Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 07:02:38 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
I understand your well-argued point, but to some extent I disagree. Rather than view banning as a death penalty, I tend to view it similarly to getting booted out of a bar when you have acted very inappropriately. Just as there are other bars to go to, there are other forums to air one's opinion in. I have never seen any moderators act rashly or incorrectly in this area. If we do decide to do 'group voting' on moderation issues (like banning) I see a bad precedent being set. I see endless threads about whether or not this person deserves to be banned. How will we determine who gets banned? Simple majority? Two-thirds? Do we need a quorum? What determines an active member for a quorum? I think the moderators are doing a very good job. I think the people who have gotten themselves banned have only themselves to blame. I feel that the people who have been banned have acted so irresponsibly that they were practically begging to get disciplined. If you don't want to get banned, the course to take is simple one: stick to the agreement you made at the outset; don't use insults, don't use profanity, don't act like a six year old. If you don't do these things, you won't need to worry about being banned. I think the current system is working well, and shouldn't be radically changed. Chris
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.