Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:22:54 11/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2003 at 12:50:34, Keith Evans wrote: >On November 04, 2003 at 18:12:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 03, 2003 at 21:05:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2003 at 14:57:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 03, 2003 at 13:40:05, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 03, 2003 at 13:22:35, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 03, 2003 at 09:26:22, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Recently I came to know that Vincent Diepeveen has been banned from CCC >>>>>>>without explaination. >>>>>>>Especially before , during and after an important event like world champs ! >>>>>>>Is this true ? and if yes , why ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Regards >>>>>>>Mridul >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Vincent has a one month suspension. He was told why he was suspended via email. >>>>>> >>>>>>On Noverber 30th , he will be able to post again - for those that want to mark >>>>>>their calendar. >>>>>> >>>>>>Membership to CCC is a privilige not a right. If you break the rules, your >>>>>>privilige might be taken away. Also, an FYI, the CCC moderators have an >>>>>>agreement that we do not take any action on suspensions/bannings unless all of >>>>>>us are in agreement. So any time there is any action, you should know the vote >>>>>>was 3-0. So some times we may appear to be slow in taking action, but on the >>>>>>other hand when we do take action - it's unaminous. That protects memebers >>>>>>somewhat against kneejerk reactions to posts. >>>>>> >>>>>>Michael Byrne >>>>>>Moderator >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Well done, but why has this been done behind the curtains? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>How else would you do it? Do you want the moderators to discuss >>>>Vincent, his postings, their opinions, _all_ in public? That would >>>>not be a good way to operate. We vote on the moderators, and then we >>>>let them moderate. If we don't like the way they do their job, we vote >>>>for someone else next time... >>> >>> >>> >>>That's certainly not the way democracy works. As CCC is supposed to work like a >>>democracy, things like that should be done in the open. >>> >>>A simple message "The moderators have decided to ban Vincent for a month because >>>of his repeated violations of the CCC charter" would have been enough. If people >>>want to discuss the decision, well it's not forbidden. >>> >>>I'm definitely *against* hiding the moderators' work. When somebody steps on the >>>line, the moderators can contact him by email and/or post a "MODERATION" message >>>in answer to the offending message. I'm in favor of a public warning. >>> >>>When somebody is banned, it deserves a public announcement. If it does not, what >>>will??? >>> >>>Transparency in the moderators' work is important. In any democracy, the justice >>>decisions are published officially. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Actually, that is wrong. When someone gets fired from a company, does that >>get publicized? Nope. It is a private matter unless the person getting fired > >I have never worked for a company that operated as a democracy. Have you? (I >have heard of companies run by Quakers that were run as democracies, but I think >that that it's pretty rare. I don't know how they go about firing someone.) > >Also I always find it disconcerting when a coworker disappears from a company >without any notice. Really resembles a dictatorship more than a democracy. Most companies are. Even universities fit that description, as they should.
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.