Author: Roger
Date: 12:53:29 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
I think we can all construct extreme cases that make it appear as if banning should be implemented immediately. For example, a convict approaches a pre-school with a machine gun and begins firing. A cop sees the convict and pulls his gun. Does the cop need due process and the decision of a judge before he shoots the convict and saves the children? No. But not every criminal kills children, yet they are still criminals. In other words, there are borderline cases. Seems to me that banning is so severe that it ought to be implemented by the group as a whole. No one can say that it is a political decision, and the moderators need not take the heat for it. I think that it is actually for WORSE to be banned by the group than it is to be banned by the moderators. The banned person can always whine, "Well, the moderators didn't like me," "One of the moderators had it in for me," etc. But to be ejected by your peers in a democratic vote is a different matter entirely. Roger On January 25, 2000 at 10:14:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >Let's say somebody comes in here and makes 8,000 posts (in one sitting) >consisting of Nazi propoganda and advertisements for X-rated sites. Also, just >for good measure, this hypothetical person might reply to every thread, saying >it's the stupidest thing ever and that the poster is an idiot (or worse). > >Instead of immediately banning this person, who obviously has no value to CCC >and probably very little value in the real world, you would prefer some long and >drawn out voting procedure? > >You have to have some faith in the moderators that you elect. Some faith that >they won't run around deleting posts they simply don't like and banning people >for political reasons... > >-Tom
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.