Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 00:42:31 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
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. > >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: Unfortunately, there are also disadvantages. :( >1. The group must take responsibility for its actions. Banning someone is The group also takes responsibility for electing the moderators. Still, you see how often people complain about them. :( >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. In a perfect place, I totally agree. The entire group should take the responsibility. However, there is no such thing as a perfect place. No matter what system is used, people will complain, and mistakes will be made. >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. The moderators are there to take the heat; that's what they're elected for. Further, a democratic vote can be highly influenced/biased. Hopefully, the moderators will not be. >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. True... But see below. >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. For an established poster, this will happen. If someone new shows up one day and just starts posting a bunch of "Fuck you!" posts, and won't stop, there's very little possibility that a suspension will change anything. It's better to just ban in such a case. >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. In theory, this is true. But how would you suggest to implement this without getting rid of anyone with an anonymous email account or some such? It would be almost impossible to do. For example: Say 'John Doe' is banned for some reason. Someone calling themselves 'Jane Doe' appears, and posts constructively, but everyone thinks, or knows, that this is really 'John Doe'. As long as 'Jane Doe' doesn't do anything wrong, why should she be banned? >What say ye, candidates? For? Against? or Don't Care? A couple more things: 1) If someone is banned, but there is overwhelming group response that they shouldn't have been, the ban can always be lifted. 2) If someone is banned, it will almost certainly be someone whom the group would have voted to ban anyway. Banning is an extreme action. If someone is being a total abusive idiot to everyone, do you really think that the group would vote to let him stay? This is the only type of person I can imagine getting banned anyway. Because of this, a group vote is pretty much unnecessary, IMO. Anyway, see #1 above. Jeremiah :)
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.