Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:51:11 11/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 05, 2003 at 11:54:49, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 04, 2003 at 21:33:27, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On November 04, 2003 at 13:51:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2003 at 23:38:18, Jeremiah Penery 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. >>>> >>>>We elect moderators - representatives, if you will - to carry out what they >>>>think is in the best interest of the people they represent (those who elect >>>>them). If it were supposed to act like a democracy, then why have moderators at >>>>all? We should be voting on everything the moderators do. >>>> >>>>Nothing would ever get accomplished in such a system, which is why we do not use >>>>that system. CCC can best be called a representative government, in which it >>>>is not required for the government officials (moderators) to explain their every >>>>action to the people. If we don't like how they act, we elect new people when >>>>the term is up. >>> >>> >>> >>>Are you living is a democracy or not? >>> >>>We elect representatives, and they are accountable for what they do, so we can >>>decide to re-elect them or not. >>> >>>That's why in a democracy the decisions taken by the people's representatives >>>are made public. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>Christophe, I believe you mis-using the word democracy as we undestand it here >>is the United States. A democracy is where every decision is put to vote by the >>masses. That form of government is found to highly inefficient. The United >>Sates is often called a democracy, but technically it is a republic state. We >>elect our representatives to make our decisions for us. The CCC is also a form >>of a republic. The moderators were elected to make the decisions for the >>benefit of all members. >> >>I can go either way on public notice of bannings- but I would want to be sure >>that is what the majority of the CCC members would want before instituting such >>a policy. I viewed a banning as a discipline issue that is usually held to be >>confidential in the Unites States - perhaps other cultures view it differently. > > > >I don't want to quibble on the words. > >I have made my point clear I think. Such a "Justice Decision" should be >announced in public, i.e. posted directly on CCC. > > > > Christophe Why don't you pose this question here: "If _you_ are banned, do you prefer that all of CCC be notified by a post here, or do you prefer that it remain a private matter between you and the moderators?" I would answer "remain private". It makes more sense. Posting that someone has been banned only embarasses them _more_.
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.