Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:39:48 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 16:39:37, Roger wrote: >On January 25, 2000 at 12:31:48, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 25, 2000 at 03:52:29, Roger wrote: >> >>>Banning someone is so extreme...Banning is to CCC what the death penalty is to >>>society at large. Effectively, a person is being put to death, relative to this >>>forum. >> >>This is rhetoric. You are associating these two concepts, and they are not >>associated. Killing someone is killing someone. Banning someone is not even >>close to killing someone. > >It's an analogy for sure. What I said was that banning someone was equivalent to >death relative to CCC. When society puts someone to death, it is saying that we >must expunge that person from our presense. Sending someone into exile does the >same. Banning does the same thing. I never said that the moderators had the >power to actually end biological life. It's a bad analogy, likely to cause an extreme reaction through an improper comparison. I could say that banning someone is like telling someone who repeatedly poops in the public swimming pool that they may no longer use the pool, but this is another example of the same sort of thing. Actually, it is better than yours. >>A representative system is fine. The idea is that we vote for moderators, and >>they do approximately what they said they would do when they ran for the job. >> >>When moderators ban someone there is typically a lot of discussion. Do you want >>that discussion to take place here? I think that most people wouldn't. >> > >This makes it seems like we want the moderators to do our dirty work, so that >the group can keep such nasty affairs out of its awareness. Before someone was >banned permanently, I would certainly want a group discussion and a vote. Having >to ban someone is uncomfortable, but it's necessary from time to time, and >that's life. A great many people do not want prolonged moderation discussions in the group. If we want to make important decisions by plebiscite, that'd be one way to do it and it wouldn't bother me that much, but I think it would involve a lot of discussion overhead. >>There are also cases where someone appears and makes clear their intention to be >>a problem with their very first post. We had a guy last year who wrote a post >>entitled, "fuck you", and the body of the post consisted in total of the >>sentence, "no really, fuck you". This guy had never posted before. > >You mentioned rhetoric earlier. I think it's always possible to present extreme >cases in order to support, but I don't find that persuasive, because it relies >on the assumption that there are no borderline cases, or that there will never >be a borderline case. We already have borderline cases, and for those, my >opinion is that we should have group process. My case is very practical, it actually happened, and I believe I have quoted the title and body of the post accurately. I think it is an interesting example because when I bring it up, some people talk about giving the guy a warning, then a card, then a short suspension, then a longer suspension according to some geometrical progression. I think that's silly. I don't think that we need a full group discussion and vote over every marginal case. I'm not sure what to say beyond that. >>We elect three people to moderate. Sometimes it doesn't work out perfectly, but >>I'd like to take my chances rather than have everything go through full group >>discussion or have everything defined rigidly. > >I certainly would not advocate having every tiny thing move through a group >vote. That makes the representative system redundant. And that is NOT what I am >advocating. My argument is simply that banning someone is so extreme that it >deserves group process. I disagree. It seems to work, and it doesn't clog up the group with nonsense. >>>Seems that the moderators would assume the power to suspend someone >>>automatically, but that a group vote would be required on banning. This would >>>give some middle ground between banning and not banning, and might well let a >>>rowdy poster adjust to the group, and the group to the poster. >> >>Not necessary. >> > >That's your opinion, Bruce, and I respect it. I do, however, disagree. Yup. I see your points. I think that if your idea had been brought up early on amongst the people who designed the process by which the club had been run, that it would have been rejected for reasons I've outlined. I don't think there is a process by which we decide to make changes to the status quo. If you can think of one, I'd support your attempts to try to attract support. bruce
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.