Author: Roger
Date: 13:06:48 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 15:50:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 15:41:18, Roger wrote: > >>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. >Are you talking about the "Intelligent" moderated group? Not sure what you mean here. > >>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). >What you stated is wrong -- completely wrong. There is a procedure for >reinstatement. The guilty party waits the period of the ban and asks for >reinstatement. After that period has passed, they get to post again. As long >as they behave themselves, they get to stay. I do (however) support long-term >bans as well. For instance, I don't think Sean Evans should ever be let back >in, and I think that all of his aliases should be removed the instant he tries >to use them. Personally, Sean Evans disgusts me. I hated him on RGCC, and I don't think I'd ever vote for him to return to CCC. You talked about "the period of the ban"...I've never heard of this before. How is this different from a suspension? Or is it? > >>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. >I would not agree to moderation where the whinging twits cannot be removed. >Even their brief stays causes so much havoc it is unbelievable. The few banned >members cause more problems than all of the thousands of regular posters put >together. As a society, we put people into prisons and jails. That is an >extreme measure. Why do you suppose that such extreme measures are taken? Do >you wish that they would do away with provisions like that? Would you like Ted >Bundy to babysit your daughter? An absurd parallel, to be sure. But some >persons are such pests that if they were allowed to roam free here, I would not >leave altogether, but this place would lose 99.9999% of its value for me. I would not want to participate in a group unless there was a possibility of banning, and I do not belive that CCC should be turned into RGCC. That would ruin CCC. But I do think banning forever (if that's what it is) is so extreme that it ought to be implemented differently, and I think it can be done without transforming CCC into RGCC. I am just talking about a mechanism, not a wholesale change in CCC...that is all. Roger
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.