Author: Roger
Date: 14:16:55 02/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2000 at 02:55:49, Terry Presgrove wrote: >On February 08, 2000 at 01:37:51, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On February 08, 2000 at 00:37:06, Roger wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>More people than this have been banned. And you should see the email we get >>asking or demanding that we ban various people. >> >>>The facts are that ChrisW has now given us empirical evidence that letting the >>>moderators handle it DID NOT WORK. >> >>There are bumpy spots now and then, especially when this crap happens on >>weekends. >> >>>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. As >>>it was, the moderators ALLOWED this to go on. That was rediculous. >> >>I have a lot more sympathy now for people whose every action is exposed to >>public criticism. Everyone thinks they can do better, or at least that they can >>create a better system. Perhaps you could run for moderator next time, on the >>platform that you'll open everything up for public discussion. >> >>I'm sorry, but what you are proposing would be soundly rejected if it *did* come >>up for serious public discussion. That is because most people do not like to >>see this group full of moderation threads, including this one. >> >>bruce > > > We have a democratic process at work new moderators will be > elected and they will represent the body (CCC) as best they can. It is not > practical for any large body to vote on banning! You would have to notify > everyone that there would be a vote ahead of time and this would lead to > chaos. People taking sides and general anarchy. I've been in this forum for > several years and have not seen anyone banned that didn't need to be. This > forum has been a haven for me through some pretty trying times in my personal > life and I would hate to see it torn apart by anyone or any group of > individuals for that matter. Common sense should prevail on this subject. > Most everyone agrees it must remain a moderated forum and if this be so then > the moderators must be the ones to deal with the banning issue! I am not in > any click nor have I always agreed with the moderators, but overall they have > done a damn good job, and if anyone thinks differently then all I can say is > pitch your hat in the ring next time and get a little dose of this damn near > impossible task yourself! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why > they can't ban someone even if they suspect their someone that has already > been banned. There is always going to be friction, in any democratic public > forum there is no getting around it, but the Moderators will do their best > to keep out the blatant offenders and delete the personal attacking and > obscene posts. However the moderators cannot wave a magic wand and make > everyone feel good about everything that is written here nor can they defend > every member who gets his/her feelings hurt. The moderators are not > omniscient, omnipotent nor omnipresent, as some here seem to think. Their > just three guys trying to do a job the best they know how. Enough is enough > there will soon be a new group of moderators ......let's give this one a > rest. > > TP The moderators have done a great job, as I've said. And it's a hard job, and it's tough to satisfy everyone. In the case of ChrisW, Bruce has now given us hard empirical evidence that banning was, for reasons I have speculated about, not effective. Perhaps if ChrisW had REALLY been banned, then this thread would not exist. Roger
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.