Author: John Warfield
Date: 22:16:27 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2000 at 01:10:06, Roger wrote: >On February 07, 2000 at 17:07:13, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 07, 2000 at 16:28:31, James B. Shearer wrote: >> >>>On February 07, 2000 at 15:30:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>Banning people and not accounts is harder than it seems. >>>>Imagine that someone makes a new account named "Quimby." Quimby starts posting >>>>stuff that makes you suspect it is someone banned. How do you know? If Quimby >>>>does not really cross the line, how can we remove them? >>> >>> Remove them on reasonable suspicion. If you are feeling generous give >>>them a chance to prove to your satisfaction that they are someone else. Are you >>>claiming there is reasonable doubt about the real identity of "jonathon smith"? >> >>I think we need to be very, very careful about being judge, jury and executioner >>based on suspicion, no matter how strong. This one seems obvious. How about >>some other cases? Not always so easy. Sometimes, they take a while to act out >>the starring role rather than a somewhat calmer pseudo-nym. >> >>There are ways to identify them besides guessing. It is not always clear what >>to do about someone who joins back under another alias. What if they should >>always behave themselves as model citizens, even though we know who they are? >> >>I think that they should still be suspended until it is lifted officially by >>CCC, but not everyone may have the same viewpoint. And there clearly are two >>sides to an issue such as this. My viewpoints are often wrong. >> >>I don't think there is any question about the identity of js. > >You've been a great moderator, Dann...I admire your wit and your sense of >fairness, and that of Bruce and KarinsDad as well. You and I may disagree on the >issue of who should be able to ban, but I agree with you wholeheartedly that the >aliases of those who are suspended should be suspended. > >You've heard the old saying that if you let someone break a rule, the rule gets >weaker. The rule became weak where ChrisW was concerned. > >Roger I think he has been a lousy moderator, so has moreland, and especially karismom.
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.