Author: stuart taylor
Date: 07:05:53 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 03:52:29, Roger wrote: >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 Banning is nothing at all analogous to death penalty. It's like excommunication. Maybe it's good to see what other decent forums do. But perhaps vulgar language, or very insulting language, the posts should be deleted immeadiately without warning or notification-but only if realy bad, though it should be said for everyones information that it need not be all that bad to be taken off. If worse comes worsed-maybe trails can be censored (not re-edited)just to expunge references to original offender. This should be clearly in the rues, and if there are complaints, they can have their message sent back by e-mail albeit appologetically, and told to rewrite it witout references to deleted post. If offenders become violent and rebellious, and this is written about on the forum(of course it should all be private-both ways),then he should be suspended temporarily and told just that by e-mail without detail, only to contact board if he so wishes. They should treat him with greatest of respect but if he thinks he is boss-and will not respect moderators, then after next suspension and subsequent complaint, it should be explained to him nicely in 2-3 lines, that the moderators can not do better, but are responsible for-----etc.And not put him back too quickly. Maybe after promise of good behaviour. Third time around also polite, but may take even longer to budge maybe even till next elections. But no vote within forum. That is senseless.It's off-topic, It's public shame, it's communal punishment.(moderators don't punish. They are the owners).Stuart Taylor
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.