Zorch Turds...

      Zorch did not like the ruling, so he whines:



 BD> It is extremely disturbing that I have to send this message at

 BD> all. With your being a Network Coordinator I am sure you

 BD> understood the action you were taking when you filed a Policy

 BD> Complaint against Ms. Argust. Per Policy 4.07 a Policy Complaint

 BD> is not an action to be taken lightly.

 BD> Your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust is rejected in total.

 BD> The opening portion of your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust

 BD> is a very disjointed mish-mash and very hard to follow. However,

 BD> Ms. Argust did rebut your statements, and also pointed out that

 BD> some of the submitted documents have also been tampered with (ie.

 BD> missing subject lines and appended orgin lines.)



Sir:



Investigation of a complaint does not simply make a "we said, they said" form

of rebuttal.



It is also a very simple matter to hand over a file of evidence and, in

secreted discussion, accept any and all rebuttals without placing them in the

harsh light of examination.



As there is still approximately 36 hours or so to declare a final decision at

your level, I include the information that a diligent investigating coordinator

would have asked for when questioning the filing of so many similar complaints

by so many (see ANETMAIL.ZIP).



These messages indicate the agreement of the NCs who responded that I would

represent them in the inquiry.  Whether or not they filed a Policy Complaint is

irrelevant...that the agreement existed to conduct it as such is evident.



That you chose to dispute the claim made is insufficient to deny it; the

proximity of terms, the use of evidence and the subject of the filing alone

should have indicated that there was agreement between the individuals who

filed that they were, indeed, acting in concert.



As a new network coordinator, I can understand where these may have caused you

to seek advice; please be assured that the advice that you were given was both

immaterial and irrelevant.



Further, the message base used in the investigation does not allow for a simple

transfer of messages; these must be transported from a Squish message base to a

*.MSG message base.  As a matter of course, this area is designated as a 'null'

echomail area and appends an origin line.



This is a matter of course; Policy allows that copies of messages are

sufficient.  Your general comment that Argust was allowed to dispute these

messages in no way qualifies as proof or evidence that these messages were

either false or tampered with, as your statement implies.



Given all of the above, as well as the general tone of your message, it is also

clear that your intent at all points was to rule in the favor of Ruth Argust.



That you accepted simple denial, without proof, is indication enough; that you

attempt to cloud the issue by including persons who are not under similar

scrutiny merely adds to the examples of a bias in your decision making.



However, the key and proper element to indicate that you have not properly

considered the situation is your decision that Ruth Argust was under no

obligation to maintain confidentiality.



As a network coordinator, surely you are aware of the fact that the bringing in

of coordinators who are _not_ a part of the appeals chain is of and by itself

an example of annoying behavior; that Ruth Argust _actively_ did so by both

netmail _and_ echomail makes a clear indication that it was her _intent_ to

involve coordinators not in the appeals chain by trying the matter in a 'court

of public opinion' is sufficient to make the annoying into excessively

annoying.



As that point in the Policy Complaint seemed to be deliberately overlooked by

yourself, I point it out to you once more.



As you have deliberately waited the full length of the investigative process

without offering up the normal consequence of an investigative process:



       1) Accusation

       2) Rebuttal

       3) Rejoinder

       4) Final Rebuttal



You have left the entire process undefined and incomplete.



Without such investigation, the matter is no more than a "we said, they said"

and all evidence is nullified by simple denial.



There is no practical use of such a process, as it resolves nothing save for

the simplest of minds.



Further, while Policy indicates that complaints should be accompanied by

verifiable evidence, it sets no limits on the acquisition of additional

evidence, nor the ability of the coordinator to investigate further...neither

of which you have done.



As pointed out above, your 'investigation and examination of evidence' amounts

to little more than "Ruth said it, I believe it and that settles it."



I would strongly urge, on behalf of myself and those who also filed the Policy

Complaint, that you re-examine the evidence _critically_ and without the

prejudice evident in your initial finding, as well as at all levels.



If you find that you are unable to do so, it is strongly suggested that you

pass the decision to a higher coordinator with the message that you are unable

to resolve this.



It is hoped that you will take the remaining time of the decision period to

re-examine the situation, and to act accordingly.



Thank you for your time.



Zorch Frezberg

SysOp 1:205/1701