Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: MODERATION: Question for Moderator Candidates on Banning.

Author: Roger

Date: 15:08:27 01/25/00


I would like to formally ask the candidates what their position is on issues of
banning and temporary suspension, which I raised earlier.

In raising this issue, let me make a few things clear (My apologies for the
preamble, but the issue seems so sensitive that I feel it necessary):

1. I believe that CCC works well as a moderated board, and I believe it is
working well now. I do not believe that it should return to the chaos of RGCC,
and this is NOT an attempt to get us on a slippy slope back down to RGCC.

2. The discussion of banning seems to raise bad memories. This is a serious
issue, not a troll, and I would like to ASK folks NOT to post anything about
Chris, Rolf, or Sean in this thread. They have been banned, and in my opinion,
rightly so, and I would NOT want to see them return (if you would, please raise
it somewhere else). Let's let the past lie and talk about the future. I would
like only to discuss the mechanism through which banning occurs. I am not
against banning. I am for it, if it's done right. The issue is, what is right?

3. I do not advocate that every little thing be hammered out through group
process, but only that banning be a democratic affair, since it is the most
extreme form of moderation.

4. If someone else has better ideas, let's hear them, since now is the time for
us to speak.

That said, what I believe is that the moderators should have the authority to
suspend someone's posting privileges, but that only a group vote should be able
to ban someone permanently.

Banning is, as I have argued, the functional equivalent of death. With the death
penality, society effectively says, "we can no longer tolerate your presence."
Excommunication, and sending someone into exile are also similar. In each case,
the decision to ban someone permanetly (not just to suspend their ability to
post) seems so severe that it ought to be done through a democratic vote.

To me, it seems that there are tangible advantages for banning only through
vote:

1. The group must take responsibility for its actions. Banning someone is
uncomfortable, but it is something that needs to be done once in a great while,
and I think we should ALL shoulder the responsibility for it. Yes, it's messy,
but I think we should never cease to be aware of that, because THE MESSINESS OF
IT ONLY POINTS TO THE GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE.

2. It takes the heat off the moderators. People who are banned can cry foul in
other forums, they can say that this moderator or that moderator had it in for
them, that it was a political maneuver. A democratic vote frees us of this
possibility, since it is the group that bans, not the moderators.

3. Banning by democratic vote is actually more threatening than being banned by
the moderators. Someone banned by the moderators can always say they were canned
for pissing off the wrong person. Someone banned by democratic vote has to live
with the consensus judgment of his peers.

If the candidates could comment on the above, I would appreciate it. There are
also two other issues that are connected to banning:

1. I believe that there ought to be a period of suspension before a ban. I think
that period ought to be left up to the moderators, and that the punishment
should fit the crime. So a post like "Fuck you" could receive a ban of three
months, for example. (Bruce having pointed out in a thread below that the
one-week-the-first-time, two-weeks-the-second time rule is too rigid). That
allows the rare person to come back and swipe at us, but I think we can take it
in exchange for doing things according to a standard.

2. Karinsdad said in an earlier thread that banned people sometimes post
constructively under other names. I do NOT believe they should be able to do
this. I think that once you're banned, you're banned: The group (or it's
representatives) have spoken. I don't think a backdoor should exist to undermine
the will of the group or that of it's representatives.

What say ye, candidates? For? Against? or Don't Care?

Thanks in advance,

Roger







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.