Author: Roger
Date: 12:22:20 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 15:09:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 07, 2000 at 14:52:43, Roger wrote: > >>Some weeks ago, I proposed that banning someone was such a grievous matter that >>it ought to be done only by "a vote of the people." Some people agreed, some >>disagreed. Two of the moderators at that time, Bruce and Dann, were adamant that >>the moderators MUST have this power. Dann even said that when you elect a group >>of moderators, it comes down to whether you TRUST them to do their job. >>Karinsdad was aware that ChrisW was posting under another name. In the thread >>below on this issue, Bruce says that he is also aware, but that he was "content >>with the situation," and that he wanted to let the next group of moderators >>decide what to do (this amounts to passing the buck, in my opinion). >> >>My feeling is that if you take time to espouse principles, you ought to take >>time to live by them, and that ChrisW's behavior under another name has no >>relevance, whether it is self-controlled, or even wonderful. When he was banned, >>he was barred from participating in any way. THAT'S WHAT BANNED MEANS. I do not >>believe that someone, even a talented programmer like ChrisW (I own CSTAL II, >>and I like it), ought to be able to invent new accounts ad nauseum, and continue >>to disrupt our forum, like a hydra that sprouts two new accounts every time one >>is cut off. >> >>If you are going to ban someone, THEN BY GOD BAN THEM. Otherwise, banning has no >>teeth, and just makes FOOLS of the moderators and of CCC, which is how some of >>us feel now. That is what is happening, and if Bruce, Dann, and Karinsdad had >>lived by the principles they so strongly upheld, it WOULD NOT be happening. >> >>If we the people trust the moderators to ban someone, then there are all sorts >>of political rivalries, friendships, implicit alliances, and so on, working >>behind the scenes, as the ChrisW problem shows us. If it were just Sean acting >>alone, does anyone believe for a minute that we would have this problem? These >>"behind the scenes" rivalries and alliances are what makes the ChrisW problem so >>intractible. >> >>My feeling, then, is that we should formally pass the power back to folks that >>can and should act self-consistently, the people, and that banning should be >>done democratically, by a vote of the people. This only works to make the CCC >>community greater than the Peyton Place rivalries and alliances of the >>programmers, which we so often see at work here, the very reason why we CANNOT >>get consistency on the ChrisW issue. > >The matter has been handled. Your solution does not work (At all). With 100 >new fake accounts per day, how fast could you vote? It's foolishness even to >imagine trying to do it. And if the fake accounts stuff the vote, then what? > >You have obviously not thought this through very carefully. > >There is no such thing as a ban (IMO). All denials of priveledges are >suspensions. Any of these suspensions can be removed at a future date, >including tomorrow. > > >>Of course it will be messy, but it will not be more messy than the ChrisW affair >>has been already. I think the moderators should handle it...if it's been handled, I'm glad. I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME!!! You were there in RGCC when we were dealing with Sean, Rolf, and Chris. We are still dealing with Chris. Why? Because this situation has been ALLOWED to get out of control BY THE MODERATORS. Otherwise, this exchange of messages would not exist. You and I would not be posting to each other. As for voting on fake accounts, I never said we should vote on every fake account. You ban people, not accounts. Currently we have fake accounts that we know are someone who is banned (or suspended, if you like), and we tolerate them. If the moderators could just do their job with regard to ChrisW, this whole matter would not exist. So, Dann, now that the matter has been handled, would you be good enough to explain HOW it has been handled? Why is it that it has to get out of control every so often for it finally to be "handled"? Why can't it just be "handled" once and for all? Roger
This page took 0.01 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.