Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: RE-INSTATE SEAN evans

Author: Roberto Waldteufel

Date: 16:25:11 09/05/98

Go up one level in this thread



On September 05, 1998 at 16:55:30, Don Dailey wrote:

>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

I think your approach is very reasonable, and I agree that nobody should be
banned on an irrevocable basis, but in the specific case of Mr Evans I doubt
whether he is willing and able to behave himself if allowed back, based on what
I hear of his present activity in that other place.....

Best wishes,
Roberto



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.