Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 15:26:22 02/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 09, 2000 at 14:37:02, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On February 09, 2000 at 12:50:30, Martin wrote: > >I sometimes use "we" or "us" to refer to the moderation crew, but please keep in >mind that I am speaking for only myself. > >>Hello, >> >>I'm quite new here, so please excuse the maybe somewhat naive question: >>what do you (and particularly the moderators of course) think, which situations >>do justify a ban of a board member? > >You should consult our policy statements from the last election. If you checked >that out, and there's still no answer, send some email. > >>My personal opininion on this is: >>If someone started attacking or even flaming me, I hope (=irony) that I'd be >>able to answer in an appropriate, civilized manner. I would not like to be >>"protected" by a moderator. Even personal insults don't automatically mean >>that I'd consider that person to be my enemy and that he/she will be put on my >>black list or whatever. > >If members complained about the original post being e.g. a personal attack, and >a moderator looked at it and concurred, it would be removed. If nobody >complained about it, it would stick around. In that case, if your reply is >nasty, that might cause people to complain. etc. I'm sure you get the gist of >the idea. > >>We're all quite adult (hmm, I think...) and should be able to cope with most > >Think again! :-( > >>situations of that kind. Serious problems arise only, if people are full of >>their >>own importance. A possible reason to ban someone could be spamming of the >>board, however. (imho) But as long as the communication on this board is not >>in danger, there should be no need to intervene. >> >>Btw, I've met Chris Whittington on a German board a couple of months (1 year?) >>ago. Of course he has got a quite provoking style to communicate but after a >>short >>introduction of mutual faint insults we've had a very interesting discussion, I >>think. >>I do not know exactly what happened here (read: too lazy to search). But I think >>that it would be a pity if interesting debates don't take place just 'cos of >>excessive >>vanity... > >It is sometimes possible to have interesting discussions with Chris. > >>Martin > >I replied to this message because I happened to notice it on the web board, and >I had time to reply to it. Please remember that moderator email is the most >effective way to reach us. > >Dave My Question was an open question, whether you will tell everyone here whether is will require thee moderators to ban someone, Since it seems a large part of this whole moderation discussion of the past weeks involved moderators or namely one having the pwer to ban people. I was trying to put across that if three people decide someone should be banned then really there should not be a problem. This has not been replied too yet, The rest was all tongue in cheek stuff, which is why I added the :) to the end. It a shame to see that the only people that answered was a new member (hmm) and another member, not being a moderator, picking up more on my joking part of the post instead if just a simple question I asked. Forget it, you guys can defend your moderations methods and policies that you decided upon when someone attacks you and asked why the rules had changed and why it was acceptable during previous moderators reigns, but something is different now. All this stuff is bought up every moderation reign, so why now again. Who cared about clearing things up. we can have another three weeks of moderation policy talk when something happens.
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.