Author: Keith Evans
Date: 09:50:34 11/05/03
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. It is a private matter unless the person getting fired I have never worked for a company that operated as a democracy. Have you? (I have heard of companies run by Quakers that were run as democracies, but I think that that it's pretty rare. I don't know how they go about firing someone.) Also I always find it disconcerting when a coworker disappears from a company without any notice. Really resembles a dictatorship more than a democracy.
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.