awww i got fined

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 9:54 pm

done it

anything i missed ? this is a draft btw

26th November 2005
The Registrar

University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

HEAT REFERENCE: 53408
Dear Registrar,
I am appealing in mitigation of my penalty as stated by the Disciplinary Regulations, as published in the University Calendar (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/info/gov/calendar/) section 2, Regulations, item 23, Paragraph 7. I feel that I have been unjustly fined Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£35 as a direct result of miscommunications and misunderstandings by IT Services. Firstly on the student computing web site (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/ ... /policies/) has no set policies put out it although it does contain a vague AUP (accepted use policy). This policy was not changed until well into the term yet apparently ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œThe AUP was revised to preclude peer-to-peer file sharing and agreed by the University Information and Policy Committee in May 2005 for implementation this academic yearÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:26 pm

sorry just skimmed it.. dont think there are any spelling mistakes tho..

it looks good tho.. I reckon u should have a good chance of getting ur appeal through... they have a serious problem in that they have never properly communicated changes etc.. which means users were never informed properly on rules changing.. also as pointed out, they have themselves broken the AUP and thus owe u more money than the fine.. I would tell them that once they pay up for their part.. then the fine can be discussed.. until then.. f*ck them.. they should kno they would never get away with it in court!!

Post by **astropoint** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:08 am

I found this quite amusing earlier in the term when looking up the disciplinary regulations. In the AUP, it states
"Minor breaches of this policy will be handed under the regulations concerning minor disciplinary offences (regulation 24 subsection 6 and 7)."

However, if you look up regulation 24:
24 Award of Leave of Absence to Students Elected to Sabbatical Office in the Union of Students.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/info/g ... gulations/

Yet another example of the very well written AUP

So you could always try to plead your case that any action taken should simply force you to take a year out of your course to be a Sab

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Sat Nov 26, 2005 4:57 pm

astropoint wrote:I found this quite amusing earlier in the term when looking up the disciplinary regulations. In the AUP, it states
"Minor breaches of this policy will be handed under the regulations concerning minor disciplinary offences (regulation 24 subsection 6 and 7)."

However, if you look up regulation 24:
24 Award of Leave of Absence to Students Elected to Sabbatical Office in the Union of Students.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/info/g ... gulations/

Yet another example of the very well written AUP So you could always try to plead your case that any action taken should simply force you to take a year out of your course to be a Sab

ROFL... they're sooo screwed.. the AUP is actually completely full of holes.. they've got nothing on u guys.. so dont pay the fines

Saberwing · Post by **Saberwing** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:51 am

Has anyone written out their appeal for the fine?

The deadline is in like 2-3 days so I had better get a move on for that.

Can I see what one of you have written so I write one in a similar fashion? Thanks.

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:43 pm

yer i have written mine and there is another on this thread so just look throught it dude

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 pm

Saberwing wrote:Has anyone written out their appeal for the fine?

The deadline is in like 2-3 days so I had better get a move on for that.

Can I see what one of you have written so I write one in a similar fashion? Thanks.

I've seen 1 or 2 posted on here so just look through the forums and u should find them.. believe there are some in this topic

junior aspirin · Post by **junior aspirin** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 6:52 pm

ok, here is my final draft. i think everything is covered. this is the version i will send to it services, i also have a slightly amended one to send to the registrar.

[quote]
28 November 2005

Rosemary Gilmore
IT Services
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
United Kingdom

HEAT REFERENCE: *****

Dear Mrs Gillmore,

I am writing for two reasons: firstly, to appeal against the fine that has been imposed upon me and in relation to this, the general state and performance of the service you provide. These two issues are closely related and I will explain my grievances below.

Firstly, I would like to raise the issue of the 'Acceptable Use Policy'. I am being fined for a breach of this policy, which I feel is unjust due to poor communication on your behalf. When I joined the university there was an 'Acceptable Use Policy' in place, however this policy has since been changed. The adjustments were sent to us in a very brief and vague manner in the form of an email and there was no formal agreement on my behalf that I accepted these changes. I believe that the students should have been consulted before the change and asked formally via a letter to accept the new agreement. We are now in week 10 of term and the policy is still no clearer. In order for students and staff to understand the policy, I believe that a formal, coherent policy should be issued. It should be available either in the form of a letter or on the ITS website, so that it is clear and easily accessible. The present situation is just confusing.

I also feel that the fine imposed was excessive for a first time offence. I understand that you are trying to improve the state of Resnet, but due to the reason detailed above, I do not believe that there are justifiable grounds for such a heavy penalty. Since my meeting on Friday 18th November, I have not used any file sharing applications. DC++, the application I was using, is said to use up a lot of bandwidth. This is true, but it was using internal bandwidth, not that of the external Internet connection. I feel this is relevant, since at the meeting I attended on 18Th November this was incorrectly stated. A contradicting fact from the IT Services web site on the ResNet focus group meetings (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/ ... ember2005/) states the following: ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œ[The] issue of file sharing was raised. Re-iterated that internal file sharing was permitted, but that all external file sharing remains prohibited and therefore blockedÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:04 pm

dont send it to her!!!! she just sends a shitty letter back saying sorry but you have to appeal using the universitys appeal blah blah i have enclosed a copy of the disiplinary actions etc

You have to actually send it to the Registrar in university house just go there give it them and they will use the internal mail to send it. ITS just fob you off and it wastes time. (trust me i did it) so just change little bits in ur letter names etc

ow and dont start it

im a wirting

thats lame and a tad obvious your writing to them. use something like, i am appealing or the circumstances which surround my fine are vague and misleading, i hereby oppose this fine supported by the following argument.. i dunno summin like tht

CrAzY

johndddd · Post by **johndddd** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:24 pm

Hey guys, just a quick thought.

Although the AUP has been constantly messed around with etc., in the orignal paper copy of the AUP that you got in a computing pack in your room at the beginning of term it states that it is unacceptable to use Peer to Peer applications. Now I have a feeling that by admitting to using DC++ they will just turn round and say you have broken the original AUP that you 'agreed' to and thus the fine is justified.

Wouldn't it be much better to deny use of p2p software. I don't know how easy it would be for them to prove that you were using it.

junior aspirin · Post by **junior aspirin** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:15 pm

thanks CrAzYfOoL, i have been trying to think of a better way to open the letter. i am sending this letter to the registrar as well, a slightly modified version, as i stated in my post above.

Saberwing · Post by **Saberwing** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 1:48 am

junior aspirin wrote:ok, here is my final draft. i think everything is covered. this is the version i will send to it services, i also have a slightly amended one to send to the registrar.

I'm going to use something very similar to this and send it off tomorrow. Thanks a bunch dude.

CrAzYfOoL · Post by **CrAzYfOoL** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:00 am

cool its ok glad to help

echelon · Post by **echelon** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 11:54 pm

johndddd wrote:Hey guys, just a quick thought.

Although the AUP has been constantly messed around with etc., in the orignal paper copy of the AUP that you got in a computing pack in your room at the beginning of term it states that it is unacceptable to use Peer to Peer applications. Now I have a feeling that by admitting to using DC++ they will just turn round and say you have broken the original AUP that you 'agreed' to and thus the fine is justified.

Wouldn't it be much better to deny use of p2p software. I don't know how easy it would be for them to prove that you were using it.

no since evidence is against u... the best argument are the once above... main point is that p2p software does not mean illegal software and also they too have broken the AUP.. when they break the AUP it is no longer valid!!

junior aspirin · Post by **junior aspirin** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:59 pm

Ok i have recieved a repy from the registrar and from IT Services, basicly my appeal failed. below are the replys.

Reply from IT Services

Dear **********

Thank you for your letter of 25th November.

IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m sorry that the letter you received had the wrong URL. You can find the University Calendar at http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/insite/info/gov/calendar/ and the Minor Offences procedure is in section 2, Regulations, item 23, Paragraph 7.

We will look into both the issues you cover in your letter. The appeal regarding the fine will be considered via the appeals procedure and the copy of your letter to the Registrar will be used for this. The problems you have experienced with the performance of the service will be logged as a complaint and passed to our Customer Services Manager who will get in touch with you.

I understand the difficulties that users of the residences network have experienced this term and we are making every effort to resolve them and to involve students in this process. We appreciate your feedback and welcome discussion at the regular focus group meetings.

Yours sincerely
Rosemary Gilmore
Director of IT Services

reply sent via email - copy and pasted here.

Repky from Registrar

Dear ********
I am responding on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor to you letter dated <blah> addressed to the Registrar. In your letter you appeal in mitigation of the penalty imposed upon you by the Director of IT Services.

The following points are noted in relation to your appeal:
1. the AUP was revised to preclude peer to peer filesharing from the start of this academic year. It was approved by Information Policy and Strategy Committee in May 2005 and was published on the Student Computing web site on 31st Ausust 2005. A printed copy was included in the starter packs put in every bedroom. There is no specific, separate signup process for the AUP.

2. the policy was made clear in Newsletter 3 on 4th November, Newsletter 4 on 11th November and newsletter 5 on 29th November. See http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/its/ ... wsletters/

3. the performance problems on the residences network this term are a separate issue. They are being addressed vigorously and the students are fully involved through the students union, focus groups, newsletters and web postings. Any question of compensation is unrelated to penalty for breach of AUP. the use of P21p is a major cause of network performance degradation.

Given this, the Vice-Chancellor has determined that there are inadequate qrounds for appeal and the matter is therefore closed.

yours sincerely
Dr Paul Greatrix

that was rewitten from a letter they sent to my home address. any typos other than the one in bold were not in the letter. nb, he also got my name wrong-which is odd :s

so there you go, it was worth a try i suppose, im glad im workin my ass off at the mo so i can pay this off!

just thought i would share if anyone else was thinking of trying.