Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Moderate Bean Counting

Author: blass uri

Date: 10:34:05 07/01/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 01, 2000 at 12:56:39, Chris Whittington wrote:

>On July 01, 2000 at 00:21:33, Mark Young wrote:
>
>>On June 30, 2000 at 16:39:31, Chris Whittington wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It has been very interesting to read all these posts going around in never
>>>ending circles about what is and what is not on-topic or off-topic.
>>>
>>>IMHO the concept of on-or-off-topic is highly subjective, and is often used by
>>>one group to bully another.
>>>
>>>Truth is you don't really know what is and what is not.
>>>
>>>This is a discussion board.
>>>
>>>It is composed of members.
>>>
>>>Members are all different.
>>>
>>>Some read some posts and some read others.
>>>
>>>If members read posts, and carry on reading posts in a thread, they must be
>>>interested, no?
>>>
>>>If a thread gets long, and nobody reads it, then you can assume members are
>>>voting with their feet, and expressing disinterest.
>>>
>>>Long threads which nobody wants to read, appear to 'piss people off',
>>>terminology I am getting used to reading.
>>>
>>>Why don't you just fix the board software to count reads and display them in the
>>>title field? Just as if they were beans.
>>>
>>>Then the evidence to declare on or off-topic would have objectivity.
>>>
>>>I'm sure the moderators then have enough non-Artificial Intelligence to
>>>interpret the bean counts before jumping into contentious actions.
>>>
>>>Chris Whittington
>>
>>I could not agree more with what you have said.
>
>Thinking about the moderation complaint procedure where member(s) send complaint
>email(s) about a poster or a post or a thread to the moderators, this seems to
>be a very _negative_ mechanism. One can assume it only happens when a member is
>dissatisfied enough to complain.
>
>Member relationship to the moderators is based on this complaint process.
>
>This must be difficult for the moderators, always having to deal with
>negativity.
>
>Readcount is a positive process. In fact a high readcount would be a _positive_
>reinforcement to posts and a positive signal to the moderators.
>
>A high readcount can be set positively against negative complaints.

I think that a low readcount can support deleting a subject if the moderators
hesitate if to do it.

I do not think that a high readcount will be against negative complaints.

1)The people who complain do not know before they complain that they will
complain.

If somebody posts something off topic into an interesting topic it will have a
high readcount because people know that it is off topic only after they read it.

2)The fact that many people read something does not say that it is legal to post
it.

If somebody post ways to get a commercial program for free then it is possible
that many will read it because they want to get the commercial programs for free
but it is not legal to do it.

3)If somebody says that someone is a lier then it is possible that many will
read the response because they may want to know if the poster has evidence for
it but it is wrong to post it with no proof.

Uri



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.