I'm sorry to be doing this... I'm not trying to be difficult, but it is confusing to me what to defend myself against, assuming the first action in the hearing is to provide my own defense. Theoritically, this is because the violations of the by-laws that have lead to the hearing are clearly understood by the rangers opening the hearing. Here is what they have stated in the opening post, with my comments and questions:
On January 23, 2009, halplm had his posting rights to the Symposium restricted.
His posting rights were restricted after several warnings from Rangers. Halplm continued to disrupt the Symposium forum in many threads with his arguing in a non-productive manner with sauronsfinger. The nature of this arguing created what we felt was a forum-wide disruption and prevented members from being able to participate in fruitful discussion in that forum.
After halplm's posting rights were restricted, he continued his disruptive behavior in the Business Room forum and Turf forum and in the current Charter discussion thread (which is reserved for members of the committee). After further warnings, his board-wide permissions were restricted to the Bike Racks forum.
Soon after this, halplm sent out a Private Message to all members with the highest post counts. This generated many complaints, so his Private Messaging capabilities were then limited.
After starting multiple threads in the Bike Racks forum, in response to threads in other forums that he didn't have access to, we restricted halplm's ability to start new topics.
That is a fairly accurate relation of the events that took place, although naturally I would object to some of the characterizations. However, there are no details on what violations of the by-laws were commited in the opinion of these rangers. There is verbage that sounds similar to by-laws, and is surely meant to invoke the idea that I must have done something wrong, but there must be specifics both to warrent a hearing, and to allow me to defend myself.
There was no one action of halplm's that warranted any suspension of posting rights. It was the totality of the issue that forced the Rangers to act. Given the numerous PM's and complaints within threads in regards to halplm, the Rangers felt a serious action was required.
This seems to indicate that the rangers acted without regards to whether or not any by-laws were violated, simply on their own opinions, and those of members that complained to them. I have no problem with this on an extremely temporary basis, in case they need to sort things out or determine what coarse of action to take. However, suspending of posting rights requires a hearing, and a hearing requires adequate cause, which is not feelings and complaints.
Initially, the Rangers felt a 2-week suspension of posting rights in the Symposium was warranted, but given his further disruptions to the board and his extensive history with board disruptions, the Rangers feel further action is needed.
Well, my "extensive history" is not really at issue as the charters specifically states someone cannot be brought up for a hearing or any sort of punishment unless the actions were within the last 10 days.
But more importantly, the rangers "feelign" a 2-week suspension of posting rights in the Symposium, is neither relevant or allowed. There are specific instances where a poster's rights to post in a specific forum can be suspended:
Emergency Powers section of the Charter wrote: |
• Temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum:
1. In the Jury Room, if poster has interfered with a Hearing on a Ban, board-wide posting rights can be suspended until the Hearing is concluded;
2. In the There and Back Again forum, if more than one complaint has been made against the way an RP identity has been used, posting rights can be suspended until a Hearing can be held regarding the continuation of that identity;
3. In the Thinking of England Forum, if more than one complaint has been made about the way a poster has been posting there, posting rights can be suspended until a Hearing can be held to determine the right of continued access to that forum;
4. If a sig pic is arguably pornographic, violent or distasteful it can be removed; and if the poster persists in reposting it, posting rights outside the Jury Room can be suspended until a Hearing decision is reached.
Note that this is the "Emergency Powers" section, which already well outside the "routine" powers of rangers. As the Symposium is none of these forums, and my sig pic was a lolcat, there was no power given to rangers that allowed them to do this.
There is the "Extraordinary" powers section as well, that allows rangers to pretty much do whatever they want to "protect the board... [given] an event which threatened real and immediate harm," but I don't personally believe any number of posters posting even extremely heatedly, would be such a situation. I expect we shall have to discuss this further.
As it stands now, halplm has not engaged in any actions that would qualify him for a banning under the current Charter. Therefore, the Rangers are asking the jury to mete out a punishment that is stern enough to deter this behavior from happening again.
-Rebecca, Holbytla, and Riverthalos
Lurker, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe it is the place of the rangers to suggest or request any type of punishment from a hearing.
Added by Riverthalos from the Notice to Convene a Hearing posted in the Bike Racks:
This is a Notice to convene a Hearing against halplm on the following charges:
He has neglected his responsibility to refrain from using PM capability to harass other members of the board.
He has infringed on everyone's right to be treated with courtesy and respect by all posters regardless of their status, and the responsibility to treat others likewise.
The Notice was posted well after the posting rights were suspended. The first charge has to do with the sincle PM I sent out to 50 people, to make sure others were aware of the situation as they would likely not go into the bikeracks, and my ability to communicate with anyone was being reduced very quickly. We can argue if this was harassment or not, but I would like someone to clearly state how my PM violated the by-laws.
The second charge is difficult to parse. "Everyone's right to be treated..." and the "responsibility to treat..." are two sides of the same coin. If you "break" one, you "break" the other. I would also argue in the strictest sense, it has been violated by everyone on the board many many times. It is the vaguest right or responsability in the whole charter, and while I'm sure it can be proven I have broken it, the same could be said of almost everyone on the board.
If I am to be accused of doing so in some egregious manner, as would either justify the original suspension of rights, or a hearing for further reasons, then the "Events" of the first part of the ranger's post, must be linked to this accusation in a clear and concise way, so that I can defend myself, and evidence can be presented of specifics.
I apologize for talking so much just to try to get things clarified, but I've felt this way since the original suspension was announced.