Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 22:34:40 02/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2000 at 01:25:25, Roger wrote: >On February 08, 2000 at 00:47:39, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On February 08, 2000 at 00:37:06, Roger wrote: >>>On February 07, 2000 at 17:37:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>I think that a general election about things like this is ridiculous, for the >>>>same reason that there is no general election about a farm subsidy bill. The >>>>amount of traffic generated is huge compared to the amount of general interest, >>>>and you end up with a huge volume of material that nobody has time to read, and >>>>who knows by what criteria the decision is made. Multiply this by a couple of >>>>crises every few weeks and we'd have a giant mess. >>>> >>>>Consider that we have a giant mess already, as everybody throws in their own two >>>>cents about every damned thing. >>>> >>>>bruce >>> >>>When I originally proposed it, Bruce, you pointed out that only two people have >>>ever been banned, Sean and ChrisW. The infrequency of the banning was your >>>argument why it should be handled by the moderators. But that argument cuts both >>>ways. The infrequency of it is why it can also be handled by the people. >>> >>>The facts are that ChrisW has now given us empirical evidence that letting the >>>moderators handle it DID NOT WORK. >>> >>>You and Dann and Karinsdad have done a great job moderating, there's no doubt >>>about it. On the issue of ChrisW, however, the three of you have been >>>wishy-washy. This is the only thing that turns and A+ job into an A-, in my >>>opinion. So we need to take a look at this and figure out why ChrisW is >>>consistenly able to invade our forum, when we supposedly have a mechanism in >>>place to stop him, the Moderators. >>> >>>You mentioned criteria for decision-making. No one knows by what criteria Chris >>>has been able to manipulate our forum, and it is rediculous that he has been >>>able to do so. If Chris had been banned by the people, the moderators would KNOW >>>absolutely that their job was simply to STOP this nonsense in its tracks, and >>>Chris would know that he is unwanted by consensus, not by political maneuver. >> >>So your position here is that Chris continues to post because he is not >>absolutely sure that he has been removed, or perhaps that if more people told >>him so, he would be obliged to leave quietly and fade into the sunset. >> >>Excuse me while I feign mild shock and disbelief. >> >>A vote would have changed nothing. >> > >Imagine that all your friends suddenly took a vote and told you that you were a >dumbass and not to come around anymore. Imagine further that people you didn't >even know, but who had observed your behavior, took a vote and they didn't want >you either. I don't think you'd want to come around anymore. I wouldn't. > >Perhaps ChrisW is made of different stuff...I don't know...he definitely likes >the attention. How many times have you KNOWN that if Person B would just IGNORE >person A, a seemingly ceaseless flame war would DIE UTTERLY. That has never worked. 20 years of USENET prove it. >But remember, I didn't say it would just be a VOTE ALONE. Then what is the vote for? >I said the moderators >would act to ban following the vote. Suspend. There are no bans. We did act to suspend. Nothing is different here, at all. > In this case, ChrisW's aliases would have >been deleted as soon it became apparent that it was him. How does this become apparent? Because you think some new poster has a tone like Chris W? >There would have been >NO AMBIGUITY, no "call" to make, no personal relationships between programmers >to interfere, because the moderators would simply be the executors of the >people's will. Really? How do you know? I can tell you that despite Chris being suspended there were still calls to make and the calls were very difficult to make. >He would have been OUTTA HERE!, as they say. I think you may not be fully aware of all the issues involved. > >>>As >>>it was, the moderators ALLOWED this to go on. That was rediculous. >> >>For my case, I plead guilty as charged. Perhaps the next set of moderators will >>do better. > >Nah, you're a good guy, Dann. I like you and what you stand for, and that goes >for Bruce and Karinsdad, too. I don't blame you. I don't blame anybody really. >You guys have done an awesome job. If you guys didn't have one flaw, folks >wouldn't be able to tell that you guys were really human. ;) > >> >>Your voting idea has no merit at all. It won't accomplish anything useful. It >>will create a huge workload and cause an enormous set of problems that don't >>exist now. >> >>Just my opinion. I could be wrong. > >I prefer the voting idea to allowing someone to repeatedly come in here under an >alias and persistently abuse our forum. I'll take those problems over the status >quo. I don't think it fixes anything. I think it causes ten times as many probles as it solves (which is none). >Could be that the greatest utility of the voting idea is to get the moderators >to act consistently with regard to ChrisW, and since only two people have ever >been banned from CCC, that may just produce the same effect as if the voting >idea had never existed at all. ;) I do hope you are right about that.
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.