Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Moderation rules (?)

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 14:22:49 09/17/98

Go up one level in this thread


On September 17, 1998 at 16:10:44, Moritz Berger wrote:

>On September 17, 1998 at 16:01:22, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>>Feel free, although I changed the subject header, since this has absolutely
>>nothing to do with Rolf.
>
>You are perfectly right that this is drifting away from the Rolf Tueschen issue,
>I just picked up some other things you stated, namely that my point of view was
>"too inflexible". I wrote:
>
>-----------------------
>I don't subscribe to the equation that if somebody posts *also* on topic, he has
>any more rights to attack others than somebody who posts *nothing* on topic.
>
>The general rule on CCC ought to be: No abusive attacks whatsoever.
>No exception to the rule, no matter if person x posts gazillion of on topic
>posts, too.
>
>Reason: Protecting the victims of personal attacks, legitimation of any kind of
>moderation efforts.
>-----------------------
>
>Too inflexible (Bruce) or a self-understood necessity (Moritz), does anybody
>else care to comment?
>
>Moritz

Moritz,

I hope you can bear with us a little on this.  In the last several
posts you have (probably not meaning to) questioned almost everything
we have been doing.  I take no offense, but it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to understand why Bruce or any moderator might.  I think
you probably did not mean any of this, but looking over them I see
you asking questions like "did we question the other
moderators decisions", "when will our term be up", "why are we making
decisions instead of having the whole newsgrop vote on everthing"
and so on.  We would have to be pretty thick skinned not to notice
all these things.  Can you see how this might be interpreted as
criticism?   You also implied that we would simply punish you if
you spoke up.  So what is up with this?  Is there something on
your mind?  The thing that is incredibly annoying to me is the
whole tone of parnoid mistrust.  I cannot understand why anyone
would not trust any of us.  I find the other 2 very intelligent
and very reasonable.

Also,  I am wondering about this exchange which I can make no
sense out of:

Bob Hyatt:
>He can be
>interesting when he wants to be (and maddening when he wants to be also,
>of course).  Hopefully more of the former than the latter now...

YOU:
I don't subscribe to the equation that if somebody posts *also* on topic, he has
any more rights to attack others than somebody who posts *nothing* on topic. I
hope that this is not what you intended to say.

What does Bob's statement have to do with your reply?


- Don



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.