Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:02:23 06/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 2000 at 08:56:58, Hans Gerber wrote: >On June 20, 2000 at 23:19:30, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On June 20, 2000 at 06:07:35, Hans Gerber wrote: >> >>>My intention was not to stir the attention of the moderators to possibly >>>_remove_ your initial post but to show that it would have been a good thing if >>>they, the moderators, had said that the use of such a strong wording would not >>>be acceptable in this forum. >> >>I happened to read the post that I am now replying to, but I don't read all the >>posts -- and the other moderators don't read them all either. If you read >>something here that you think shouldn't be present, please use the moderator >>email facility (a link to it is provided at the top of the page). > > > >If it is a singular post, a singular term or a singular sender with something >that shouldn't be present then it is a practical solution to choose the direct >email facility to the moderators. However in this case where I discovered a >general tendency among computerchess people it is better to inform the public >directly. For the simple reason that all moderators belong to computerchess >themselves. > >The tendency in question (scrupulous protection of computerchess persons against >any form of even positive critics while a more reluctant acceptance of any form >of sloppy comments against even the best chessplayers) is not to influence by >silent deletions but only by open mentioning and criticising the tendency >itself. > >The main point for me is the tendency to accept the (justified!) exclusion of >most private details of life when computerchess people and their creations are >concerned while in the case of our best chessplayers and their personality >exactly most intimate details are openly discussed. It is apparent that the >general conviction among moderating people here does tolerate that major >contradiction. > >Let me give just two examples. Several most prominent computerchess people >commented the event during the Dutch championship when Bosboom stopped playing >after less than 10 moves. Although it was apparent that Bosboom did _not_ behave >on a personal base (to speak it out, as if he suffered of some ideosyncrasies or >madness or not being man enough) his personal integrity was questioned. > >In my special case and the debate about the details of the psychological >background of the match DB vs. Kasparov in 1997 (my only participation until >now) I could not freely demonstrate my theory about the required standards for >scientists without being insulted by my opponent (of having the same mind, in >this case a very troubled mind of course, Kasparov allegedly had) and without >any objection by the moderators nor any commentary by members of CCC. > >Moderation should protect _universally_ against insults and ad hominem attacks >if it happens in CCC. Otherwise there is no chance for real enjoyment IMO. > > >Hans Gerber > > > That is a crock. Your "opponent" pointed out flaws in your reasoning, and finally suggested you post under your real name, which is pretty obvious to some that have recognized your 'style'. You don't discuss, you ramble and obfuscate and pontificate, all without saying anything new or informative. You think Kasparov was wronged. I think Kasparov wronged the DB team. You keep your view. I will keep mine. end of story... more or less. > > > > > >> If the >>moderator who looks at your email agrees that the content is objectionable, they >>might either remove the post and inform the post author of that, and ask them to >>modify their posting habits accordingly, or, for a borderline case, caution the >>original poster without removing the message. >> >>This web board is here for all of us to enjoy: reciprocally, each has a >>responsibility to do their part to help it function in a satisfactory manner. >>If you have a specific or general complaint, it is essentially your duty to >>bring it directly to the moderators' attention, and filling out a web form to do >>so is, I think, not an inconvenience. While we cannot guarantee that everybody >>will be satisfied, we do do our best. >> >>Dave
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.