Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 11:29:08 08/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2000 at 02:13:37, Pete Galati wrote: >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. Our charter was formed based largely on the opinions of those programmers. The _first_ criterion listed in the charter is topicality. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. >>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. Complaints sent via moderator email are generally not frivolous. In the vast majority of cases, they do identify a need for action. Certainly, the ten or so I had in my mailbox this morning when I woke up were all valid. Incidentally, it took me two full hours to clean up that little mess. That's not my idea of "very little moderation" -- is it yours? However, it was necessary to help maintain CCC as a good place to participate. >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. Not everybody in the world has to pack a gun to "take care of themselves" -- that's what police are for. It is clear that the social environment you grew up in and live in is different from the one I grew up in and live in. We just don't see eye-to-eye here. >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. I completely disagree with it. If somebody posts about the U.S. presidential elections, and several people reply, the thread is off-topic. If somebody posts about who the all-time best hockey team or player was, and several people reply, the thread is off-topic. If somebody posts about the righteousness of <insert arbitraty political system here> and how every country should abide by it, and several people reply, the thread is off-topic. It's really quite straightforward. However, I'll refrain from denigrating your ability to "grasp that". Nonetheless, I don't sit down and go around hunting for such threads so that they can be removed, because I acknowledge that some people don't want this to happen, and that's not what I said I'd do in my nomination statement. One can attempt to paint me as an over-zealous off-topic post deleter, but a glance through the archives of any of the months I've been a moderator for easily disspells such a myth. There's all kinds of stuff that I happen to see and let slide, and probably even more that I don't see to begin with. >>>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. People come, people go -- it is the nature of groups. There will be a time when I go too. That time will be much sooner that it would otherwise be if CCC turns into a general place for chit-chat on anything under the sun, because I can do that anywhere. 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.