Author: Pete Galati
Date: 08:16:46 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 02:07:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On August 10, 2000 at 11:21:27, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On August 10, 2000 at 08:56:43, Aaron Tay wrote: >> >>>On August 09, 2000 at 16:03:39, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>On August 09, 2000 at 06:04:14, Aaron Tay wrote: >>> >>>>>But wouldn't "high profile" people be involved in most of the conversation >>>>>threads? Makes it difficult for them to moderate as there's a conflict of >>>>>interest.. >>> >>>>>One thing the 3 mentioned avoe have in common, ( Robert Hyatt, Dann Corbit, >>and Mogens Larsen ) is that i think (i could be very wrong) they have strong >>>>>opinions in common? about crafty and other matters .. >>> >>> >>>>>And we know how much of CCC posts are taken up by posts regarding almost every >>>>>aspect of Crafty espically, those comparing it to commericals.. >>> >>>>Good. People who are involved would be better moderators if you ask me. >>> >>>Well..I disagree..People no matter how level headed they are, get into a lot of >>>trouble when they are personally involved.. >> >>Or what is interpreted as trouble, that depends on your perspective. >> >>> >>>Anyway, Dr Hyatt himself is currently keeping a low profile because of some >>>disagreements with some Moderator who intervened in a thread that he (the >>>moderator) was involved in.. >>> >>>I hope I'm not misrepresenting his views, but basically he feels that a >>>moderator shouldn't intervene in a thread he is participating in.. >> >>Keep in mind how many threads he never did touch. There are all sorts of >>subjects that he never posts a reply to. >> >>> >>>As such, it would mean that if he was a Moderator he probably would have >>>problems justifying intervening in debates over Crafty threads, or matters >>>regarding deep blue for that matter.. >>> >>[......] >> >>Good. People need to start taking care of themselves anyhow. If he is involved >>in a thread (same for the other moderators) and feel he now can't delete >>something in it, then good. >> >>It completely baffles me that people think that this place should be some sort >>of perfect world in here, and that there should be no conflict, and no insults >>whatsoever. Everything should be peachy all the time, is that it? I don't >>think so. People have to stand up, take a stand, protect yourself, protect >>others. Why should the moderator do your work for you? I don't want the >>moderator doing the work for me. I don't want the moderator deleting a post >>before I get a chance to read it, and I also don't want him having any say about >>what I should be able to read or post here. >> >>It sounds to me like you want the moderators to not be involved so that they >>will be free to take things away from you. But I want moderators not to >>moderate as much. I'm sick & tired of this place being one big padded cell. >>The place more or less proves that the moderated forum concept doesn't work all >>that well. >> >>Pete > >The fact that this place is so popular is powerful evidence that people _do_ >want moderation to take place. If _you_ don't want moderation, I suggest using >r.g.c.c., which is available 24/7 for all your unmoderated computer chess >discussion needs. > >Dave I use rgcc. Allot of other people here never do. And don't assume that rgcc is a bad place, several people here _do_ use it on a regular basis. I never said I didn't want any moderation, but people should moderate themselves, they shouldn't be ducking and hiding under a moderator so that they can be protected, that's where the moderator concept completely falls apart, because you end up with allot of chicken hearted people ducking and covering because they think a moderator solves thing for them. But they don't. Notice the term "moderator", now notice the word "moderate". Notice any similarities? The place practically moderate itself, because it's full of very moderate people. The only time a moderator is needed at all is to stop blatant insults, and slander, maybe step in if there's copywrite problems. But when you delete a post or you moderate a thread, you're depriving people of opinions and information. And that's when moderation shouldn't be happening. So if there are moderators who feel that they can't interfere with a thread because they are involved in the subject, then good, that's the way it should be. This place isn't popular because people _want_ to be moderated, you can't make that assumption. This place is popular because it's not a bad place to come to talk about Chess programs. The reason that it's a good place, is because there are several programmers who hang out here, and because it's not out of control like rgcc can be. But it takes very little moderating to accomplish that, and it doesn't take any arm twisting at all. If the _next_ batch of moderators don't lighten up on the moderating, then they'll prove that I'm right that moderated forums don't work, because this place will continue to deteriorate, and places that are only lightly moderated, like the Winboard Forum will increase in popularity, because Volker and Frank know how it should be done. Pete
This page took 0.01 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.