Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 06:20:44 04/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 1998 at 23:51:23, Dave Gomboc wrote: >First, let me state that I have not ever met any person of the >"founding" group (or anyone who has left it -- and something is wrong >with that statement! A person is still a founder, even if they are no >longer there! I'll use a different word, "director", to refer to the >people doing the job today.) > >Also, I don't know anything about why Bruce resigned from the directing >group, other than he said in some post a little while back that it was >not a coincidence that he left the group of directors around the same >time that Rolf Tueschen was banned. > >The inference I make (admittedly, having next to no data) is that Bruce >disagreed with the decision to ban Rolf, and resigning was a way of >indicating strong displeasure with the decision. > >This does not mean that Bruce does not have an interest in the operation >of the CCC. Nor should it mean that he should not engage in >constructive criticism with regard to the administration of the CCC. If >I were to have made the comments that Bruce did, would you have taken me >to task? Probably not; you indicate that you agreed with all of them. >So why is Bruce chastised for making those comments, when he is merely >exercising his privilege as someone who has signed up to use the CCC >service? > >It is my opinion that the role of the moderator is to decide what is >inappropriate, and to censure that material. It is an entirely >different thing to censure a person, and if you (and Bruce!) will allow >me a wild guess, it would be that this is why Bruce disagreed with the >decision to ban Rolf. > >There is a vast difference between limiting one's freedom of expression >when it infringes on the rights of others by censuring posts, and >denying a person the ability to speak at all by refusing access to them. > I believe that censuring posts which contravene the charter of a >discussion forum is justifiable, indeed, I think it is completely >appropriate. I believe that completely banning a person from a >discussion forum that is intended to be public is unethical. It is okay >to insist on proper conduct, and if every single message that Rolf wrote >failed to meet the guidelines, it would be fair to censure them all. >But if he wrote something that would have been deemed acceptable if >somebody else had wrote it, there is no reason why the post should not >appear on the CCC. > >If I've missed on my guessing, I apologize (mostly to Bruce). But even >if I've guessed incorrectly, don't think for a minute that those >thoughts are hypothetical, that nobody actually thinks that way... >because the thoughts I have ascribed to Bruce reflect my opinion on the >subject. > >Dave Gomboc >drgomboc@acs.ucalgary.ca I think it's time to go one step further. The role of the group of founders was, obviously, to create CCC and to make it work the way we wanted: a place where we can all talk peacefully about computer chess. CCC is working and we manage to talk about everything we want without every thread degenerating into personal insults, as it often happens on RGCC. By now I see this club as having its own dynamics and its own life. As a consequence, I think our job as founders is done and we should dissolve our group. In my opinion, now it should be up to all members of this forum to take over and decide how to make CCC work from now on. 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.