Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 04:22:47 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. > I really don't think there's much need for this idea for a vote. I think we elect moderators to handle this sort of thing for us. I think if there was a group vote, we'd see the group constantly being full of messages regarding proposed bans rather than messages regarding computer-chess. It's not as if a ban means a person can never discuss computer-chess again is it? There's always RGCC. >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. > I think it would be impossible to write a set of all-inclusive rules, and just trying to "rank" the swear words seems pretty futile. >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. > I think it's virtually impossible to detect this, so I don't see much point in worrying about it. In general, this forum works remarkably well. Just looking at the messages over the last week or so suggests that there are several members with *serious* differences with other members. Yet, for the most part, discussions are conducted in civilized terms. If it's working why try to fix it? Andrew
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.