Author: James Swafford
Date: 17:15:11 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
You raise some good points. I would be hard pressed to think of a reason that I would want to ban somebody. Seems to me that it's pointless. If it becomes obvious that a ban is necessary, then there should be some sort of formal procedure. Moderators alone, in my opinion, should not have absolute authority to ban a member. Moderators are, after all, only temporary. Perhaps moderators should have authority to initiate the "proceedings," but the final authority should rest with the group. -- James On January 25, 2000 at 18:08:27, Roger wrote: >I would like to formally ask the candidates what their position is on issues of >banning and temporary suspension, which I raised earlier. > >In raising this issue, let me make a few things clear (My apologies for the >preamble, but the issue seems so sensitive that I feel it necessary): > >1. I believe that CCC works well as a moderated board, and I believe it is >working well now. I do not believe that it should return to the chaos of RGCC, >and this is NOT an attempt to get us on a slippy slope back down to RGCC. Good to hear! I haven't read RGCC in ... hmm... maybe two years? I'm not sure... > >2. The discussion of banning seems to raise bad memories. This is a serious >issue, not a troll, and I would like to ASK folks NOT to post anything about >Chris, Rolf, or Sean in this thread. They have been banned, and in my opinion, >rightly so, and I would NOT want to see them return (if you would, please raise >it somewhere else). Let's let the past lie and talk about the future. I would >like only to discuss the mechanism through which banning occurs. I am not >against banning. I am for it, if it's done right. The issue is, what is right? > >3. I do not advocate that every little thing be hammered out through group >process, but only that banning be a democratic affair, since it is the most >extreme form of moderation. > >4. If someone else has better ideas, let's hear them, since now is the time for >us to speak. > >That said, what I believe is that the moderators should have the authority to >suspend someone's posting privileges, but that only a group vote should be able >to ban someone permanently. > >Banning is, as I have argued, the functional equivalent of death. With the death >penality, society effectively says, "we can no longer tolerate your presence." >Excommunication, and sending someone into exile are also similar. In each case, >the decision to ban someone permanetly (not just to suspend their ability to >post) seems so severe that it ought to be done through a democratic vote. > >To me, it seems that there are tangible advantages for banning only through >vote: > >1. The group must take responsibility for its actions. Banning someone is >uncomfortable, but it is something that needs to be done once in a great while, >and I think we should ALL shoulder the responsibility for it. Yes, it's messy, >but I think we should never cease to be aware of that, because THE MESSINESS OF >IT ONLY POINTS TO THE GRAVITY OF THE ISSUE. > >2. It takes the heat off the moderators. People who are banned can cry foul in >other forums, they can say that this moderator or that moderator had it in for >them, that it was a political maneuver. A democratic vote frees us of this >possibility, since it is the group that bans, not the moderators. > >3. Banning by democratic vote is actually more threatening than being banned by >the moderators. Someone banned by the moderators can always say they were canned >for pissing off the wrong person. Someone banned by democratic vote has to live >with the consensus judgment of his peers. > >If the candidates could comment on the above, I would appreciate it. There are >also two other issues that are connected to banning: > >1. I believe that there ought to be a period of suspension before a ban. I think >that period ought to be left up to the moderators, and that the punishment >should fit the crime. So a post like "Fuck you" could receive a ban of three >months, for example. (Bruce having pointed out in a thread below that the >one-week-the-first-time, two-weeks-the-second time rule is too rigid). That >allows the rare person to come back and swipe at us, but I think we can take it >in exchange for doing things according to a standard. > >2. Karinsdad said in an earlier thread that banned people sometimes post >constructively under other names. I do NOT believe they should be able to do >this. I think that once you're banned, you're banned: The group (or it's >representatives) have spoken. I don't think a backdoor should exist to undermine >the will of the group or that of it's representatives. > >What say ye, candidates? For? Against? or Don't Care? > >Thanks in advance, > >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.