Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:40:09 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 17:01:41, Roger wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 09:56:25, John R. Menke, Sr. wrote: > >>There should be no "banning" under any circumstances whatsoever, neither by >>edict nor vote. It isn't civilized. Tolerance and good reason must always >>prevail. Quite frankly, I agree that it is not civlized. Neither is jail or prison. Incredibly uncivilized institutions. It's amazing that in this day and age such things would even be needed. But it is the height of folly to assume that people will always act in a civlized manner. If I am in a restaraunt and someone starts to throw handfulls of mashed potatos, I do hope that the management will physically remove them. Uncivilized? You bet! But if they don't take such measures, I won't ever go back to that restaraunt. >I've seen people who I thought deserved to be banned, namely, Chris, Rolf, and >Sean. They are intractible, in my opinion. > >I'm only interested in how it's done. I think everyone is open to a better solution. I'm all ears. I don't think that voting is it, though. Of course, I could be wrong. Imagine you are a moderator and you have twenty bad posts per day coming in from someone, causing an avalanche of 300 angry responses [yes, they ought to use the moderator response form, but that is about one response in a thousand unfortunately]. Will you wait a week for some voting mechanism which is fairly easy to defeat make your decisions for you? And if (somehow) the vote is stuffed and they get to stay, how will you deal with it? In the meantime, you will have to handle that mess. I guarantee that moderators would either quit or give up under circumstances such as that.
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.