Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Infraction decisions should be properly explained

  1. #1
    Registered Users

    United Kingdom

    Infraction decisions should be properly explained

    I recently received a message informing me that I had committed an infraction. Exactly what the infraction was I do not know because it was not explained and I certainly had not posted anything offensive. Such vagueness is wrong because:

    a) It is bloody rude.

    b) The member who has committed the supposed infraction (such a pompous term) cannot be expected to avoid repeating it if its exact nature is not made clear.

  2. #2
    Y-DNA (P)
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA (M)

    England United Kingdom England

    In response to each of these points:

    a) The absence of an immediate response reflects the real world limitations our team experiences. This forum is run and paid for by individuals with full-time commitments. Given this, we prioritise the communications (or forum integrity matters) we receive. There is no intention to convey negative feelings towards any of our regulars. Rest assured we eventually communicate with everyone in due course.

    If you aren't satisfied with this explanation, feel free to remain so. As much as some perceive it, reality cannot bend around our desires.

    b) I've reviewed the communications you had with one of our generic staff accounts. In keeping with the above, a response hadn't been penned just yet. When we have the time to commit a response, you will receive a response.

    As a final comment (which I'd appreciate any other views of this thread could take on board), please communicate administrative forum issues to one of the admins (not mods) in keeping with section 1.7:

    1.7 If issues with inconsistency or failure to maintain any of these ToS by the moderation team arise, members are expected to directly contact the "Administrator" account only via private message.
    We have an internal mechanism of reviewing administrative happenings on this forum. Publicly posting this complaint (with unnecessary histrionic language, "pompous", "bloody rude") does not comply with this.

  3. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Agamemnon (02-13-2016),  Gray Fox (02-14-2016),  GTC (02-13-2016),  MikeWhalen (02-13-2016),  Táltos (02-13-2016)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 12-19-2019, 08:21 PM
  2. How to properly read your Doug McDonald results ?
    By joconbomama in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-09-2018, 04:08 PM
  3. Infraction Escalation (Aug 2016)
    By Administrator in forum Announcements
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2016, 04:30 AM
  4. Search function not functioning properly.
    By Kale in forum Forum Support
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-15-2015, 11:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts