Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 02:53:44 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. What did I suggest? In my reply above I agreed about Rolf coming back to CCC. I said I saw no reason for anyone to take offense. And that at times it's unavoidable that moderators decisions will offend some. So I agreed with you. If you consider this as being not fair, you talk about something else. What? >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 As far as I know, it has never happened. Not in the founders group, not in the first troika of moderators. Applied to Rolf, what you say is not only unfair but also false. That such an accusation, such a personal attack against the founders of CCC comes from a moderator is quite astonishing. Being a moderator I would expect you to be more of a fireman than a pyromaniac. Rolf was first admitted in CCC. Then he was kicked out. He did nothing offensive in CCC. He offended non-stop in RGCC during those times and for a full year before. CCC was created as a place where people would feel at ease without the presence of vicious personal attacks like Rolf ones. He was kicked out not for what he said in CCC but in RGCC when we took the decision of kicking him out. This is not fair: posts in CCC are all that should be considered when moderating. What happened is also quite understandable given the circumstances. An example: XX spits on you every time he sees you in the streets. Then XX wants to become a member of your club. I guess you would vote against it; I know I would. Fair according to CCC rules? No. Understandable? Plenty. In any case, never a way of "setting a personal dispute", meaning, as you do, an act of vendetta. We were just looking for a `peaceful place to meet, and in context this meant for many "Rolf out". I said in public several times that in my opinion Rolf should be allowed to participate in CCC because red cards should not last for that long. Not because it established an "awful precedent". What I see as an awful precedent is the case of the pyromaniac moderator. You have no right to say what you said. It is false and it is insulting. Enrique
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.