Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:07:57 09/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>I just want to empasize one point; Bye and large, I agree that in this CCC, >>moderation is useful and even desirable. I really have little problem with >who >>has been thrown out or reasons they are not allowed back in. But I do feel >that >>the methodolgy used may not be the best, and is why I suggested the 1 >month, 3 >>month and 1 year suspension concept, in order to reduce, but not entirely >>'delete' poor behaver and posting. > >Indeed, the methodology we use may not be the very best possible one. > > >>Yes, I know its risky letting more 'noise' back into this forum, but it also >>creates a system that is more free to disidant viewpoints within reason. >(Sean >>Evans or insert name...), should not have to apologise to anyone using this >>system, even if they are entirely wrong. The suspension itself, creates the >>apology. Besides, it always requires at least a little analysis to >determin to >>what degree they are wrong. >> >>I think the present system whereby the moderaters decide that they will ban >>offending posters, while easier to enact and maintain, > >HOLD IT. Which system is easier to enact and maintain? Automatic >reinstatement is a no-brainer, you just put them back on the group >with no consideration of circumstances or anything whatsoever. With >our method we have to actually consider how people feel and interact >with them and think about the issues. It's HARDER to implement our >system by far, but it is far more flexible and human. > > >> creates the impression >>that they themselves will ban whoever they don't like for good, and that if >they >>want back 'in', they have to come with their figurative tail between their >legs >>- and that hardly encourages people to comunicate itelligently. > >I think you said more in this single sentence than all the others >combined because now I know what is bothering you, everything else >was very abstract. You may have been offended by the idea that we >expect someone to show some regret for awful behavior and perhaps >you think this is unfair to them or arrogant of us. Is this the >case? > >Maybe an example will help you understand how I'm looking at this >thing, you do not have to agree, but please listen. > >Suppose I come over to your home and start insulting your family >and friends. Which policy will you implement concerning the >possibility of my comming back? I would expect you to ask me >to leave and never come back. If I really wanted to come back >and wanted to convince you of this I would come to you and >give you my best apology and hope you were forgiving enough >to invite me back. > >Maybe this is not quite the same thing, but I think the principles >are pretty much the same. Since it is less personal than >family and home, we are not expecting a tearful apology. But >I think we have a right (as a group) to expect better behavior >from any reinstated member and a simple statement of this from >someone is probably all they would need to get back on the group >as long as we believed it. Do you think this is far too much >to ask of someone? > >You said that we give off the impression that we might ban >someone for good just because we don't like them. I don't >know how to answer that one except to reassure you that we >would not do this. I don't know Bruce and Amir very well >yet, but already I believe they are very fair in these matters. >I am not a vendetta kind of person either but you wouldn't know >that until you got to know me. Remember that there are 3 of >us, 3 is better than 1 and 3 will temper the decisions of any >one. > >Having said all of that, I do not claim that what we do is better >than what you propose. But now I at least understand what your >concerns are. I hope I have addressed them to your satisfaction. > > > >- Don My 2 cents. When somebody robs a bank he is put in jail. When he after some years is released there is no obligation for him to apology for the damage he has done to enter society again. For that he was put in jail. When out of jail the person gets a new chance and it's up to him to do better or to spoil it again. Why not copy this rule for CCC too? I mean it is a standard rule in every civilized country and the whole world since its existence (till now) wasn't able to come up with something better :) Measures could be: - Warning (email only) - Yellow card (email only), 2 yellow cards = Red card (1) - Red card (1), banned from CCC for (?) months. - Red card (2), banned from CCC for life. I have no idea if it is wise to make "red cards" public. It maybe depends on the case and what has happened. All I want to say on this is that when people get a warning or a yellow card they (right or wrong) feel humiliated and putting it into public will make that 10 times worse. So I think email is the best way. If you have such a set of rules (not necessarily the above ones of course) then we can stop having this kind of discussions. In this respect there is almost no risk to invite banned people back in CCC. I mean they already have red card (1). As in real life everybody deserves a second chance. It's then up to them to spoil it again or not. For what it is worth. - Ed -
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.