Author: Dirk Frickenschmidt
Date: 04:34:16 09/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1998 at 01:03:16, Bruce Moreland wrote: Hi Bruce, I agree with Moritz, I respected your decision not to share the vote of the founders with respect. I am still convinced that the founders did well when excluding Mr. Tueschen. We may have (and really had) debates about these different opinions. But the majority of the founders did not decide before discussing the whole thing intensively. So I am sorry I have to request just as much respect for this decision - if you share it or not - as I just showed for the decisions of the new moderators to decide to let Mr. Tueschen post here. I don't want a new struggle about the decision. And I really respect you and your points of view. I just reclaim some respect for what the founders and the new moderators have done to serve this new forum and its participants as well. It probably wasn't perfect. But it is worth to be respected as the fundaments of an unoffensive computer chess newsgroup, the unoffensive character of which is threatened today more than ever since a long time... Kind regards from Dirk > >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
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.