Author: Roger
Date: 12:41:18 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
Dann, I have no idea how all the things you said got equated with what I said. Yes, banning can and should be used to get rid of obnoxious people. But banning isn't the difference between CCC and RGCC. Moderation is the difference. CCC isn't a banned grouop, it's a moderated group. Banning is only moderation in it's most extreme form. I don't think for a minute that banning or the threat of banning is the best thing about CCC, intelligent moderation IS. Nor did I say that banning eliminated a persons free speech across all forums, or that it pulled people's soapbox out from under them. When society puts someone to death, it acts to expunge that person from it's presence. Sending someone into exile has the same goal. So does banning. Relative to the group, the person simply DOESN'T EXIST. Functionally, the person is dead, RELATIVE TO CCC (this is what I stated). Banning is so extreme that I think there are a range of intelligent alternatives that people might want to consider. I am asking that we consider them. I don't think it should be eliminated, I think the mechanism through which it is applied should be changed. Roger On January 25, 2000 at 13:58:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >Banning is getting rid of a whinging twit who refuses to behave himself/herself >even after repeated warnings. > >Banning is the difference between news:rec.games.chess.computer and CCC. > >Banning does not remove a person's right to free speach. It just means they >have to put their soap-box somewhere else. > >Banning is *THE BEST THING* about this place. > >People who say banning is getting rid of free speach are acting under an absurd >delusion.
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.