Author: Albert Silver
Date: 05:46:01 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 18:02:35, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On January 24, 2000 at 16:37:41, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>
>>On January 24, 2000 at 14:07:34, hgkjhg wrote:
>>
>>>if they do, then i'm not voting for anybody who doesn't like my name
>>
>>I believe it is possible for the moderators to ban a person, but that's an
>>extreme action. They wouldn't do such a thing to somebody just because that
>>somebody picked a name that probably doesn't mean anything in any language by
>>hitting a few keys that are roughly side-by-side on the keyboard. If that were
>>to happen, people would probably call for their replacement.
>
>There is nothing in the charter about the powers of moderators.
>
>Moderators have access to a URL that allows them to delete posts. This feature
>was added sometime in the early part of last year, prior to that all post
>deletions had to be done by request to Steve and/or Tim, which turned out to be
>too slow and too painful.
>
>The convention regarding banning is that the moderators can ban people. Since
>there is nothing in the charter regarding the powers of moderators, or anything
>regarding the process they must go through in order to carry out their jobs, it
>is up to the moderators to decide what process they want to use to ban someone.
>
>They could decide to operate in shifts, with one person in absolute control, or
>they could allow a 2-1 vote to determine that someone is banned, or they could
>require that 3-0 is necessary.
>
>The times that I have been a moderator we have sometimes come to decisions by a
>vote of 2-1, but in cases of banning, we have tried much harder to reach a vote
>of 3-0. I think this is the best choice.
>
>The process of banning involves the moderators asking Steve to ban someone, and
>then Steve or Tim actually doing it, I'm not sure who actually does it. How it
>works is that the password of the banned account is changed, so the person can't
>log on via that account. It is the member that is banned though, not just the
>account. So signing up with a hotmail account is not enough to get around the
>ban, although someone could get away with it potentially forever.
>
>Since Steve has to execute the ban, and since he owns this board, it would make
>sense that Steve has some say in whether or not he'll do what the moderators
>want him to do. It has been my experience that he's gone along, but sometimes
>he gets involved in the discussion, and has been known to express himself quite
>strongly.
>
>So if the moderators decide to do something that is obviously insane, I think
>there is a good chance that Steve will overrule it, although I have never seen
>this happen. Since there is nothing in the charter about the powers of
>moderators, or about the powers of Steve, I think this isn't "against the
>rules", in fact I think this is a pretty reasonable tradition.
>
>Since there is nothing in the charter about the powers of moderators, it would
>make sense that moderators can undo what previous moderators have done, no
>matter what the previous moderators feel about this. That seems quite
>reasonable as well. I don't think that three people who are elected for six
>months should have the power to prevent subsequent moderators from doing their
>jobs as they see fit.
>
>Thanks,
>
>bruce
So new moderators could in effect re-instate a previously banned member,
correct? With Steve's blessing of course...
Albert Silver
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.