I agree with the user that posted an additional point to consider about the implementation of FTH's crowd-sourced blacklisting of users. That posting sited as follows:
'According to the Toastmasters governing docs, a member can restore or defend themselves with a disciplinary hearing as per
Policy 3.0: Ethics & ConductPolicy 3.0: Ethics & Conduct
. However, if there is no recourse for the innocent victim to defend themselves for FreeToastHost (FTH) to respond accordingly, then this feature can perpetuate Section 3: Harassment & Bullying - Section A, I with "persistent singling out of individuals".'
I understand the logic behind the design, but as implemented, it seems pretty heavy handed. It gives all the discretion to the member that deems the communication as "spam," and worthy of blacklisting; without giving any recourse to the sender for being heard on the matter. The policy as implemented, punishes the message sender without any review of what might well have been a perfectly legitimate message.
In this day and age, where most clubs are enabled for virtual meetings, reaching out to clubs across districts for perfectly legitimate requests for visit requests, invitations for TOASTMASTERS participatory activities, will be much more common than it has been in the past. TOASTMASTERS, who may be simply trying to increase and encourage inter-club participation-- which helps the overall Toastmasters International organization, in this time of the pandemic, should not be summarily punished for doing so.
Also, the suggested remedy of 'simply getting a new email address', again, puts the burden on the message sender, who may be using a well-established email address. That suggestion would seem to invite users to be creating 'throw-away' email addresses as a work-around for their being blacklisted with their established email.
This policy should be reviewed and improved to give some REAL recourse for the message sender.
Topic Author
