Author: Moritz Berger
Date: 01:41:35 09/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1998 at 01:03:16, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>On September 19, 1998 at 17:27:11, Enrique Irazoqui wrote:
>
>>On September 19, 1998 at 15:21:29, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>>Although this would get us to the same place, and make some people happier, I do
>>>not think that this would be the right thing *for me* to do, because the person
>>>who would be hurt by this is Rolf, and he doesn't deserve this. If he came back
>>>as a paroled member, he might receive different treatment than if he came back
>>>as an exonerated member. I will argue from this point forward that he has been
>>>exonerated as far as CCC is concerned, even if this might give some (hopefully
>>>small) degree of offense to some.
>>
>>I don't see why.
>>
>>>This is unavoidable, in my opinion.
>>
>>Yup. But fair.
>
>Here is why, and why what you suggest is not fair.
>
>Assume that person A is convicted of an offense and is sentenced to serve ten
>years in prison. After five years he hasn't knifed anybody, he seems to have a
>good attitude, and the prison is getting full, so you parole the guy.
>
>Assume that person B is convicted of an offense and is sentenced to serve ten
>years in prison. After five years it is discovered that he didn't commit the
>offense, or perhaps it is determined that something else is fatally wrong with
>the way person B was tried. In this case, the guy is released.
>
>There is a difference between paroling the guy and releasing the guy. In both
>cases the guy is out of prison. But in the first case, there are restrictions
>placed upon him. In the second case there are no restrictions. And in the
>first case the man has to live with having been convicted, and in the second
>case the system has to live with having convicted him unfairly.
>
>I do not believe that moderation should be used to settle personal scores, which
>is what I believe happened last year. I think that was an awful decision, and
>even worse, an awful precedent. It should not be possible for a moderator to
>restrict someone's CCC account as a means of settling a personal dispute.
>
>bruce
To me, your example ("convicted unfairly") sounds wrong.
You were against our decision one year ago. That's why you left CCC, a very
honorable thing to do in my opinion.
Now the only thing has changed that you are in a different position of "power"
and don't have to accept any vote from the people who were responsible for the
decision back then. The only thing that has changed is your opportunities to
make such decisions.
But I wish you would acknowledge that it still is a matter of different opinions
between the majority of CCC "founders" and yourself - that you respect our past
actions as the result of a vote among people who are willing to take the
responsibility for it, although you disagree with our decision.
Nobody is in possession of the absolute truth, so you should at least give us
credit for not making that decision particularly "easy" for us but having a very
long an serious debate about it.
Moritz
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.