Author: Larry S. Tamarkin
Date: 01:05:20 09/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 1998 at 19:43:53, Don Dailey wrote: >On September 06, 1998 at 17:19:56, Larry S. Tamarkin wrote: > >>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. Well Ok, yes that's what I'm saying. My system is a 'no-brainer' because it gives the offending, (temporarily), banned person a time period they can expect to come back in. The part that I thought required some maintenance or memory or whatever was that the moderater's would have to keep track of the time period. Parhaps that can be done automaticaly, or is simpler than I thought. If so, I stand corrected. > > >> 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? Yes it is. When I lived in NY I was a member of the Manhattan Chess Club for 7 years, I worked for the club for several years, I ran tournaments for them, and at times I totally busted my butt for them, often for no pay. And I often had to take a lot of crap, both from the Board of Directors who often rarely showed up, and so had little real understanding of the day to day operation of the club, and also from irate members and visitor's who did not understand my positon in this 'extended family'. Later on I was 'removed' from my various positions at this club, and a very evil man that they hired to become manager, decided that I would be banned for life! They sent me a registered letter refunding my membership dues for that year, and informing me that the manager with the president's endorsment had decided that I was now banned forever! Needless to say, they were violating their own by-laws in what they were doing, but if it were not for my freind who was the secretary of the club, no one would have come to my defense. (My freind who is a very active NTD was later too experience a lot of grief for defending me, and now years later, runs most of his tournaments at the other club downtown). Anyway a meeting for the membership to meet and decide how to deal with this situation, had to be held to determine what was going to be done. These people who were in charge of things tried every trick in the book to keep this meeting about my membership prividges from being revoked, including changing the scheduling of this meeting only 2 days before it occured. Fortanately for me, I had as many friends who were members as enemies who were able to change their schedule and come defend me (and principles about how the club officer's were violating their own rules to carry out a personal vendetta). This included 4 GM's, 3 IM's and other well known people in NY chess. So they could not actually ban me permenately. All that time before the meeting (I think it was about 3 months, don't remember exactly as it was years ago), I was 'suspended' from the premises, and if I so much as entered the building, I would indeed have been banned for ever, with no chance of ever coming back. As things turned out, I was reinstated (still had to wait out some suspension time), and when I did come back, I simply let my membership expire, and joined the other club downtown which was not 'teaming' with these vindictive individuals. BTW, I was not the only person who suffered mightily at the hands of these awful people. Quite a number of other members, who were paying $250.00 - $325.00 dollars a year, also had problems with this horrible manager, President, and other Board of Directors, individuals who for what ever reason felt their position gave them the power to do what they wanted, whether it made sense or not. This is a very brief out line of something that was one of the biggest nightmares in my life, but I hope it gives you the insight you wanted from me, about why I am very nervous about anyone being banned. Obviously their were (and are) people who thought (and think), that I'm a dispicable individual, and deserve every horrible thing that happened to me. I hope that I'm reasonably objective however, and that I'm no more deserving of anyone's retribution then anyone else. > >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. Your point is a good one, but of course this is different. Sean Evans did not come to your home, he typed some words in cyber-space. It might be 'bad taste', it might even be worse, but it is not at your door. So I would (might) consider a different solution to this problem. >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? Maybe yes, but probably not! - They also expected me to apologize at the MCC, even though I was suspended in lieu of being banned, and from my point of view, they were the one's in the wrong. You simply can't expect someone (even someone, the majority has decided is in the wrong), to 'come around'. They can't do it because their honor has been taken from them. (As Worf in Star Trek might say). The people who have the power over the suspended or banned party should consider being 'big enough' to put up with a little more, because they do in fact have this power to deal with the offending party. > >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'm reasured, I think... I don't know Bruce and Amir very well >yet, but already I believe they are very fair in these matters. I don't know Amir, and I barely know Bruce, even though I was involved in setting up a match that his 'Ferret' progrom played against Chuck Shullien. I like Bruce, but from reading some of his post, I do get the feeling that he gets 'fed up' with some of the offending poster's and then feels 'righteous' about declearing why these horrible people should be banned. And why everyone should agree with him because of course his logic is so 'flawless'! - Sideline: Bruce I really don't need to go consult the dictionary, every time I want to express my opinion! But I hope you'll forgive me, if you think my expressions of thought too impricise? Have you considered that perhaps I don't have the time to make the post perfect, or perhaps I'm simply not smart enough (compared to who?), to express exactly what I'm trying to say, or maybe even, I'm trying to express something, searching for the right meaning, trying to get close enough to it, but maybe can't quite get their? If so, I'm sorry. Oh wait!? - I looked it up! here, I'll paste it; to*tal*i*tar*i*an*ism (noun) First appeared 1926 1 : centralized control by an autocratic authority 2 : the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority >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. I agree. I could be wrong, and I appreciate that a lot of thought goes into what the modarators are deciding, and I hope my input as a member of this forum is thought provoking too. And Bruce, I hope you don't get mad at me! :) > >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. Yes, thanks Don, Best wishes, Lawrence > > >- 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.