Author: Don Dailey
Date: 13:55:30 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 04, 1998 at 15:27:13, Larry S. Tamarkin wrote:
>I also don't believe in the permenant banning of any individual - Its too
>tolatarian! It is in the nature of free speech/expression, that some will make
>outragous and incorrect claims and assumtions about others. Anyone with common
>sence can interpert the real truth on many diverse matters. Also people who
>have been attacked, usually have no problem(s) defending themselves, or having
>other's come to their defence.
>
>Perhaps one logical thing that could be done is to establish a time limit for
>the banning of any individual, always with an expiration time.
>
>Suggestion, 1 month first offense, 3 months 2nd offense, 1 year 3rd offense.
>True, the moderators would have to do a lot more work, keeping taps on what &
>who, and also notifying the offending party(s) why they were being temporarily
>banned, quoting offending post where necessary. But I think what we gain here
>is a forum where contridictory views can be tollorated and also tempored to some
>degree.
>
>Lawrence S. Tamarkin
>mrslug - the inkompetent chess software addict!
Hi Larry,
Your point of view on this is certainly worth consideration. I
believe it is, at least in part, a matter of moderator style. A
different set of moderators could have chosen to handle matters in
an entirely different way and still be entirely legitimate. I do
not think any of us would make the claim that our approach to
moderation is the best or only right way to do it. On the other
hand we hope that our decisions have worked in the best interests
of the group and I feel satisfied that so far they have been.
You mentioned that you do not believe in the permanent banning of any
individual. This is gratifying for us to hear since we feel the same
way about this point. Our implementation of this principle is different
however from the implementation you propose. This has been posted a
couple of times at least in the past, but I would like to briefly review
the approach we have chosen on this and then I'll explain why I feel
that it might be slightly better than what you propose:
ANY previously banned member can approach us freely and express his
desire to come back to the group. He has only to convince us of
two things.
1) He actually feels some regret for previous bad behavior.
2) We think it is very likely he will change this if given
the opportunity.
Really, the two go together and the first point is probably a
subset of the second point.
We have almost no rules on this group and I think this is a good
thing. All we ask is that we each treat each other with dignity,
respect and consideration. It is rarely the case that determining
whether this principle has been violated is ambiguous. The
tough part is determining how serious the infraction was!
I appreciate your feedback on this issue and it is good to hear
about how the membership feels on these things. I hope you do
not feel that we are being totalitarian because we do not have
an automated system of bringing back members on a regularly
scheduled basis. We would prefer to deal individually with each
case so that we can be more flexible on this. With our system
a member could concievably come back immediately without having
to wait some pre-determined time interval. On the other hand,
someone who is sure to cause much trouble may never get to come
back. To the extent that we can make it so, we want it to be up
to the individual instead of us. I know this is not completely
possible since a judgement will always be involved but if anyone
really wants back and is willing to play nice, I think they will
be able to convince us of this and will get to come back.
Do you think this approach is unreasonable?
- Don
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.