--- In quizbowl_at_y..., cooterchekov <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Now that a few people *can* exercise control over participation in > the chatroom, the question is raised: *should* we? Recently there's > been a call for greater control over unruly participants typing > offensive language (e.g. "fag"). On the other hand, to do so would, > call a spade a spade, be censorship in the name of social order. > > So let's dialogue. What should the policy about kicking/banning from > the chatroom look like? This will lead to the formation of an "uncensored" quizbowl channel, not hard to do on IRC. All the interesting, flamboyant personalities will go to the new room. All the thin-skinned individuals will remain behind. (Actually, a lot of people will hang out in both rooms, another thing not hard to do in IRC.) It will be like that episode of Friends, where they had two birthday parties for Rachel to keep her parents separated. Who wants to hang out at Monica's party? The question is, who's been calling for censorship? Are they calling for it because that person has been the object of ridicule or because that person is a disinterested party who finds the conversation unsettling. One possible mechanism would be to give X number of warnings, then require a two-thirds (or some reasonable) vote of those present before kicking people out for the night. It makes sense that this decision be based on the tastes of those who most frequent the chatroom than the general public. The mailing list, I can see being kept clean in order for it to remain a sensible tool of information and recruitment. A chatroom is seem as a social club to hang out in as well as a place to play on packets. The other solution is to have all packets all the time. That tends to down out most of the offensive language. Anthony, who probably should be shot for making a Friends reference
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST