Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:10:39 03/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 27, 1999 at 16:28:36, Isofarro wrote: >It was a sad day for me to see Bob leave r.g.c.c. >I understand his reasons, I would have done the same (though much, much >earlier). It took endless patience to last such a long time. > >Mistakes were made by a lot of parties. Things got out of hand, postings flew >saying things later regretted. Flames, flames and flames. People, including me, >sat back and did nothing. That was also a mistake. > >That is the past. But is everybody still prepared to do nothing now? > >I also believe that a moderated newsgroup is the only way to proceed. But it can >only be done if everybody who believes the same can make a stand together - like >actually taking the time to cast a vote when the time comes. Sure, it will take >a core group of individuals to get something done. > >I see a lot of talk, how much is just wind? How many are genuinely interested in >rebuilding rgcc back to its former best? > >The suggestions I've seen put forward are: > >1.) Either the moderation of rgcc (though I see mentioned this could take 6 >months), or the creation of an alt.* group (which looks easier to accomplish) >such as alt.chess.computer > >2.) Splittling up of rgcc into two halves > * rec.games.chess.computer.tech - for the programmers among us > * rec.games.chess.computer.misc - for the 'testers' or computer chess users > This can also be done from an alt. hierachy. > >3.) Before we can start this process, we definitely need a plan in place of how >to accomplish moderation - be it human, committee, or program logic. I like the >idea of delayed posting of 'annonymous' postings - it is a step in the right >direction. Direct banning of specific people looks essential, although I would >have to suggest that it start off being a blank list initially. > > >This post is an attempt to determine how much support these ideas have. I've >been in a foul mood since I read the news, and after some deliberation I think >the time to take some *positive* action has come - rather than succumb to the >instinct to flame the problems in rgcc (which would accomplish nothing except my >ego boost). > >Is there anyone out there also willing to make a positive contribution? > > >Thanks >Mike Davies >Croydon, UK. For me, there is no particular advantage to having a moderated usenet group versus the CCC we already have. If ICD decided they didn't want to do this anymore, then I'd think about working on getting rgcc to be moderated. I know some people would prefer to use their regular news readers for this kind of stuff. In practice, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. 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.