Author: Will Singleton
Date: 22:37:13 06/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 1999 at 00:57:47, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 04, 1999 at 22:51:49, Mark Young wrote: > >>On June 04, 1999 at 19:03:51, Steven Schwartz wrote: >> >>>Nominees... >>>A while back, there was a thread started called >>>"Kasparov is a GOD". It ostensibly dealt with the >>>world champion and not, necessarily, computer >>>chess. How would you handle such a thread? And >>>did it need handling? >>> >>>- Steve (ICD/Your Move) >>>P.S. I recommend that other threads directed >>>toward nominees have the word "nominee" in the >>>subject heading. >> >>It don't care it posts like "Kasparov is a God" and the Bobby Fischer posts are >>allowed or not. I would just like to see some kind of consistency in the >>standard. If one thread is deleted then its hard to justify how the other stays >>if it was deleted because its off topic. And if Posts dealing with chess players >>but regarding chess is off topic then why do threads like "Subject: Why do >>poster's have problems spelling GM Rohde's name?" get left untouched by the >>moderators when such topics have nothing to do with chess or computer chess. > >I do not think it will be easy to handle your request Mark. Since people are >only human and make mistakes, the only two ways I see to even attempt to be >totally consistent are to either allow all posts or to delete all posts that >break the rules. Either way, we all lose. > >I think any moderator can only try their best to stay consistent somewhere in >the grey area in between. And since each moderator is a different individual, >you will get different results, not only between groups of moderators every six >months, but also between individual moderators working at the same time. >Regardless of that, there will be some who praise the moderator's actions and >some who condemn. > >The real issue is not one of which posts are deleted and which stay, but rather >one of people getting upset because of a post being deleted (usually when it is >one of their own posts getting deleted). There is also the issue of why posts >are deleted not being shared with everyone (that is always good for a >controversial thread). > >If people just took a step back and realized that access to and posting on CCC >is a privilege and not a right, then they would realize the need for moderation. >And with that realization can come understanding that it is more important to >keep CCC running smoothly than it is to have any given post be accessable to the >masses, specifically when a given post does NOT break any of the rules. > >In other words, in the large scheme of things, moderators ARE trying their best >to be consistent and to do the right thing, but they are only human. They make >mistakes too. So, if a non-offensive on topic post does get deleted, the rest of >us should not make such a big deal out of it since CCC is a privilege and not a >right. Instead of making a big deal of it to everyone by posting a message to >the entire group, us as individuals should send an Email to the moderators (and >hence also to Steve) and let them decide whether a mistake has been made. If the >deletion stands, chances are that a mistake was not made and that the person >offended is overreacting. I believe that the six people nominated are all >reasonable people and would be willing to owe up to a mistake. > >I hope that was clear, but it is late, so who knows? > >KarinsDad :) I'd agree with that. Some messages are deleted, and others not, on a subjective basis that attempts to take into account the Charter, the current mood of the board, the history of the author(s), and whether the moderator has been attacked that day. <g> And also realize that the troublemakers can take on numerous aliases, so we get fed up trying to deal with a moving target. Nominees take note. Will
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.