Dispute Resolutions Policy for NYC General Assembly Digital Properties

Posted by & filed under .

Status: Reached consensus by TechOps.


These policies intend to clarify the New York General Assembly’s relationship with users and others who interact with its “digital properties.” “Digital Properties” include nycga.net, databases, social media accounts and any other such entities designated as belonging to NYCGA. These digital properties are community resources administered by the NYCGA Technology Operations Group [“Tech Ops”]. By using or accessing any NYCGA digital properties, you agree to these policies.


Dispute Resolution Policy

As part of enforcing these policies and maintaining NYCGA digital properties, administrators empowered by the Tech Operations Group may take action in response to violation of our policies. These actions may include:

  • Direct contact to investigate an incident
  • Removal of content previously posted
  • Suspension of deletion of an account
  • Removal from a mailing or discussion list
  • Removal of permissions on a site, as they related to posting, commenting, receiving or sending messages, creating documents, and any other feature as applicable.
  • Forwarding of an issue to the General Assembly or Spokescouncil

The Tech Operations Group is committed to transparency. To that end, disciplinary actions impacting registered users or subscribers of NYCGA digital properties will be recorded here recorded here, unless doing so might reasonably contribute to additional harm against OWS or another individual using this site.

Appeals fall outside the scope of this policy. Any disputes about actions taken due to non-adherence to the Terms of Use policy should be handled through the OWS Grievance policy.


Remediation Steps (based on Terms of Use)

  1. Investigate reports of use that is in violation of the Terms of Use;
  2. Contact offending party: Send a direct message or email, which informs the user that content they posted is been reported or found to be in violation of the Terms of Use;
  3. First Case: Issue a warning and/or state action steps to resolve situation;
  4. Second Case: 2-week ban;
  5. Third Case: Permanent ban

Note: In extreme circumstances, the  process will move directly to the Third Case without a warning or ban. However, in all cases, the party will be notified by private message or email.

Sample Private Messages to User

To User Reporting Inappropriate Content

  • Hello, I am a site moderator. Thank you for leaving a comment on nycga.net. We will investigate the incident within 24-hours and follow up with appropriate steps.


To User Reported of Harassment or Abuse

  • Hello, I’m one of the moderators. We have received a complaint that you have been engaging in abusive behavior on nycga.net. Please stop this behavior immediately. Further reports will result in a 2-week suspension of your account.


To User Found to Have Posted Inappropriate Photos

  • Hello, I am a site moderator. Pornography and nudity is not permitted on this site. Please remove the pictures within 24 hours or your account will be suspended for two weeks. Any further reports will result in termination of your account.


To User Found to Have Duplicate Accounts

  • Hello, I am a site moderator. You have been reported for using multiple accounts.  Please choose one account on nycga.net and delete all others. If you do not comply within 24 hours, your accounts will be terminated.


To User Hate Speech

  • Hello, I am a site moderator. You  have been reported for using hate speech on nycga.net. Please remove all such language within 24 hours or your account will be suspended for two weeks. Any further reports will result in termination of your account.

9 Responses to “Dispute Resolutions Policy for NYC General Assembly Digital Properties”

    • vets74

      Or that small special-purpose computer-only nycga.net “Groups” have little or nothing to do with the General Assembly operation acting out of 60 Wall Street’s Atrium.

      Wiping out these little computer-only Groups serves no useful purpose. Other than breaking links from other sites to resources at this site from all over the world. Other than driving a few people away by rudeness.

      The damnedest things get voted in at GA. Self-destructive? As often as not.

    • Patricia L

      @drew – As a group, we try to be impartial. As such, we would like to keep these policies “un-personal”.

      • drew

        I should have said, I rather it had a more personal touch. But I see where your coming from and wouldn’t block

  1. Tom Lowenhaupt

    To whom do I appeal the deactivation of a working group?

    I sent the below to groups@nycga.net on February 24 and have not heard a response.

    InfoHub Working Group Team,

    Re: The Campaign for the Commons working group

    On December 20 the General Assembly consensed that groups are to provide several pieces of information to make it easier for people to participate in OWS activities – a most admirable goal. That said, I wonder if the actual impact is to provide less access, indeed eliminating OWS’ bottom up, democratic goals and creating something resembling a closed garden. A perusal of my recent experiences with the implementation of that consensed document, and its impact on the Campaign for the Commons working group, which I initiated in October, 2011, and the recently concluded Making Worlds: An OWS Forum on the Commons, will I hope explain my concerns.

    The following information about the Campaign for the Commons working group is provided to conform with the December 20 requirements.

    A mission statement which does not violate the Principles of Solidarity

    The Campaign for the Commons seeks to make OWS and the world aware of the advantages that arise from a “commons” perspective on our planet’s existance. We define the commons as “resources that are owned in common[1] or shared between or among communities populations. These resources are said to be “held in common” and can include everything from natural resources and common land to software.[2] The commons contains public property and private property, over which people have certain traditional rights.

    [Note: I believe the statement we had on our WG was superior, but I don’t presently have access. It was developed over several meetings held at 60 Wall during November and December. You’ll note in the log file that many changes were made. But as the definition of “the commons” is an evolving one, our mission statement will change over time. Indeed, my attendance at the Making Worlds Forum transformed everyone’s view of the commons and a revision is imminent. ]

    A working email or phone number

    Thomas Lowenhaupt, toml@communisphere.com, 718 639 4222

    Day and time of a weekly open meeting (this should be listed as a recurring event, so that it shows up on the daily schedule)

    Saturday 4 PM

    [Note: Since January 7 we have been meeting in conjunction with a dozen or so people from E&E (Empowerment & Education) to organize the highly successful “Making Worlds: An OWS Forum on the Commons” held February 16, 17, and 18 in Greenpoint Brooklyn. The OWS Kitchen catered this event – thanks again Kitchen. While we have been meeting weekly, placing our meetings in the calendar as a recurring event is somewhat contrary to the stated GA goal, for it will not make it easier to participate, as meetings vary depending upon needs. This week for instance we are meeting at Yippie cafe. And next week we might rest – I hope OWS allows for a week off :) As I recall the operation of the calendar, a perspective OWS participant, upon viewing the calendar today would be led to believe that we will again meet at the Yippie Cafe on March 3. But we will not know this until the conclusion of Saturday’s meeting at the earliest. Now I can imagine the GA was not aware of the intricacies of the calendar’s operation in passing the resolution, thus the Tech must adjust as possible. I hope a more people-friendly policy is adopted as we move forward. It I may assist in passing this message on to the GA I will be most pleased to do so.]

    Minutes from a weekly meeting, which demonstrate at least 5 people in attendance.

    Our most recent meeting was held at the Church of the Assumption on Thursday February 16 from 5-9, on Friday February 17 from 5-9, and on Saturday February 18 from 9 AM to 9:30 PM. The meeting was entitled Making Worlds: An OWS Forum on the Commons. 100 people attended with Kitchen catering the event. There are several reports on the meeting with my favorite here. But other reports from the Forum and our planning efforts are available at http://makingworlds.wikispaces.com/Documents. It is my intent to include copies of these on our working group once access to the Campaign for the Commons working group (CCWG) is restored. The formal report from the Forum is being worked on and will be an agenda item this Saturday at 5. Prior to the actual Forum our previous meetings were held at the Church on the 11th. And for two weeks before that we met at Yippie Cafe, and 60 Wall in the weeks before that.

    Moving forward it is my hope that all the organizers of the Forum will find a distinct home at the Campaign for the Commons working group (CCWG). And I hope additional administrators, moderators, and members will result in a most informative, and active WG. While most of our Forum work is currently conducted off-site at this point (i.e., at Making Worlds), I am hoping to link it tightly with the CCWG.

    It would be greatly appreciated if the CCWG could be activated before tomorrow’s meeting. Also, as we don’t have access to the calendar at this point, it would be appreciated if you would put a notification in the calendar about the 5 PM meeting at the Yippie Cafe.


    Thomas Lowenhaupt
    for the Campaign for the Commons Working Group

    • vets74

      We shared emails back and forth with Ravi Ahmad. Adaptation to online “groups” seemed in the end to be perfectly acceptable.

      The conclusion in the emails to beccanet@hotmail.com was that online meetings would do for meeting the requirement. “Meetings” are spread out over 24/7 and worldwide. We have 266 members in 47 countries — about half the countries represented by liaisons to the local Occupy groups — only 34 members here at nycga.net prior to getting deleted.

      The “meeting notes” thing is odder, because the Occupy Nonviolence “group” meets on Facebook and all the comments and entries are recorded permanently. No reason to summarize the comments and resources because 100% of it is available at full representation.

      Facebook is better for doing social media than nycga.net. Resources and comments are combined seamlessly. Still, making the most popular of these resources available for use by OWS NYC people gets to the usefulness of having a resource-only “group” at this web site.

      The emails ended up indicating that Occupy Nonviolence was O.K. for tech ops, etc. Say one thing. Do another. Tell us that this “Occupy Nonviolence” Group is O.K. Then delete the Group.

      Understand why Wall Street succeeds with its “Divide the Conquered” strategy ????? Killing off Occupy Nonviolence was self-destructive for OWS NYC — serving no positive purpose whatsoever.

      Killing off CCWG was equally self-destructive.

      • Patricia L

        Please note that neither the policy nor the decision about who is and who isn’t in compliance falls under TechOps’ role. Further, groups are not deleted, they are made inactive. That means that if they come into compliance with the Groups Policy and TechOps is told to do so, we will re-activate them.

    • Patricia L

      @lowenhaupt – The issue you’re raising seems to be related to the Groups Policy.
      This policy relates only to the Terms of Use Policy, which deals primarily with behavior on NYC GA digital entities.

      Appeals fall outside the scope of this policy. Any disputes about actions taken due to non-adherence to the Terms of Use policy should be handled through the OWS Grievance policy.

  2. vets74

    Unscrewing CCWG and Occupy Nonviolence would make a good start.

    Letting somebody go wild driving away occupiers, not so much. That’s what shills/infiltrators do for their # 1 priority.