Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 12:31:25 07/02/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2000 at 10:01:58, KarinsDad wrote: >On July 02, 2000 at 07:23:04, Chris Whittington wrote: > >>On July 02, 2000 at 05:21:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>Nobody is going to sit down and do psycho-statistical analysis of a thread's hit >>>count drop-off rate. >> >>Tres drole. Sorry about the lack of accents. >> >>Most persons, with half a brain even, would be able to instantly intuit sensible >>conclusions from readcount data. Quite why you would imagine it necessary to >>perform SSDF-like statistical analysis to several places of decimals presumably >>with degrees of confidance figures attached escapes me. Or are you arguing on a >>reducto absurbam basis? I thought I already made it clear the idea of having the >>data was just an aid to avoid the danger of being too arbitrary and subjective. >> >>>If the data were recorded with intent to use it as an aid >>>in helping out with moderation decisions, all that would happen is that 1) The >>>moderators would use the data (any data) to bolster their existing opinions >>>about topicality, and 2) People who aren't moderators would use it in order to >>>bolster complaints: "You said my C++ post is off-topic but the page was >>>refreshed 13 times." >> >>Your point (1) shows a degree of cynicism to the moderators and their decision >>making processes. >> >>Your point (2) shows a degree of cynicism to members and their tendency to >>complain. Or their motivations for doing so. >> >>I share your frustrations. >> >>> >>>Sorry, but I don't agree that the intended purpose of this feature is necessary >>>or desirable. >> >>But clearly there is little shared agreement on how to 'fix' problems, such as >>those exampled by the Gerber-Hyatt threads. Are they 'unfixable'? > > >I think you first have to determine if there is a problem before you should fix >it. From what I have read, there are 3 or 4 people who tend to complain about >the moderators and during any given flap, it tends to be the same 3 or 4 people. > >Examples such as the Gerber-Hyatt threads indicate a few people who appear to be >discussing an on topic subject. The perceived problem was that they beat the >topic into the ground (I'm right. No, I'm right) without adding a whole lot of >new information and they threw some insults in for good measure. The first is >not against the charter, just annoying. The second is against the charter and >the moderators stepped in. Sorry, I don't understand this. I thought the moderator said that Gerber was banned (temporarily) because he resisted proving his identity. I thought from this that if he did show his identity his posting status would be restored. I further took it that if he 'admitted' to being "Rolf", then he would also be allowed to post. Also I didn't note any insults from Gerber. he seemed to be going out of his way to be as un-insulting as possible. Perhaps he was insulting and I missed it. I understand that if he personally insulted a member then according to the charter he could be banned. Was he insulting? Can you direct me to the particular post? Chris Whittington
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.