Author: Pete Galati
Date: 23:13:37 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2000 at 00:27:04, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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. None of those programmers ever to the best of my knowlage ever asked anyone to put a stranglehold on what should be allowed to be talked about here. All you need to do is stop some of the personal attacks and insults, and that's about it. That's about all you need to do to make the place more tolerable than rgcc. > >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 you think that something needs to happen every hour on certain days, then you have no restraint. You need to be able to ignore the complaints when they come in. Just because someone complains about something that happened here, that doesn't mean you have to jump into action. So what if someone doesn't like something or gets insulted by something. That's life, that's all. People can take care of themselves. And off-topic subjects, they take care of themselves too, because if they're of genuinlly no interest to CCC as a community, nobody responds to them, and the whole thing gets filtered out in 36 hours. You don't have to step in, you don't have to do anything, the problem solves itself. But if there is a common interest in the subject amoung people who are interested in Chess programs, then they will reply to it. _That_ makes in on-topic. But you've never been able to grasp that, or you prefer to ignore it. > >>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 You have a warped perspective because you do too much moderating. You don't seem to notice that people just dissapear from this place. You don't notice that largely the nominated candidates seem to agree with me and have a more tolerant attitude than you do about what should or shouldn't be allowed to happen here at CCC.
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.