Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:25:41 06/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 1998 at 03:23:17, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On May 31, 1998 at 17:33:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 31, 1998 at 16:56:54, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>On May 31, 1998 at 15:24:39, Don Dailey wrote: >>> >>>>>>>I don't see it as a problem of being or not on topic, but as a direct >>>>>>>personal attack. As such I don't think it should be accepted in CCC, and >>>>>>>even less when it is not the first time the same person comes with this >>>>>>>sort of posts. Avoiding personal attacks was our first priority when we >>>>>>>created CCC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Enrique >>>>>> >>>>>>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. >> >>the concept of waiting for the person "attacked" to make a protest is >>simply flawed and is wrong. What happens if "that person" is out of town >>for a week? Does the odious attack stand? > >Since you seem to be responding to the portion of my post that Don did >not snip, I will answer. The point I was making was more specific in >that post and was a response to the decision that this particular thread >should be removed. In Sean's case, I can understand your opinion, since >he has never contributed anything except disruptive posts. However, on a >more general view of my statement, I proposed a system of moderation >that would eliminate the possibility of a flame war on the CCC, and no >one responded. The system where moderators decide for me what should >offend me and act on it seems flawed to me. In the system I proposed, >anyone could take offense at the tone of the message, and e-mail a >moderator (to keep the flame war possibility to a minimum) and complain. >At that point the moderator could bring it up for discussion by e-mail >with the others. This keeps off-topic discussions off the board, and if >the moderators agree with the complainant, they should act. To avoid the >appearance of "high-handedness", I suggested that moderators not be >permitted to act without a complaint by a regular member requesting >moderation. I still think it is a good idea, and would prevent the >possible pitfalls that the current system can create. With you and >Enrique deciding this attack was "odious" and should be eliminated, and >Ed not apparently offended, but answering politely, it seemed there >might be more rgcc off-topic cannon fodder generated if the thread were >eliminated by actions of moderators that were not directly involved. > >>That's nonsense. Personal attacks ought to be eliminated as soon as >>they occur. In Sean's case, this is attack #2. Attack #3 should result in >>his account being removed, permanently. With no waiting or anything... > >I concur with your complaint about this specific individual. Since we >have new moderators now, they will have to decide. Good luck to them. I, >of course, forgive you for the implied odious personal attack shown by >the words "That's nonsense" in response to a point made by someone else. >Should any moderators be offended by this, I request you take no action >against Bob, as this is just his style, and I am not offended. ;-) > >kp certainly wasn't meant to offend. It was probably caused more by aggravation with Sean than anything else. He makes wild claims, gets proven wrong, and never is man enough to retract the statement. However, I do believe that direct personal insults ought to be removed immediately with a warning to the poster left in its place here. I certainly don't mind anything that I write being deleted if it is judged offensive. Although for a couple of weeks now both here *and* r.g.c.c are quite pleasant. With only an occasional "troll" on r.g.c.c that everyone is doing quite well by ignoring them totally... I can hardly believe what a difference one person "leaving" r.g.c.c has had. Almost impossible to believe, but it's there for the reading...
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.