Author: Will Singleton
Date: 23:42:38 11/03/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2003 at 21:05:26, Christophe Theron wrote: >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 CT, You are a smart fellow, but you've missed the point here. First, this is not a democracy, it's a representative republic; we elect people to govern, because it is impractical for all of us to govern. (Note that your fiction of a democracy is superceded by my fiction of a republic only in theory, since it's a private commercial operation operating solely at the owner's discretion. As a practical matter, however, it is a republic.) Second, there is no requirement to inform or to gain the approval for official action. Third, the current mods have been extremely lenient and unobtrusive up until now; while I find their current action unusual given their heretofore laissez-faire approach (allowing all manner of personal attacks, off-topic posts, gibberish, trolls, and other assorted poor behavior), it's none of my goddamn business, or yours. Put another way, a well-moderated board operates invisibly, which is to the satisfaction of the majority. Will
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.