Author: mick adams
Date: 11:45:45 09/06/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 05, 1998 at 22:50:44, Larry S. Tamarkin wrote: >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! > Sean's voice in this forum,is like a sweet breath of air,if i were of the female sex,i feel certain to be entertained by his malarkys. Micky. >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.