Author: Roger
Date: 00:52:29 01/25/00
Banning someone is so extreme...Banning is to CCC what the death penalty is to society at large. Effectively, a person is being put to death, relative to this forum. History has shown that Freedome of Speech is so valuable, and the price of censorship so high, that we resist censorship whenever possible, the wisdom here being to err on the side of liberalism. I wonder, then, whether we ought to entertain alternatives to banning. First, A GROUP VOTE ON BANNING SOMEONE: Are there ever cases where the moderators should defer to the group before banning someone. In other words, rather than the moderators taking all the heat for what might be an unpopular decision, the group would have to assume responsibility for its actions, and vote on banning someone. There would be no specific person to blame, the group having spoken democratically. Second, it seems to be that before someone is banned, they ought to be SUSPENDED. They ought to see their posting privileges revoked for a specific period of time. A week at first, perhaps, followed by two, then a month, then cast out. Seems that the moderators would assume the power to suspend someone automatically, but that a group vote would be required on banning. This would give some middle ground between banning and not banning, and might well let a rowdy poster adjust to the group, and the group to the poster. Roger
This page took 0.02 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.