Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:27:04 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 11:16:46, Pete Galati wrote: >On August 11, 2000 at 02:07:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>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 don't assume it. I know it from personal experience. "Know" as in IMO. >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. What's all this about ducking and hiding? People are delegating the responsibility of keeping the place sane to three different people every six months. It has nothing to do with being chicken-hearted. >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. No, if a moderator deletes a post, it's usually (not always -- we're not perfect either) for a pretty good reason. That's when moderation _should_ 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. No, this place is popular because people want _it_ to be moderated. This place is not out of control because it _is_ moderated -- and that is also why the several programmers you mentioned hang out here instead of on r.g.c.c. Excepting the ones who are newest to the internet computer chess scene, they were all present on r.g.c.c. in the past. Having done this for six months now, I think I have enough understanding of what amount of moderation is required to allow CCC to run smoothly, and I'd say that "very little" isn't how I'd describe the situation. Sure, sometimes there's a few days in a row where nothing requiring a moderator's attention is brought to us, but there are other days where something requiring intervention happens every hour. >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. My opinion is that CCC is doing well, not deteriorating. I've surfed the Winboard forum -- the target audience seems different to me. If people find that it suits their needs better, hey, great for them. Specialization isn't a bad thing. >Pete Dave
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.