Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 18:05:26 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2003 at 14:57:34, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On November 03, 2003 at 13:40:05, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On November 03, 2003 at 13:22:35, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>
>>>On November 03, 2003 at 09:26:22, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Recently I came to know that Vincent Diepeveen has been banned from CCC
>>>>without explaination.
>>>>Especially before , during and after an important event like world champs !
>>>>Is this true ? and if yes , why ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Mridul
>>>
>>>
>>>Vincent has a one month suspension. He was told why he was suspended via email.
>>>
>>>On Noverber 30th , he will be able to post again - for those that want to mark
>>>their calendar.
>>>
>>>Membership to CCC is a privilige not a right. If you break the rules, your
>>>privilige might be taken away. Also, an FYI, the CCC moderators have an
>>>agreement that we do not take any action on suspensions/bannings unless all of
>>>us are in agreement. So any time there is any action, you should know the vote
>>>was 3-0. So some times we may appear to be slow in taking action, but on the
>>>other hand when we do take action - it's unaminous. That protects memebers
>>>somewhat against kneejerk reactions to posts.
>>>
>>>Michael Byrne
>>>Moderator
>>
>>
>>
>>Well done, but why has this been done behind the curtains?
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>How else would you do it? Do you want the moderators to discuss
>Vincent, his postings, their opinions, _all_ in public? That would
>not be a good way to operate. We vote on the moderators, and then we
>let them moderate. If we don't like the way they do their job, we vote
>for someone else next time...
That's certainly not the way democracy works. As CCC is supposed to work like a
democracy, things like that should be done in the open.
A simple message "The moderators have decided to ban Vincent for a month because
of his repeated violations of the CCC charter" would have been enough. If people
want to discuss the decision, well it's not forbidden.
I'm definitely *against* hiding the moderators' work. When somebody steps on the
line, the moderators can contact him by email and/or post a "MODERATION" message
in answer to the offending message. I'm in favor of a public warning.
When somebody is banned, it deserves a public announcement. If it does not, what
will???
Transparency in the moderators' work is important. In any democracy, the justice
decisions are published officially.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 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.