Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:54:45 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 04, 2003 at 18:12:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>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
>
>Actually, that is wrong. When someone gets fired from a company, does that
>get publicized? Nope.
Coworkers know. Same here.
Christophe
> It is a private matter unless the person getting fired
>chooses to take it public. It is his particular "world" that has changed,
>and he should have the opportunity to choose whether it remain private or
>become public...
>
>The common practice is "praise in public, chastise in private". It works
>pretty well...
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.