Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:59:58 09/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1998 at 03:07:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. Personally, I don't care if anyone who is kicked out apologizes. The reason people are kicked out is that they won't behave. If it becomes likely that they won't misbehave in the future, I say let them back in. Perhaps I am in disagreement with Don here, if so, oh well. >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 will digress for a moment, and suggest that I think the current situation is bad, and I am at a loss as to how to fix it. We have a bunch of people here who seem to enjoy this board. But there isn't very much written down about how the board will operate. And there seems to be little interest in discussing what is allowed and not allowed here, and how the board will actually be run. In fact there seems to be hostility towards the idea of discussing these issues, when I have tried to ask people their opinion regarding governance issues I have been flamed. Furthermore, the moderating committees have tended to act behind the scenes. Decisions are made in private and are not always announced. This causes a few problems: 1) No traditions are established, meaning that nobody knows what is allowed here, what is not allowed here, and what will happen if you do something that is not allowed here. 2) People think that others get away with stuff here, since the moderators don't announce every action that they take. 3) Since decisions are not necessarily announced, they are not necessarily recorded, and it is hard to argue with something that is not written down or explained. As I have said, I think it is difficult to do anything about this, since the tolerance for discussion of governance subjects seems to be low. I am a little afraid of what will happen if this group does decide to attempt to govern itself, since the mechanism used in the past seems to have been a system of governance by suggestion and acclaim, and some of the suggestions have been pretty bad, and the acclaim has come too easily. My feeling regarding troublemakers is that they should be kicked out if it is likely that they will continue to cause trouble. I think they should get a warning if it is possible that they don't understand how CCC works, but I see no reason to give them a private warning, another warning, then a short ban, then an indefinate ban, as you suggest. Each of these warnings represents a personal attack, you realize. Personally, I would give almost anyone one very clear warning, then cut them off with no fixed time limit if they make it clear that they are here mainly to cause trouble. This is both harsher and less harsh than what you propose, since I would happily let anyone back in at any time if I thought they weren't going to cause more trouble. It is a nasty situation, with no real clear analogs elsewhere in life. If we were all in the same room talking about this stuff, and there was someone there to make sure that nobody threw any punches, everyone would see everything that person did. But here, you don't see it all. And yes, some of the decisions that I have been involved in have been a little unfair, and I take responsibility for this. I think what happened with Sean was correct though. >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. Personally I think everything should be public. That way everyone knows what has happened so they can know what not to do, and they can know that problems are being addressed. This is not only my decision though, and even if I got my way, I think it would be difficult to do this in practice. There have been cases where I saw a post I didn't like, and rather than go through a lot of email between myself, the person, and the other moderators, I just called the person on the phone, and the problem stopped, except that people keep nannering on in r.g.c.c. about how unfair we all are here because nothing happened publicly. >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. You've been reading r.g.c.c., I trust. Do you think that Sean would write good posts in here were he reinstated? I don't. I think that right now he is doing everything he can think of to tear down CCC and anyone connected with it. If I thought he would behave I would welcome him back in an instant, but on the contrary I think he is on an anti-CCC vendetta. It would be stupid to let him back in in this case. bruce
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.