Author: Don Dailey
Date: 07:43:05 06/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 1998 at 04:24:26, Mark Young wrote: >On May 31, 1998 at 23:12:26, Don Dailey wrote: > >>>>>>While I agree with you that it is a personal attack, I think that the >>>>>>complaint must come from the person attacked before moderation is >>>>>>considered. >>>> >>>>NO! I absolutely disagree. In Ed's case, it was quickly handled by >>>>Ed himself and quickly resolved. This is great and no moderation >>>>is required. >>>> >>>>But what if Ed never complained and the guy never stopped? What >>>>if two members get into a heated argument and launch an all out >>>>war against each other but never make a formal complaint? >>>> >>>>Isn't the natural reaction of many to just react? Just because >>>>Ed handled the matter with great maturity does not mean others >>>>will. >>>> >>>>No, the principle should be just as Enrique proposed, to avoid >>>>personal attacks as our first priority. >>>> >>>>- Don >>> >>>There is a lot of IF's there. In this case the way it happend. Ed did >>>the right thing. Im sure if the IF'S had happend. Ed or someone else >>>would take diffrent steps. Then I would also agree with you. >> >> >>Lot's of "if's" strengthen my case. I did not chain them together. >>It is clear you are not a programmer. But it seems I am a detective! >> >>- Don > >I never said you did chain them together, but the point is the ifs never >happend in this case. I do know if I was attacked I would want to be >able to respond, because the post will still be seen by some. But this is what leads to trouble, peoples compulsion to respond to attacks. I believe not responding can be as effective as any clever response I might come up with. But having the option to respond might be a good thing, so I think I agree here. However, responding with more personal attacks to get revenge is the whole thing we should be trying to avoid. >Unless CCC >has found a way to remove a post before anyone has read it. In this case >Ed was attacked not only personaly, but his companys ethics were also >attacked. Ed has no way of knowing who or how many people may have read >this post. If CCC just deletes the post, then Ed or someone else may not >have known they were attacked. The attack and charges will then stand >unchallenged in the minds of the people who read the post. Thats why I >think Ed did the right thing in this case. Now for the person attacking, >I agree with Bob. Kick them out, if thats is the judgement CCC comes to. I really believe Ed handled this one exceptionally. And I mean just that, his would be the exception. 9 out of 10 will respond with significanly more venom than Ed did and not diffuse the attack. Ed's reply was informational, non-personal and how could you attack it? So I certainly agree with you, we have a right to respond, but are first goal is to not allow mud slinging. - Don
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.