This is getting interesting. :cool:

The moderators notified me, this afternoon, of a probation for a personal attack - and told me that the next step in the process was to appeal to PDGA board member Peter Shive.

I wrote the moderators back and asked them where in what I had posted was a "personal attack." The post they quoted in their email doesn't contain one, so it was sort of mystifying. I figured they quoted the wrong one.

The next email I got was from Peter Shive, rejecting my appeal, which I haven't even made yet, because I lacked the information to do so.

So, can I appeal the rejection of an appeal that I never made in the first place?

BTW, thanks, Pat, for the notice to the moderators. This is interesting. So far it reminds me a lot of what we've read in the press about Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay), except that I am an American citizen and a PDGA member. :D

That's your representative working hard for you! At least he didn't sue you... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

How ironic. So poetic.

You cannot assume it was Pat who reported you. I often report blatant violations from posters who I'd just like to see shut up for awhile, especially when they are attacking board members or TDs. Your incessant attacks on Pat had you in that category, but I never saw a blatant violation.

But then again, I got my probation for saying nothing more than, "10 or 20 IQ points?" So its not like it has to be blatant.

If you were to reflect honestly, you might conclude that you were being the kind of bad you wouldn't tolerate when it was your call. But that's not the real irony here.

Allow me to cross-link the two time travel threads.

http://discontinuum.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=26&topic=3935.msg5 6052#new

Nah, I don't think so Bruce. I've thought about that a lot. This is all on a thread that is about the election and campaigning. I personally and professionally think this ought to be restricted to viewing only by PDGA members, but if you can't criticize a board member, based on his actions, on a thread he started, about his re-election - by saying the board would function better without him - then we can't even have election discussions.

Besides, and this is the amusing part: Shive thinks I was personally attacking not any PDGA member but Downs Syndrome kids, in general. Coming from someone with my sensibilities, that's purely a hoot!

It will be a real test of his character to admit that (a) he stepped outside of due process by rejecting my appeal before I made it (still haven't) and (b) completely misunderstood the thread, context, and meaning of my post that is at issue here. <font color="red">As I had hoped, he passed the test with flying colors!</font>

So, you're a lawyer, isn't it pretty typical to wait for an appeal to be filed - not to mention reading it and trying to understand it first - before rejecting it?

Oh, and I forgot another good connection. Jeff LaGrassa, one of the moderators, just two days ago, sent me a personal nasty email when I mentioned that if you had used that acronym for repeated xxxx xxxx (sorry, I just can't make myself use the acronym and I *know* they would kick me off for writing out what it stands for) on my site I would have "asked" you to edit it. He thought that would have been outlandish (or was it outrageous? definitely heavyhanded) censorship on my part to have "asked" you to edit it. (Not tell you, or order you to, or do it myself, or ban you, or put you on probation, or even delete it, mind you . . . just "ask" you to edit it to make it more family friendly.)

So, a moderator sends me a personal nasty email, two days later I am put on probation by moderators. And then my appeal is rejected before I even make it. Hmm.

Coming from someone with my sensibilities.....


Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back there.

Just being realistic. I know myself. To some people it would not be a pat on the back at all, it would be a sign of weakness. To me, it's just the way I am, nothing great, just can't help it.

In fact, since I made that post I rescued a little old lady who fell down a flight of escalators in the underground, in downtown Montreal, and despite her not speaking English and my not speaking French, got her and her bags to assistance and all set up.

Now, that's a pat on the back, and I'm feeling pretty good about it. :D

I guess I'm having an adventurous day. Did I mention our tiny little commuter jet got caught up in a big jet's wake shortly after take-off on the way here this morning? That's the kind of thing some people would pay big bucks to experience at an amusement park.

All this and put on probation with my appeal rejected before it's made. Wow!

Remind me to call "Time" magazine so I can nominate you for "Man of the Year".

Ooh, Colin, comparing me to Vladimir Putin (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/personoftheyear/)? If PDGA board member Pat Brenner hits the button on this one, you might get probation for a personal attack :D

I've got your appeal ready though (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html) . . . if you get to make one before it's rejected, that is.

Well, even though I have not commented on every post made on the thread where the infraction occurred, I have been reading the posts and I have already voted. In my opinoin I read nothing that would constitue a valid and realistic personal attack from either side of the camps there. I read what I believed to be healthy political campaign discussions and commentaries.

Sorry to hear you are experiencing difficulties Terry. I undertand your point You must, we must, they must,,,,

have due process....???

I guess we must have slipped into the twilight zone somewhere outside of gitmo halfway between Cuba and China......

You have no rights Terry, to due process, to an appeal, to be treated fairly in any manner whatsoever by the PDGA. You pushed for a PDGA where the members would have no rights and you got it. As they say in Kiralyn's ballet class, "Suck it up and deal with it."

This is getting interesting. :cool:

The moderators notified me, this afternoon, of a probation for a personal attack - and told me that the next step in the process was to appeal to PDGA board member Peter Shive.

I wrote the moderators back and asked them where in what I had posted was a "personal attack." The post they quoted in their email doesn't contain one, so it was sort of mystifying. I figured they quoted the wrong one.

The next email I got was from Peter Shive, rejecting my appeal, which I haven't even made yet, because I lacked the information to do so.

So, can I appeal the rejection of an appeal that I never made in the first place?

BTW, thanks, Pat, for the notice to the moderators. This is interesting. So far it reminds me a lot of what we've read in the press about Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay), except that I am an American citizen and a PDGA member. :D



Your reply to the moderator's email was your appeal.

Shades of the gulag, Dave! Unfortunately for that made-up, after-the-fact rule by a right-winger, I clearly noted (twice) in my query to the moderators that my reply was not my appeal, that I didn't have enough information to appeal yet.

But, Bruce, Kiralyn's got so much less to suck up than I do. I didn't teach my kids to accept injustice, whether it's the B***CA kind, or otherwise.

And it's not just the due process that's at issue here, it's the facts.

Well let's ask Brian Graham to appoint a special investigator with super disciplinary powers to look into all people disciplined to see if they were denied due process too.

Who watches the watchmen?

This bears repeating:

You have no rights Terry, to due process, to an appeal, to be treated fairly in any manner whatsoever by the PDGA. You pushed for a PDGA where the members would have no rights and you got it. As they say in Kiralyn's ballet class, "Suck it up and deal with it."


You are not a victim Hot Tub, you were a big enabler that lead to this. So, as Bruce said, "deal with it", like a man, if you have to. Accept that your actions have consequences that may actually affect you personally, and not just the people you think you are superior to.

I just received a message from Peter Shive apologizing for rejecting my appeal before I filed it. My reply:

"Thank you, Peter. I will file an appeal shortly. I believe that when I step you through the context (which no longer existed when you first got to view the thread) you will find that my posting of that link was for purposes completely the opposite of making fun of or being at the expense of Downs Syndrome kids."

And, Dave, nobody said anything about "victim," except you. I'm fighting for truth and due process, not being a victim. That's what a human does. I don't consider myself superior to <u>any</u> other PDGA member, even you, and folks who know me personally know just how true that is. Maybe if you were me, you would think you were superior, but I don't. :D Funny to see you're already boiled down to name-calling, just about where the McCain campaign's going to have to go soon. :cool:

I just received a message from Peter Shive apologizing for rejecting my appeal before I filed it. My reply:

"Thank you, Peter. I will file an appeal shortly. I believe that when I step you through the context (which no longer existed when you first got to view the thread) you will find that my posting of that link was for purposes completely the opposite of making fun of or being at the expense of Downs Syndrome kids."

And, Dave, nobody said anything about "victim," except you. I'm fighting for truth and due process, not being a victim. That's what a human does. I don't consider myself superior to <u>any</u> other PDGA member, even you, and folks who know me personally know just how true that is. Maybe if you were me, you would think you were superior, but I don't. :D Funny to see you're already boiled down to name-calling, just about where the McCain campaign's going to have to go soon. :cool:



Could you please come down from your cross for a minute and point out where Dave resorted to name-calling?

And, Dave, nobody said anything about "victim," except you. I'm fighting for truth and due process, not being a victim. That's what a human does. I don't consider myself superior to <u>any</u> other PDGA member, even you, and folks who know me personally know just how true that is. Maybe if you were me, you would think you were superior, but I don't. :D Funny to see you're already boiled down to name-calling, just about where the McCain campaign's going to have to go soon. :cool:



Pretty sure Colin is the one you should be referencing, but facts usually don't mean anything to a megalomaniac. Don't mix prescriptions!

In fact, since I made that post I rescued a little old lady who fell down a flight of escalators in the underground, in downtown Montreal, and despite her not speaking English and my not speaking French, got her and her bags to assistance and all set up.


C'mon, Terry, tell the whole story. The only reason you rescued that little old lady was that she was your granddaughter. :p

Pretty sure Colin is the one you should be referencing


Could be, in which case I am sorry for that error, but you guys who for some reason need to hide your true identities 3-4 levels deep in the site instead of standing up front for what you do (does that have something to do with "personal responsibility" or "what a man would do"?) make it tough to figure out real identities.

Thank goodness that one change I fought for when I was on the board - to require that your PDGA number be in your profile - at least means we can get to who you really are. I shudder to think about how bad the posts in here would get if there was complete anonymity.

THC, Who did you attack?

C'mon, Terry, tell the whole story. The only reason you rescued that little old lady was that she was your granddaughter. :p


Heh. It was such a strange experience. I was riding the up escalator and I saw this classic "little old lady" starting on the down one, then she just disappeared. Then when I got to the top, her luggage was there and she was gone. I looked down the escalator and saw her, lying on her back, looking back up at me in pain. I jumped over her luggage and got to her just in time to lift her up over the bottom of the escalator before she slid off those grates. Then, she spoke no English! (And, of course, everything here is in French.) I just didn't know what to do, but I got ice from a vendor to put on her knee (recent knee replacement surgery it turns out) and finally got someone who spoke French and English, from the local train system, to take things over.

I'm about 5-10 years from my first grand-kid (I hope.) OTOH this little old lady was probably pretty hot when I was a kid - like my fourth grade teacher who I can still remember, a couple of centuries ago.

THC, Who did you attack?


This is what's so funny, John, I was put on probation for linking to those pictures of Downs Syndrome kids which, as you know, I didn't link to in order to make fun of them but to provide evidence that your initial image of the kid holding up the sign about Lyle was in fact a Downs Syndrome kid.

It would be funnier if you weren't disciplined for the original photo. Were you? My guess is that your image was gone before Peter could even see it, which is why he thinks that I re-linked to something that he thinks you linked to before me, not understanding that you published an image not the link that I shared.

There wasn't anything disrespectful, even, much less any intent to mock or malign those kids, in my link, yet I got the discipline? I guess someone really wanted me to get some discipline :cool:

I'm also guessing that Brenner hit the button on the post because of what I said about him in it, not because of that link - illustrating that the process by which people notify the moderators needs to have the ability for the notifier to share text explaining why they're hitting the button.

Pretty sure Colin is the one you should be referencing


Could be, in which case I am sorry for that error, but you guys who for some reason need to hide your true identities 3-4 levels deep in the site instead of standing up front for what you do (does that have something to do with "personal responsibility" or "what a man would do"?) make it tough to figure out real identities.

Thank goodness that one change I fought for when I was on the board - to require that your PDGA number be in your profile - at least means we can get to who you really are. I shudder to think about how bad the posts in here would get if there was complete anonymity.



Here's a straw, grab it! Neither of us try to hide who we are, in fact Colin's screen name is his PDGA number. You on the other hand are emulating Saddam by glorifying his name.

Wow what a train wreck this place is, no wonder I don't post here very much. Sounds like a few people can't handle "power".

This is what's so funny, John, I was put on probation for linking to those pictures of Downs Syndrome kids which, as you know, I didn't link to in order to make fun of them but to provide evidence that your initial image of the kid holding up the sign about Lyle was in fact a Downs Syndrome kid.

It would be funnier if you weren't disciplined for the original photo. Were you? My guess is that your image was gone before Peter could even see it, which is why he thinks that I re-linked to something that he thinks you linked to before me, not understanding that you published an image not the link that I shared.

There wasn't anything disrespectful, even, much less any intent to mock or malign those kids, in my link, yet I got the discipline? I guess someone really wanted me to get some discipline :cool:





A bit like the NFL, it's the guy that pushes back that get called for a personal foul :eek: :D:o

It would be funnier if you weren't disciplined for the original photo. Were you?



Why no i wasn't, as i should not have been. I read the "message board rules" OVER and OVER before i posted that sign generator image. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the image, text, or subject matter. Offensive? Well that's a word that's defined differently by different people. I have 2 family members with DS and it wasn't offensive to me, so......

That LaGrassa character is one tough cookie though. Best advice i have for you there is live and let live.

Best of luck with your appeal.

So, it is even funnier than I thought. ROFL

Pretty sure Colin is the one you should be referencing


Could be, in which case I am sorry for that error, but you guys who for some reason need to hide your true identities 3-4 levels deep in the site instead of standing up front for what you do (does that have something to do with "personal responsibility" or "what a man would do"?) make it tough to figure out real identities.

Thank goodness that one change I fought for when I was on the board - to require that your PDGA number be in your profile - at least means we can get to who you really are. I shudder to think about how bad the posts in here would get if there was complete anonymity.



Here's a straw, grab it! Neither of us try to hide who we are, in fact Colin's screen name is his PDGA number. You on the other hand are emulating Saddam by glorifying his name.



Yes, and this why I had to step up and become Senior Anti-Hussien Bohn. It is my way of saying No Bama 08, and yes Saddam deserved what he got and that any step in that direction is a step into the far far away place that America should not go with high taxes and more and more government control...

And the masses were chanting:
Anti.......Anti... Anti...Anti.....

Increased Governmental Control is not exclusive to Democrats.

wow. never thought i'd see that day when Terry wants to know who reported his post, and complains so vocifierously about message board policy and administrative functioning. that stuff never seemed a problem before, but now the shoe is on the foot, well...

welcome to Hawkgammon's and Colin's side of the fence, THC. the wise and aware among us know that you helped build this situation. welcome home.

"This is what's so funny, John, I was put on probation for linking to those pictures of Downs Syndrome kids"

really? the disciplinary list says it was for a personal attack, not for an inappropriate link

Increased Governmental Control is not exclusive to Democrats.



True... But just like enhancement drugs are available, such would be the case in the Bama era. You could expect enhanced taxation and social programs and a safe haven for illegal aliens where we have to learn spanish not the other way around....all of the cost of course carried on the shoulders of us who have SSN's and send in little forms to the IRS each year.

I am applying for illegal alien status if Bama makes it. At least that way it won't hit me so hard.

Come on and take a free ride... Yea yea yea yea yea.,....

Back to the real topic...

Due Process for all!!!

Court will convene in 10 minutes, prepare your briefs.....

"This is what's so funny, John, I was put on probation for linking to those pictures of Downs Syndrome kids"

really? the disciplinary list says it was for a personal attack, not for an inappropriate link



So which is it?

it was for a personal attack (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=800073&an=0&page=0#Post800073)

that is all that is allowed to be released.

My impression is that such things happen for "direct" personal attacks. That is, if you mention names you get the hook. On the other hand, you can pretty much say whatever you want as long as you "don't" mention names. I learned this technique from other posters who's names I shall not mention. See how it works.

The PDGA MB, where innuendo rules. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to read well.


Seems pathetic, but there you have it.

BTW - as Terry found out some time ago, you can tell the truth, but, if you mention names, even if it's the truth, and the named complains, you get the hook... Ahhhh yes, want some cheese with that whine? Oh Oh, try the Brie, it's excellent!

Yeah, some people are fat, some are skinny. Some people are bleeding heart liberals, some are smart.

BTW - just as a point of comparison, take Cent. Now Cent is overboard, he attacks furiously and IMO inappropriately. But, Cent is honest about his position, he states his mind, if he doesn't like you he says so and harasses you to the best of his ability. While I agree with Cent on almost nothing, I can at least respect him and his communication as honest...

We need more people like Cent on this MB...

I think I should get the omniscient vote for the day... Thanks Cent for proving my point nicely!

BTW - just as a point of comparison, take Cent. Now Cent is overboard, he attacks furiously and IMO inappropriately. But, Cent is honest about his position, he states his mind, if he doesn't like you he says so and harasses you to the best of his ability. While I agree with Cent on almost nothing, I can at least respect him and his communication as honest...

We need more people like Cent on this MB...



At least we can agree on something :D

I'd like to change some of my votes. Is it too late?

wow. never thought i'd see that day when Terry wants to know who reported his post


You still haven't seen that day, PDGA board member Pat Brenner. You can go back up this thread with a microscope and not finding me asking anyone to tell me. I think it would be interesting to know who reports and how often, but I don't "want" to know and haven't asked.

And I have criticized DISCussion board policy many times, even when I was moderating, but especially its implementation by the current board leader and moderation team&mdash;who don't seem to understand what a "personal attack" is. Apparently, my current probation&mdash;which I will appeal&mdash;is because I personally attacked all children with Downs Syndrome. Somehow, I think that really misses the point of what is a personal attack; and I didn't even do that! (Which still makes me wonder if the appeals guy and the moderators are on the same page with this one.)

Not to mention that in the rules of DISCussion (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=), where it mentions "personal attacks," the language very precisely says: "2. Personal attacks and physical threats against other members (obvious or veiled)." (emphasis mine)

Appreciate everyone's help in working on my appeal, BTW. So far it will take the form of:

(a) The appellate decision maker has the facts wrong;
(b) I didn't do it what was alleged; and
(c) What I am alleged to have done, does not violate the rules.

Keep 'em coming.

You on the other hand are emulating Saddam by glorifying his name.


Isn't saying that I "glorify" Sadaam Hussein's name a personal attack. Hmm. Actually, that's also disingenuous, as you know that I am using that name to help point out (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/07/barack_obama_supporters_on_fac.html) that Barak Hussein Obama's middle name is a very common name in the world and doesn't mean that a person who uses it is a bad person (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). But, you knew that already.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/2464253495_14308c53c7.jpg?v=0

Isn't saying that I "glorify" Sadaam Hussein's name a personal attack. Hmm.


Mr. Hussein Al-Calhoun I know how to follow the rules, I don't need the link to know the boundaries. You might want to print them off and keep them next to your keyboard though.

Penny, you missed the point, I think. The link wasn't to tell anyone else to "watch it" with their own behavior. It was to point out that I did not violate that rule.

The rule I quoted and linked to says no personal attacks against a PDGA member. I was put on probation for an alleged "personal attack" on a large group of non-PDGA members. It should be moot, because I didn't even make a personal attack, but even if it weren't, I didn't violate the rule.

Got it yet? As a right-winger, aren't you a fan of "strict constructionism?" That should put you on my side on this one.

In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision.

The specific procedures for appealing, including even whether there is a right of appeal from a particular type of decision, can vary greatly from country to country. Even within a jurisdiction, the nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case.

An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process).

In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts.

Contents [hide]
1 Who can appeal
2 Ability to appeal
3 Direct or collateral
4 Notice of appeal
5 How an appeal is processed
6 United States
7 Appellate review
8 See also
9 References



[edit] Who can appeal
A party who files an appeal is called an appellant or petitioner, and a party on the other side is called a respondent (in most common-law countries) or an appellee (in the United States). A cross-appeal is an appeal brought by the respondent. For example, suppose at trial the judge found for the plaintiff and ordered the defendant to pay $50,000. If the defendant files an appeal arguing that he should not have to pay any money, then the plaintiff might file a cross-appeal arguing that the defendant should have to pay $200,000 instead of $50,000.

The appellant is the party who, having lost part or all their claim in a lower court decision, is appealing to a higher court to have their case reconsidered. This is usually done on the basis that the lower court judge erred in the application of law, but it may also be possible to appeal on the basis of court misconduct, or that a finding of fact was entirely unreasonable to make on the evidence.

The appellant in the new case can be either the plaintiff (or claimant), defendant, or respondent (appellee) from the lower case, depending on who was the losing party. The winning party from the lower court, however, is now the respondent. In unusual cases the appellant can be the victor in the court below, but still appeal. For example, in Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) Ltd [1969] 2 QB 158, the claimant appealed (successfully) on the basis that, although he won in the court below, the lower court had applied the wrong measure of damages and he had not been fully recompensed.

An appellee is the party to an appeal in which the lower court judgment was in its favor. The appellee is required to respond to the petition, oral arguments, and legal briefs of the appellant. In general, the appellee takes the procedural posture that the lower court's decision should be affirmed.


[edit] Ability to appeal
An appeal as of right is one that is guaranteed by statute or some underlying constitutional or legal principle. The appellate court cannot refuse to listen to the appeal. An appeal by leave or permission requires the appellant to move for leave to appeal; in such a situation either or both of the lower court and the appellate court may have the discretion to grant or refuse the appellant's demand to appeal the lower court's decision.

In tort, equity, or other civil matters either party to a previous case may file an appeal. In criminal matters, however, the state or prosecution generally has no appeal as of right. And due to the double jeopardy principle, in the United States the state or prosecution may never appeal a jury or bench verdict. But in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal as of right from a trial court's dismissal of an indictment in whole or in part or from a trial court's granting of a defendant's suppression motion. Likewise, in some jurisdictions, the state or prosecution may appeal an issue of law by leave from the trial court and/or the appellate court. The ability of the prosecution to appeal a decision in favor of a defendant varies significantly internationally.[1]

By convention in some law reports, the appellant is named first. This can mean that where it is the defendant who appeals, the name of the case in the law reports reverses (in some cases twice) as the appeals work their way up the court hierarchy. This is not always true, however. In the United States federal courts, the parties names always stay in the same order as the lower court when an appeal is taken to the circuit courts of appeals, and are re-ordered only if the appeal reaches the United States Supreme Court.


[edit] Direct or collateral
Many jurisdictions recognize two types of appeals, particularly in the criminal context.[2][3][4] The first is the traditional "direct" appeal in which the appellant files an appeal with the next higher court of review. The second is the collateral appeal or post-conviction petition, in which the petitioner-appellant files the appeal in a court of first instance--usually the court that tried the case.

The key distinguishing factor between direct and collateral appeals is that the former only reviews evidence that was presented in the trial court, but the latter allows review of evidence dehors the record: depositions, affidavits, and witness statements that did not come in at trial. The standard for post-conviction relief is high, typically requiring the petitioner to demonstrate that the evidence presented was not available in the usual course of trial discovery.

Relief in post-conviction is rare and is most often found in capital or violent felony cases. The typical scenario involves an incarcerated defendant locating DNA evidence demonstrating the defendant's actual innocence.


[edit] Notice of appeal
A notice of appeal is a form or document that in many cases is required to begin an appeal. The form is completed by the appellant or by the appellant's legal representative. The nature of this form can vary greatly from country to country and from court to court within a country.

The specific rules of the legal system will dictate exactly how the appeal is officially begun. For example, the appellant might have to file the notice of appeal with the appellate court, or with the court from which the appeal is taken, or both.

Some courts have samples of a notice of appeal on the court's own web site.

The deadline for beginning an appeal can often be very short: traditionally, it is measured in days, not years. This can vary from country to country, as well as within a country, depending on the specific rules in force.


[edit] How an appeal is processed
Generally speaking the appellate court examines the record of evidence presented in the trial court and the law that the lower court applied and decides whether that decision was legally sound or not. The appellate court will typically be deferential to the lower court's findings of fact (such as whether a defendant committed a particular act), unless clearly erroneous, and so will focus on the court's application of the law to those facts (such as whether the act found by the court to have occurred fits a legal definition at issue).

If the appellate court finds no defect, it "affirms" the judgment. If the appellate court does find a legal defect in the decision "below" (i.e., in the lower court), it may "modify" the ruling to correct the defect, or it may nullify ("reverse" or "vacate") the whole decision or any part of it. It may, in addition, send the case back ("remand" or "remit") to the lower court for further proceedings to remedy the defect.

In some cases, an appellate court may review a lower court decision de novo (or completely), challenging even the lower court's findings of fact. This might be the proper standard of review, for example, if the lower court resolved the case by granting a pre-trial motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment which is usually based only upon written submissions to the trial court and not on any trial testimony.

Another situation is where appeal is by way of re-hearing. Certain jurisdictions permit certain appeals to cause the trial to be heard afresh in the appellate court. An example would be an appeal from a Magistrates' court to the Crown Court in England and Wales.

Sometimes, the appellate court finds a defect in the procedure the parties used in filing the appeal and dismisses the appeal without considering its merits, which has the same effect as affirming the judgment below. (This would happen, for example, if the appellant waited too long, under the appellate court's rules, to file the appeal.) In England and many other jurisdictions, however, the phrase appeal dismissed is equivalent to the U.S. term affirmed; and the phrase appeal allowed is equivalent to the U.S. term reversed.

Generally, there is no trial in an appellate court, only consideration of the record of the evidence presented to the trial court and all the pre-trial and trial court proceedings are reviewed�unless the appeal is by way of re-hearing, new evidence will usually only be considered on appeal in very rare instances, for example if that material evidence was unavailable to a party for some very significant reason such as prosecutorial misconduct.

In some systems, an appellate court will only consider the written decision of the lower court, together with any written evidence that was before that court and is relevant to the appeal. In other systems, the appellate court will normally consider the record of the lower court. In those cases the record will first be certified by the lower court.

The appellant has the opportunity to present arguments for the granting of the appeal and the appellee (or respondent) can present arguments against it. Arguments of the parties to the appeal are presented through their appellate lawyers, if represented, or pro se if the party has not engaged legal representation. Those arguments are presented in written briefs and sometimes in oral argument to the court at a hearing. At such hearings each party is allowed a brief presentation at which the appellate judges ask questions based on their review of the record below and the submitted briefs.

It is important to note that in an adversarial system appellate courts do not have the power to review lower court decisions unless a party appeals it. Therefore if a lower court has ruled in an improper manner or against legal precedent that judgment will stand even if it might have been overturned on appeal.


[edit] United States
See also: United States court of appeals
The United States legal system generally recognizes two types of appeals: a trial de novo or an appeal on the record.

A trial de novo is usually available for review of informal proceedings conducted by some minor judicial tribunals in proceedings that do not provide all the procedural attributes of a formal judicial trial. If unchallenged, these decisions have the power to settle more minor legal disputes once and for all. If a party is dissatisfied with the finding of such a tribunal, one generally has the power to request a trial de novo by a court of record. In such a proceeding, all issues and evidence may be developed newly, as though never heard before, and one is not restricted to the evidence heard in the lower proceeding. Sometimes, however, the decision of the lower proceeding is itself admissible as evidence, thus helping to curb frivolous appeals.

In an appeal on the record from a decision in a judicial proceeding, both appellant and respondent are bound to base their arguments wholly on the proceedings and body of evidence as they were presented in the lower tribunal. Each seeks to prove to the higher court that the result they desired was the just result. Precedent and case law figure prominently in the arguments. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must prove that the lower court committed reversible error, that is, an impermissible action by the court acted to cause a result that was unjust, and which would not have resulted had the court acted properly. Some examples of reversible error would be erroneously instructing the jury on the law applicable to the case, permitting seriously improper argument by an attorney, admitting or excluding evidence improperly, acting outside the court's jurisdiction, injecting bias into the proceeding or appearing to do so, juror misconduct, etc. The failure to formally object at the time, to what one views as improper action in the lower court, may result in the affirmance of the lower court's judgment on the grounds that one did not "preserve the issue for appeal" by objecting.

In cases where a judge rather than a jury decided issues of fact, an appellate court will apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. Under this standard, the appellate court gives deference to the lower court's view of the evidence, and reverses its decision only if it were a clear abuse of discretion. This is usually defined as a decision outside the bounds of reasonableness. On the other hand, the appellate court normally gives less deference to a lower court's decision on issues of law, and may reverse if it finds that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard.

In some rare cases, an appellant may successfully argue that the law under which the lower decision was rendered was unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, or may convince the higher court to order a new trial on the basis that evidence earlier sought was concealed or only recently discovered. In the case of new evidence, there must be a high probability that its presence or absence would have made a material difference in the trial. Another issue suitable for appeal in criminal cases is effective assistance of counsel. If a defendant has been convicted and can prove that his lawyer did not adequately handle his case and that there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different had the lawyer given competent representation, he is entitled to a new trial.

In the United States, a lawyer traditionally starts an oral argument to any appellate court with the words "May it please the court."

After an appeal is heard, the mandate is a formal notice of a decision by a court of appeal; this notice is transmitted to the trial court and, when filed by the clerk of the trial court, constitutes the final judgment on the case, unless the appeal court has directed further proceedings in the trial court. The mandate is distinguished from the appeal court's opinion, which sets out the legal reasoning for its decision. In some U.S. jurisdictions the mandate is known as the remittitur.


[edit] Appellate review
Appellate review is the general term for the process by which courts with appellate jurisdiction take jurisdiction of matters decided by lower courts. It is distinguished from judicial review, which refers to the court's overriding constitutional or statutory right to determine if a legislative act or administrative decision is defective for jurisdictional or other reasons (which may vary by jurisdiction).

In most jurisdictions the normal and preferred way of seeking appellate review is by filing an appeal of the final judgment. Generally, an appeal of the judgment will also allow appeal of all other orders or rulings made by the trial court in the course of the case. This is because such orders cannot be appealed as of right. However, certain critical interlocutory court orders, such as the denial of a request for an interim injunction, or an order holding a person in contempt of court, can be appealed immediately although the case may otherwise not have been fully disposed of.

In American law, there are two distinct forms of appellate review, direct and collateral. For example, a criminal defendant may be convicted in state court, and lose on direct appeal to higher state appellate courts, and if unsuccessful, mount a collateral action such as filing for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal courts. Generally speaking, "[d]irect appeal statutes afford defendants the opportunity to challenge the merits of a judgment and allege errors of law or fact. ... [Collateral review], on the other hand, provide[s] an independent and civil inquiry into the validity of a conviction and sentence, and as such are generally limited to challenges to constitutional, jurisdictional, or other fundamental violations that occurred at trial." Graham v. Borgen, __ F 3d. __ (7th Cir. 2007) (no. 04-4103) (slip op. at 7) (citation omitted).

In Anglo-American common law courts, appellate review of lower court decisions may also be obtained by filing a petition for review by prerogative writ in certain cases. There is no corresponding right to a writ in any pure or continental civil law legal systems, though some mixed system such as Quebec recognize these prerogative writs.


[edit] See also
Appellate court
Appellee
Civil procedure
Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Court of Appeals
Criminal procedure
Defendant
Interlocutory appeal
List of legal topics
Plaintiff
Pursuer
Respondent
Reversible error
Supreme Court of the United States
Writ of Certiorari
Writ of habeas corpus
Writ of mandamus

[edit] References
^ "Consultation Paper on Prosecution Appeals Brought in Cases of Indictment". Law Reform Commission of Ireland.
^ "UK Law Online". University of Leeds. Retrieved on 2008-03-03.
^ "Special Habeas Corpus Procedures in Capital Cases". United States Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Retrieved on 2008-03-03.
^ "State of Ohio". Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals. Retrieved on 2008-03-03.

<font color="red"> May your's be the first that i know of (which isn't saying much :D) to be victorious. </font>

If you are trying to categorize me, I'm more of a centrist really, but I am against most, if not everything Hussein Obama is about. Anyway, I'm pretty sure your message board violation could fall under this rule;


Materials or links to materials which are not suitable for a minor and/or are offensive.



By the way, your pedestal is showing...

So, you feel that a Google search results page showing images of mostly smiling, happy Downs Syndrome kids is offensive and not suitable for minors? How very, very strange.

Regardless, that is not what I have been cited with, so my question to you about strict constructionism still stands.

images of mostly smiling, happy Downs Syndrome kids is offensive and not suitable for minors? How very, very strange.




Tell me about it.

So, you feel that a Google search results page showing images of mostly smiling, happy Downs Syndrome kids is offensive and not suitable for minors? How very, very strange.





Everyone knows what Downs Syndrome is, some more than others. We do not need pictures like that in this forum in the context that you were using it. Should pictures of rapes, murders, and deformities be posted?

So, you feel that a Google search results page showing images of mostly smiling, happy Downs Syndrome kids is offensive and not suitable for minors? How very, very strange.

Regardless, that is not what I have been cited with, so my question to you about strict constructionism still stands.

citing google search results as the barometer for decency is rather unusual.

A baro-meter:

An instrument used to measure atmospheric pressure. It can measure the pressure exerted by the atmosphere by using water, air, or mercury. Pressure tendency can forecast short term changes in the weather. Numerous measurements of air pressure are used within surface weather analysis to help find surface troughs, high pressure systems, and frontal boundaries.




A Barack-O-bama-meter:

An instrument used to measure democratic liberal bleeding heart pressure (DLBHP). It can measure the DLBHP exerted by the ego-sphere by using air-head brian wave detectors.

DLBHP tendencies can forecast short term memory changes in the political scene, but numerous measurements of air-head brian wave pressure can used to help find surface blunders, DLBHP redundant systems, and liberal socialistic boundaries.

Penny, you missed the point, I think. The link wasn't to tell anyone else to "watch it" with their own behavior. It was to point out that I did not violate that rule.

The rule I quoted and linked to says no personal attacks against a PDGA member. I was put on probation for an alleged "personal attack" on a large group of non-PDGA members. It should be moot, because I didn't even make a personal attack, but even if it weren't, I didn't violate the rule.

Got it yet? As a right-winger, aren't you a fan of "strict constructionism?" That should put you on my side on this one.


How dare you question the decision of a Board Member and Micromanage their rules and established operating procedures.

it does seem fun to poke at the irony in this thread, i am going to resist doing that any further. this thread speaks for itself plenty loudly to MB regulars.

besides, i firmly believe the MB IS a proper place to voice concerns for discussion. i'd like to discuss these concerns with Terry. Here. Openly. just as he disclosed the original issue. this is precisely what this forum is for - lets use it, it is Terry's right to use it for that purpose, and i owe him the level of courtesy and honest thoughtful engagement that i would owe any other Member.

this is the same principle that led me to stand up for Terry against an effort to diminish the website he started, and to prevent current and future Directors from pursuing similar ventures for three years after their two year term. there are outstanding efforts by small groups and young startups out there in the industry. i believe that we will be better off if we treat them less like a frontier and more like an organizing principle. this requires enabling them. Terry's site fits into that description. it could even be a poster child for this concept. the arguments and disagreements we have here do not sway me from arguing passionately that we should treat that site as an asset to the sport and not a competitor.

i hope to demonstrate the same principle in action here. so, Terry, if you are still reading, you have a good idea of what the moderation process is like, and you've stated quite a few things you did not like about it. could you tell us which 2 or 3 of the things you would like to see changed are the most important? what would really help the next person who goes through the experience?

Everyone:

Terry Calhoun is making quite a fuss about his case. His opinion carries great weight because he is a former member of the board and of the moderating team. I need to point out exactly where our philosophies differ.

Terry argues that, because the rules specifically ban personal attacks against PDGA members, we should allow such attacks against nonmembers.

This contention is absurd. The rules also cite the posting of materials or links to materials which are offensive. Some nonmembers, such as public figures, are to some extent fair game. But attacks against nonmembers can be just as offensive as those against members. Sometimes more so. For example, I believe that we have a special duty to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, such as children with Down's Syndrome.

Everyone:
Some nonmembers, such as public figures, are to some extent fair game. But attacks against nonmembers can be just as offensive as those against members. Sometimes more so. For example, I believe that we have a special duty to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, such as children with Down's Syndrome.



Or Oil Speculators, because you KNOW how much they are suffering huh Peter? :eek:

This inconsistent consistency, is what makes the moderating team subject to personal preferences in who gets disciplined and who doesn't, and you know that but still try to make it look good. :p

Keith(same name as screen handle)Johnson

If you are going to follow that general tact, there are a lot of political threads that have to disappear.

I thought the goal of the personal attack rule was to prevent a reasoned argument from deteriorating into a name calling flame fest.

If there was a tasteless attack against a group unable to defend themselves (as all such attacks would be), it should easily fall into the offensive post category.

what was the reason the post was reported?

it sounds like the reason for which a post is reported is not necessarily the issue that is considered by the procedure.

If you are going to follow that general tact, there are a lot of political threads that have to disappear.

I thought the goal of the personal attack rule was to prevent a reasoned argument from deteriorating into a name calling flame fest.

If there was a tasteless attack against a group unable to defend themselves (as all such attacks would be), it should easily fall into the offensive post category.



Second (on all 3 points).


Someone should start flagging political posts and see how long it takes before:
A) Mr. Shive's statement gets revised, or
B) The notifier gets probation for "Abuse" of the Notify Button.

"Offensive" needs to be clearly defined by the PDGA.

Can we also get a list of which nonmembers (and to what extent) that are fair game? :confused: :p

Everyone:

Terry Calhoun is making quite a fuss about his case. His opinion carries great weight because he is a former member of the board and of the moderating team. I need to point out exactly where our philosophies differ.

Terry argues that, because the rules specifically ban personal attacks against PDGA members, we should allow such attacks against nonmembers.

This contention is absurd. The rules also cite the posting of materials or links to materials which are offensive. Some nonmembers, such as public figures, are to some extent fair game. But attacks against nonmembers can be just as offensive as those against members. Sometimes more so. For example, I believe that we have a special duty to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, such as children with Down's Syndrome.


I believe that PDGA board members have a special duty to protect the PDGA.

BTW, using the term "fuss" is essentially a personal attack because it belittles the gravity of the disagreement.

Should pictures of rapes, murders, and deformities be posted?


Did you look at those pictures? By equating those pictures of happy, smiling Downs Syndromes kids with "rape, murders, and deformities," you belittle those kids. (And reveal a right-wing mental state reminiscent of 1950s neighborhood bigotry.) I leave it to PDGA board member Pat Brenner and his excitable trigger finger to notify the moderators.

Terry argues that, because the rules specifically ban personal attacks against PDGA members, we should allow such attacks against nonmembers.


Actually, Peter, I argue something quite different. I argue that our rules very specifically ban personal attacks against members, but that they do not specifically ban personal attacks against nonmembers." (Which is a completely different argument than the one I make that the link I posted was neither offensive nor a personal attack against anyone.) I hope you are eagerly awaiting your opportunity to objectively judge my appeal. I would like to say that I have been studying French law here in Montreal, but really it's been more like studying French food.

I do sort of hold the line at a "personal attack" needs to be, sort of, well, "personal": Not against an entire category of people. For example, I hereby state that Nazis, racists, and vampires are nasty, evil people. Does that move me from probation to suspension of DISCussion board privileges? I am sure that the racists (well, maybe not), vampires, and Nazis in the PDGA membership and the Bush administration may well be offended. Gonna protect them but not the PDGA?

Or is this a case of "I know it when I see it" subjectivity?

"I leave it to PDGA board member Pat Brenner and his excitable trigger finger to notify the moderators. "

dont accuse me of reporting your post, Terry. what if i didnt report it? you cannot substantiate your claim, and for good reason

"I leave it to PDGA board member Pat Brenner and his excitable trigger finger to notify the moderators. "

dont accuse me of reporting your post, Terry. what if i didnt report it? you cannot substantiate your claim, and for good reason



Who cares who reported it, the inconsistent consistencies from the moderators are what the problem is, not in who reported it.

Mine was probably reported by an angry Oil Speculator who was trying to get the post deleted before anyone knew Oil speculators were driving up the price of oil.
Again the 2 of you(Pat and Terry) can argue semantics all you want, but I can Guarantee that Peter will uphold the probation, and send you a vague, unintelligent response to your question why, which is very upsetting, because talking to the man personally, he is quite INTELLIGENT.

Keith(still same as screen name)Johnson

Should pictures of rapes, murders, and deformities be posted?


Did you look at those pictures? By equating those pictures of happy, smiling Downs Syndromes kids with "rape, murders, and deformities," you belittle those kids. And reveal a right-wing mental state reminiscent of 1950s neighborhood bigotry.



Terry,

Please get some rest...

Who cares who reported it, the inconsistent consistencies from the moderators are what the problem is, not in who reported it.



Perhaps a little refresher on how the moderation system works is in order here. <ul type="square"> Message board user sees a post that he/she finds offensive and uses the 'Notify Moderator' button to report it. One of four different moderators examines the post and decides whether it does not violate the rules, gets a warning (along with removal) or violates the rules egregiously enough to apply probation/suspension to the original poster. At that point, the decision of the moderator is sent to the original poster, the person who reported it, all three other moderators, Communications Director Peter Shive, as well as Executive Director Brian Graham. If any other moderator feels that a poor decision was made, he can weigh in with his thoughts to the Communications Director. This could be done if a moderator decision goes against previously established rulings, or makes a decision that sets a precedent that the other moderators may not agree with and may not personally go along with if a similar case came up in the future. [/list]

In this manner, we have at least SEVEN different people who are available to provide input and oversight to a moderator decision: <ul type="square"> #1: the message board user who originally reported the post #2: whichever moderator ruled on the case #3,#4,#5: three other moderators who also see the decision and could protest if a decision was made which they may not agree with. #6: A Communications Director who provides oversight. #7: An Executive Director who is ultimately responsible for the message board and can provide another layer of oversight. [/list]

In this manner and with so many people involved in the system, I am quite confident that there simply cannot be great inconsistencies in the moderation system, because surely someone in the process would speak up if gross injustices were occuring. Additionally, I compare this system to the prior one which existed in 2006 and before, where a single person, the Communications Director, made all decisions on message board matters and had no oversight.

With multiple moderators (who are NOT board members) providing input, and both a Communications Director and Executive Director to provide oversight, the current system is simply far superior to any system that's previously been in place.

[quoteWith multiple moderators (who are NOT board members) providing input, and both a Communications Director and Executive Director to provide oversight, the current system is simply far superior to any system that's previously been in place.

[/QUOTE]

Personal opinion

Or is this a case of "I know it when I see it" subjectivity?


ding ding ding... and it works great with 4 different moderators

Or is this a case of "I know it when I see it" subjectivity?


ding ding ding... and it works great with 4 different moderators



And one former moderator receiving special privileges.

I think it is safe to say that the cacophony of stupidity that is the PDGA message board is driving current members and future members away from the organization.

Whaaateverrrrr....

We all have Disc golfers R us now thanks to Terry the man himself...

Totally unrealted to the due process thread but what the hey I will say it anyways......

The organization drives away possible and renewing members with more than just an interesting (and very much needed)website DISCussion board policy....

How about:
Ratings that really only apply to and control Am members who play alot and pay most of the dues (the nonmembers can play unrated indefinately and bag awayyyyy!!!!)
Crazy divisions names (and lots of them)
Bagger promotion and nurturing
High event entrance fees
High membership fees with no real feel of member privileges (nonmembers rule the roost and get most of the AM schwag)
Rules (dang those pesky rules)
Complacency
Bland non-addressing replies and comments to members with lots of excuses and no definate answers...

Just few to get started...... :confused:

This is just my personal experience. Thank goodness I have other hobbies to keep myself sane...

Also, believe me I am not anti-PDGA. In fact I want to work towards making it better and I will continue to work to that end. But we all have to get along and work through each issue and need with what we have. In other words...

Try to get along and play fair......

Everyone:

Terry Calhoun is making quite a fuss about his case. His opinion carries great weight because he is a former member of the board and of the moderating team. I need to point out exactly where our philosophies differ.

Terry argues that, because the rules specifically ban personal attacks against PDGA members, we should allow such attacks against nonmembers.

This contention is absurd. The rules also cite the posting of materials or links to materials which are offensive. Some nonmembers, such as public figures, are to some extent fair game. But attacks against nonmembers can be just as offensive as those against members. Sometimes more so. For example, I believe that we have a special duty to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, such as children with Down's Syndrome and the Amish.



:D

Or is this a case of "I know it when I see it" subjectivity?


ding ding ding... and it works great with 4 different moderators



I find your use of sarcasm to be totally offensive! Not to mention your lack of punctuation.

Hope this doesn't get construed as a veiled physical threat ;)

Who cares who reported it, the inconsistent consistencies from the moderators are what the problem is, not in who reported it.



Perhaps a little refresher on how the moderation system works is in order here. <ul type="square"> Message board user sees a post that he/she finds offensive and uses the 'Notify Moderator' button to report it. One of four different moderators examines the post and decides whether it does not violate the rules, gets a warning (along with removal) or violates the rules egregiously enough to apply probation/suspension to the original poster. At that point, the decision of the moderator is sent to the original poster, the person who reported it, all three other moderators, Communications Director Peter Shive, as well as Executive Director Brian Graham. If any other moderator feels that a poor decision was made, he can weigh in with his thoughts to the Communications Director. This could be done if a moderator decision goes against previously established rulings, or makes a decision that sets a precedent that the other moderators may not agree with and may not personally go along with if a similar case came up in the future. [/list]

In this manner, we have at least SEVEN different people who are available to provide input and oversight to a moderator decision: <ul type="square"> #1: the message board user who originally reported the post #2: whichever moderator ruled on the case #3,#4,#5: three other moderators who also see the decision and could protest if a decision was made which they may not agree with. #6: A Communications Director who provides oversight. #7: An Executive Director who is ultimately responsible for the message board and can provide another layer of oversight. [/list]

In this manner and with so many people involved in the system, I am quite confident that there simply cannot be great inconsistencies in the moderation system, because surely someone in the process would speak up if gross injustices were occuring. Additionally, I compare this system to the prior one which existed in 2006 and before, where a single person, the Communications Director, made all decisions on message board matters and had no oversight.

With multiple moderators (who are NOT board members) providing input, and both a Communications Director and Executive Director to provide oversight, the current system is simply far superior to any system that's previously been in place.



Not saying it's not better than 1 person, but it is EXTREMELY inconsistent when first it had to be PDGA members attacked, then it was Oil speculators, and then any group of defenseless people.
INCONSISTENT, and no matter how you or Mr. Shive try to spin it, it will continue to be INCONSISTENT, until people who don't have personal grudges against members are NOT ALLOWED to rule on that member's reported post, and when the actual appeal is ruled upon with an explanation that exists of more than just "because I said so" with no follow-up. :p

Can someone that knows please PM me the reason i was probed yesterday (8/18/08)? I failed to receive the notarized, certified email.