RE: [atlarge-discuss] Motions under vote, time-frame and who has as yet voted

["Jeff Holt" <jefftttt@txucom.net>]

Good point, and one which would be mitigated by requiring two of three
Moderators to act in concert to effect any "ban".

Sincerely,
 
Jeff Holt
Jefftttt@txucom.net
www.tejas-info-services.com
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Siren [mailto:sirenj@earthlink.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 8:40 AM
To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Motions under vote, time-frame and who
has as yet voted

I have previously mentioned in a post to Joop that this false statement 
provision is potentially subject to abuse, since any person at some time

might be absent (due to vacation, business travel or illness) for an
interval 
longer than five days.  That person's postings just prior to his/her
absence 
might be challenged by a second person, knowing the first to be unable
to 
respond to a groundless false statement challenge during the provided 
interval.

Therefore the moderator(s) must be empowered to take into account any 
person's expected absence (this need not be announced in a public
posting but 
a private message to the moderator should suffice) before formally
acting 
against him/her.  In certain rare cases, an explanation of absence after
the 
fact might also be acceptable (rules would have to be established to
cover 
this contingency).

Without this provision, the motion as posted is not adequate.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de