> This is done to protect the privacy of a member either
> under investigation or who has had a disciplinary
> action levied against them. Mainly, the reason for
> this is that because after a disciplinary action is
> served, they are supposed to be able to return to the
> club without the past action being used against them
> (with the caveat that they do not break the rules
> again or if they are applying for an officer position,
> it can be reviewed to make sure that the officer will
> not be a problem officer in the future).
Actually, this is a stellar example of why many members in the domain are
currently so frustrated with unwritten policies and precedents. When
Pittsburgh's particular mess started, there was a great lack of information
and the disciplining officers refused to release it to the domain because
of the "punish in private" policy. While we can understand that this is a
good idea in the general case, both punished individuals (Mike Strauss and
Jason Patton) publicly requested that the full reasoning and evidence be
given to the domain as a whole. Yet it was not released to the domain,
citing the policy as an unalterable rule.
Charlie Collins
us2002023850