There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
today.

> Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what 
> has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to 
> the detriment of the list.

> For example

> WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?

I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.

Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html