Author: Pete Galati
Date: 19:00:45 06/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 29, 2000 at 21:03:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On June 29, 2000 at 19:07:03, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On June 29, 2000 at 15:48:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On June 29, 2000 at 15:26:13, KarinsDad wrote: >>> >>>>"This thread has gotten a lot bigger, mainly because I didn't want to wipe out >>>>KD's criticism. But in retrospect, it would have been better to remove it and >>>>email him the message so KD could repost it as the start of a new thread. >>>> >>>>Anyway, if you have more to say regarding moderation, start another thread (if >>>>that hasn't already been done) and do it there. Further messages in this one >>>>will be deleted. >>>> >>>>Dave" >>>> >>>>Ok, here they go: >>>> >>>>1) Why is an honest question considered criticism? I asked why general >>>>programming and computer configuration questions are off topic when the answers >>>>to those questions will be used to help with computer chess for a specific >>>>person on their own system(s). >>> >>>If you had sent me an e-mail about this, I might have removed Dave's moderation >>>post. I'm sure you realize this, but if you have a problem with CCC and some of >>>the moderators are out of the loop, you need to get them in the loop. >> >>As you may recall, this doesn't work. When Dave cut my thread short that was >>asking about Linux distributions, I tried to continue the discusion of the >>moderator issue in moderator email, but you jumped all over my case for that. > >Your case was somewhat special because people just kept posting, "get RedHat." >Nothing was lost by cutting the thread short. You are wrong several other suggestions were coming in, it was not time to cut the thread short. There was no reason to even lift a finger to cut that thread short. > >Both Dave and I thought your e-mail was rude. Sorry if you think otherwise, but >the majority has spoken. A majority of how many? You're only pretending that it was a majority because 2 or 3 guys who got elected moderator banded together and felt offended becasue I defied Dave's athority. This was an issue that should have been allowed to be talked about _in_ the forum, where there could have been some input from some other people supporting me or saying I was wrong. But _that_ was not allowed. My emails were not rude. Cutting my thread short _was_ rude. Why would a moderator feel that he should be allowed to decide when enough info was exchanged? Not acceptable. > >If you still don't like how the situation was handled, I suggest you elect >different moderators next term. > >-Tom I doubt if either one of you would get elected again. I suppotred you guys when you first got elected because you were making an effort to stop some of the trouble makers and people who were deceptive about there identity (which is something I object to) but this moderation over topics that someone considers too off topic for this forum, that's out of hand. And it wasn't toned down since moderating _my_ thread, the same thing just happened to paval. Why do you think people jump in to defend these threads when a moderator sticks his foot into the middle of it? Saying things like "If you still don't like how the situation was handled..." is just a convenient excuse to not change anything about the wasy you're doing anything. If you guys would stop sticking your nose in every time something isn't on topic enough for your tastes, then you wouldn't be drawing as much critisism. Here's a clip from the Charter: "Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages: 1.Are, within reason, on the topic of chess " OK, we _all_ know that while neither mine nor paval's post did mention Chess programs, it's obvious in both cases that the interest in C++ and Linux was related to Chess programs. These threads should not have been moderated! "2.Are not abusive in nature 3.Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others 4.Are not flagrant commercial exhortations 5.Are not of questionable legal status. " Neither one of our posts entered these areas, no moderation was needed. Both cases. Pete
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.