Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:01:02 09/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1998 at 03:07:57, Ed Schröder 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. >> >> >>> 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.