4 replies to this topic

[william7]

I noticed that the ImmInst Constitution & Bylaws doesn't provide for a right to be heard or make a written defense before a member is suspended for wrongful conduct. Even though ImmInst is not obligated by the United States Constitution to provide its members with any procedural due process before being suspended, I thought it might be a nice, progressive thing to do since we're considered to be a democratic society subject to the rule of law. A right to be heard and make a written defense to allegations of misconduct might protect some members from being suspended arbitrarily.

[caston]

I think the biggest thing here is ensuring that articulate members are not ejected for political reasons.

Perhaps we could simply remove "voice" so that certain members cannot post in forums with high level discussion if they have poluted it in the past. Or even certain members must have their posts checked by a moderator first. Failed submissions will be stored in a "catcher" forum that all members can check for articulate posts that may have been rejected for political reasons.

[eternaltraveler]

full members get due process, as do basic members that have contributed what we believe to be meaningful.

Giving it to every spam bot that comes to the forum would hamstring the organization.

[jaydfox]

Yes, we have worked hard to set the precedent that Full Members get due process. Basic Members are handled on a more case-by-case basis.

[caston]

Of course when a member starts causing trouble people could send them a private message to point out where they are going wrong and how they could improve their etiquette and tollerance for other points of view.