Can infractions be issued anymore?

[TomUK]

I always understood the conciliator programme to be an integral part of the infraction system. If members received an infraction then it was their right to here that infraction appealed via an appeal utilising a conciliator appointed by Erwin. That conciliator programme has now collapsed. I don't for a second doubt the ability of the current team but i don't believe there is sufficient of them to deal with the current issues. If it is deemed that there aren't enough concilators then can it be justified for members to receive infractions?

[JeffreyLloyd]

Yes they can still be issued.

[drstevej]

It's 2.9 times easier to issue them now!

[Br. Max]

Don't worry - the public appeals forum will be closed soon enough. Then there will be no need for even the appearances of fairness and the rest of the conciliators will be given the boot.

[Swart]

I fear that what will happen now is that only warnings will be issued unless there is an actual breach of the rules. With Rule 2.9, what will happen is that a moderator will warn you for some nebulous thing. Since warnings are not appellable there is zip you can do about it.

If you repeat the thing you were warned about, you will then be infracted under rule 2.9. If you appeal the infraction, the substance of the initial warning won't be brought into evidence.

I asked a question on "How do I upgrade a warning to an infraction" in the How-to forum. A mod started debating with me and I replied that I didn't want to debate, I was only asking a question. The thread was closed and five of my posts deleted on the basis that I was debating and the question was answered. The mod's post remains and is now structured to loook like the question was answered to my satisfaction.

Sucks.

I received a rule 3.2 warning for linking to Seebs' blog on the basis that it was an "obscene" website. I have asked repeatedly for the warning to be upgraded to an infraction but that has been denied. I have been warned that if I attempt to post a link to his site then I will be issued with an infraction - however that infraction will be under rule 2.9.

[kimber1]

jeff, has any word been mentioned in staff forums as to why the conciliators and now the ombudsman have dropped off like flies?

[JeffreyLloyd]

jeff, has any word been mentioned in staff forums as to why the conciliators and now the ombudsman have dropped off like flies?

No mention at all anywhere (that I have seen).

[Swart]

Well, Deren certainly doesn't seem to be getting any infractions:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5615510

Don't you just feel the Christian love?

[Crazy Liz]

I fear that what will happen now is that only warnings will be issued unless there is an actual breach of the rules. With Rule 2.9, what will happen is that a moderator will warn you for some nebulous thing. Since warnings are not appellable there is zip you can do about it.

If you repeat the thing you were warned about, you will then be infracted under rule 2.9. If you appeal the infraction, the substance of the initial warning won't be brought into evidence.

I asked a question on "How do I upgrade a warning to an infraction" in the How-to forum. A mod started debating with me and I replied that I didn't want to debate, I was only asking a question. The thread was closed and five of my posts deleted on the basis that I was debating and the question was answered. The mod's post remains and is now structured to loook like the question was answered to my satisfaction.

Sucks.

I received a rule 3.2 warning for linking to Seebs' blog on the basis that it was an "obscene" website. I have asked repeatedly for the warning to be upgraded to an infraction but that has been denied. I have been warned that if I attempt to post a link to his site then I will be issued with an infraction - however that infraction will be under rule 2.9.

You could test whether the foundation for a 2.9 re-posting violation requires an actual rule violation in whatever you are re-posting. If it does, and your previous post contained no rule violation, then the 2.9 would be invalid.

The other possible interpretation is that it means posting on any topic the staff, for whatever reason, feel needs not to be discussed. I'm not 100% sure AA still thinks that's a correct interpretation.

[Dorothy]

So why do we think the ombudsman is gone? Are we sure about this or is it a rumor? I get confused.

[Crazy Liz]

So why do we think the ombudsman is gone? Are we sure about this or is it a rumor? I get confused.

ProfessorMom still has an ice-cream cone. I understand she has submitted her resignation, but apparently it has not been accepted yet.

[Br. Max]

does anyone know why she has resigned?

[CaDan]

does anyone know why she has resigned?

Blame it on Cain
Don't blame it on me.
Because it's nobody's fault
But you need somebody to burn.

[Joykins]

*deep sigh*

[BelindaP]

Joy!! You're back. How was your vacation?

For the record, resigned or fired?

[Joykins]

Joy!! You're back. How was your vacation?

For the record, resigned or fired?

My vacation was lovely. 2 weeks on the Redneck Riviera, I mean the Grand Strand :)

To answer your second question, yes. That is, I resigned, told PM to remove me soon, she said she'd like me to stay a while but when I logged on on Wednesday I magically discovered I wasn't a conciliator anymore. Which was fine as I had no intention of doing the job, but weird that no PM was involved.

Joy