Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: When not to delete a post

Author: Jay Rinde

Date: 08:21:15 07/11/98

Go up one level in this thread


Sometimes it seems that this is a group of lawyers from the ACLU debating First
Amenment rights rather than a group of computer chess enthusiasts discussing the
subject matter they had originally agreed to discuss.

Jay

On July 11, 1998 at 09:53:53, Dave Gomboc wrote:

>
>On July 09, 1998 at 10:48:31, Ulrich Tuerke wrote:
>
>>On July 09, 1998 at 10:21:42, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>
>>>On July 08, 1998 at 18:03:50, SEAN EVANS wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Asshole writes:
>>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>This is a good example of a post which doesn't require deletion, but
>>>modification.  If you take off "The Asshole writes:" and replace it with the
>>>real writer's name, it's completely fine.  Maybe the easiest would be to reject
>>>the post, inform the writer by email that if they make the adjustment and
>>>resubmit it then it will be allowed to remain.
>>>
>>>Dave Gomboc
>>
>>This is not the easiest. Do you think that the writer has chosen his
>>introduction unintentionally ?  Do you think that he made an error and he will
>>regret now and correct things ?
>>IMHO, this is making to much fuss about it. I would appreciate such post being
>>deleted imediately and showing the author the "yellow card" (2 yellow cards
>>meaning a "red card" = leave the game).
>
>I think neither of the above.  I think that the writer will be displeased that
>the post disappeared.  I think that the writer will have constructive criticism
>of their intended post.  I think that the writer will then choose whether to
>participate in a more acceptable manner or not participate at all.  By imploring
>someone to post in an acceptable manner we force them to take responsibility for
>their message content.
>
>Dave Gomboc



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.