New warning/infraction system and new appeals system

[arborvita]

Glad none of this matters to you but since you brought this up. The advisors authority has not changed and will remain the same. Just as you know from serving as a CF site advisor people can be banned under extraordinary circumstances I mean after all you issued at least one that I can think of.

 

[Letalis]

Glad none of this matters to you but since you brought this up. The advisors authority has not changed and will remain the same. Just as you know from serving as a CF site advisor people can be banned under extraordinary circumstances I mean after all you issued at least one that I can think of.

Actually I probably issued more like four.

Just as I know. Not every member has been an Advisor.

 

[CaDan]

Umm . . . .

While I am entertained by this little discourse, I'd like to know what actions draw warnings and what actions draw infractions.

 

[Tychicus2]

You know the score, pal. If you're not cop, you're little people.

~Blade Runner

Unfortunately very true... Not just at CF...

In fact, according to this policy it's almost impossible to be permanently banned, and yet that probably isn't accurate. Members should be fully aware under what circumstances they can be banned, including extraordinary circumstances, so they can modify their behavior accordingly.

WHAT !!! TPTB ought to actually communicate with the rank and file at CF ???

Now that would be a NEW and Worth While Policy worthy of Support !!!

 

[Gwenyfur]

ummm I thought it would be obvious...

violating CF Rules will bring warnings and or infractions based on severity and frequency of violations

Stop splitting hairs

 

[Gwenyfur]

...Members should be fully aware under what circumstances they can be banned, including extraordinary circumstances, so they can modify their behavior accordingly.

What exactly is so hard to figure out...members agree to abide by the rules when they register...terms of service sound familiar...

What is it with CF members that makes everything have to be spelled out 20 times instead of here's the rules, members are expected to post without breaking them.

A little common sense goes a long way...especially with former staffers nit picking.

 

[Letalis]

I'm not trying to start some "bash on staff" thread. I just want to know why this document omits important information regarding upper management's discretionary authority. Not only does it do that, but it gives members the false impression that permanent bans are almost impossible to issue.

I don't see what purpose it serves to be deceptive with policy.

 

[Letalis]

You guys really need to work on that whole PR thing. Attacking members for little to no reason doesn't really look that good.

What is it with CF members that makes everything have to be spelled out 20 times instead of here's the rules, members are expected to post without breaking them.

Except those rules that are so obvious to you and I aren't obvious to members uninvolved in CF internal politics.

Arborvita just said it: The advisors authority has not changed and will remain the same. Just as you know from serving as a CF site advisor people can be banned under extraordinary circumstances

I'll ask again: Why isn't this apparent in your policy? Why does the policy manager think permanent bans are almost impossible to issue?

 

[meh]

Can we please not do this?

Letalis, it was not deception. We just simply didn't think to include anything. Now that you've brought it up, we'll have to look into adding some wording.

 

[Letalis]

Letalis, it was not deception. We just simply didn't think to include anything. Now that you've brought it up, we'll have to look into adding some wording.

Thank you, Meh.

 

[Letalis]

Can I just say: Geez! I didn't even want a fight.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

ummm I thought it would be obvious...

violating CF Rules will bring warnings and or infractions based on severity and frequency of violations

Stop splitting hairs

I'm sorry to say I am yanking my hair out everytime upper staff members treat us lowly CF members as stupid.
The rules are being constantly changed and for some of us it is hard to keep up with all the changes.

I resent your remarks Gwenyfur especially this comment
"What is it with CF members that makes everything have to be spelled out 20 times instead of here's the rules, members are expected to post without breaking them."
I may not be your target subscriber or a site supporter, I can't afford to subscribe as I have to feed my kids,, but I am a member of this forum and would like to have announcements worded for Joe Small to understand.

Thank you.

 

[Letalis]

Crazy Liz?

ETA: Oh, nevermind. It's the avatar.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

Crazy Liz?

ETA: Oh, nevermind. It's the avatar.

Sorry .

 

[MrJim]

Maybe someone should explain further this fiasco-in-waiting:

Concerning all Members of Congregational Areas
All moderators of all faiths will be moderating all areas of the Congregational areas.

CF is an ecumenical forum, in that light, we will not assign moderators according to the Christian icon held by a particular forum.

This means that the moderators of your area may not personally hold the doctrines you do, but they have agreed to be unbiased and fair in the application of CF Rules.

We will not regress into the days of Protestants vs Catholics, or baptist only mods, or this icon only mods allowed in this area of Congregational areas. It is counter productive to fellowship and understanding.

This is a non-negotiable point of policy.

__________________

Guess it's tied in with all the changes being talked about here

 

[CaDan]

ummm I thought it would be obvious...

violating CF Rules will bring warnings and or infractions based on severity and frequency of violations

Stop splitting hairs

They are not hairs--they are human beings.

What draws warnings and what draws infractions?

 

[meh]

Maybe someone should explain further this fiasco-in-waiting:

__________________

Guess it's tied in with all the changes being talked about here

Hopefully it's not a fiasco:o

In a nutshell, we do not want staff or members possibly falling into a pattern where they won't mod a forum that isn't their specific denom, or people won't communicate with mods who aren't their denom, etc. Sometimes we have members who get a staff contact or something and they'll say "I will only talk to Catholic moderators" or "I will only talk to Protestant moderators." Well, that isn't an option. CF is ecumenical and so is the staff. So Catholics will mod in OBOB, and possibly Baptist, or TAW, or the Methodist forum, and Protestants will mod all forums, including OBOB or TAW or wherever else. So that is basically what that means.

 

[synger]

What member actions result in warnings?

What member actions result in infractions?

Violating CF Rules will bring warnings and or infractions based on severity and frequency of violations. Staff actions for violations are based on the severity of the violation and the history of the member. Moderation staff has quite a bit of discretion within the scale outlined in this system, from a counseling PM to an infraction.

 

[CaDan]

Violating CF Rules will bring warnings and or infractions based on severity and frequency of violations.

Are those the only two factors that will be taken into account?

What makes one violation more severe than another?

 

[synger]

How much discretion does administration have to bypass these policies?

This announcement deals with only one part of the overall policy of the site. It touches primarily upon the report review process, and outlines the responsibilities of the moderators, administrators and reconciliation staff who are the primary staff contacts that most members will have. The main changes to this policy have to do with the report process and the staff who work through that process day to day. Thus, those are the staff positions that we included in this section of policy.

The FAQ outlines the authority of the CEO's Advisors in a separate section which deals more with the specific duties of the various teams within senior staff, and also a little in the section dealing with the staff chain of command.

The FAQ is indeed rather confusing with all its various sections. I will be reviewing it in more depth soon, and hope to make it clearer to understand.