Author: Larry S. Tamarkin
Date: 19:50:44 09/05/98
Go up one level in this thread
Thank you for your well thought out reply; it certainly satisfies the majority of what I think is important in the free expression of ideas, except for one small (really big), item. That is that the offending party has to feel apologetic toward those whose post he or she is questioning. Obviously the most unlikely of people to apologize or feel that they have done wrong, are also the most likely to be banned! - Thats why I feel it is more important for the moderaters and those who are attacked to be 'Big' about those who have slung at them. After all, they are the most respected people by all, and also the majority usaully come to the 'front' in order to refute mistaken post and views. My idea of 'limited suspension' has this one importent advantage - it protects to some extent, from the continueing never-ending haranging from misguided individual(s), but it also protects the misguided individual's from themselves to some degree - they can wait out their suspensions, go nuts again it is true, but then be suspended for longer. Eventually they would have to learn from their past mistaken post, change their lanquange, and if still having critizisms to sling, have to at least learn to quote accurately and post civily to aviod suspension(s) in the future. The other benifit of course, is it gives them less to cry about in other forums, such as rec.games.chess.computer or rec.games.chess.politics Best wishes to all, Lawrence Tamarkin the inkompetent chess software addict! On September 05, 1998 at 19:25:11, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > >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.