Author: Roger
Date: 14:22:40 02/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2000 at 01:34:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. If there are no bans, then how long is ChrisW SUSPENDED for this time? What is the earliest that he can come back and abuse our forum? We have to put up with him indefinately? 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.