Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 16:36:54 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 17:50:51, Wayne Lowrance wrote: >On August 07, 2000 at 17:24:40, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On August 07, 2000 at 17:01:59, Randall Shane wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2000 at 13:30:51, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On August 07, 2000 at 09:43:16, pavel wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 07, 2000 at 08:47:39, Alvaro Rodriguez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 07, 2000 at 07:06:00, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Wouldn't it be better for you two to have these conversations via email? >>>>>> >>>>>>I´m following the threads about the new cm-book, so I think this thread is ok.. >>>>>> >>>>>>Alvaro >>>>> >>>>>I am sorry.....but this is what I THINK. >>>>> >>>>>when questions about crafty is asked ....moderators (some) requests to use the >>>>>crafty mailing list. ( yesh i know crafty has a mailing list and CM doesnt). >>>> >>>>Crafty questions are welcome on CCC. People who ask questions directly of Bob >>>>Hyatt are advised to do so via e-mail or the Crafty mailing list, seeing as it >>>>would be more appropriate. >>> >>>Question : >>>What about non-Crafty chess-programming related questions, directed to Bob >>>Hyatt, that are of a sufficiently general interest that anybody could answer >>>and/or discuss? I realize that that is a vague and probably too general >>>question, but I am interested in the boundaries of the above announcement. >>> >>>Or course, substitute any name for Bob Hyatt's in the above question, and it >>>becomes an interesting question for future moderator candidates. >> >>I think Tom's response was great. >> >>Sometimes you know who to ask, and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you know that > >How do you know that ? > >>nobody else cares about the answer to your question, and sometimes you think >>that an answer might benefit others (immediately). > >Ok, good, but if I make a _judgement_ that others will be interested in the chat >I do not want to be chastized by Tom for making that decision ! Everything you say is open to judgements by other people, some of whom are moderators. It's always like this when the rules aren't laid out carefully, and we aren't going to get a carefully laid out set of rules here. It's just not possible, since the system here doesn't allow for considered changes. The three-moderator system doesn't allow one person to impose anything, the moderators as a group are unlikely to overcome enough inertia to get really lavish with the rules, Steve is busy and not patient for this kind of thing, and anyone else who suggests any sort of change will be ignored until their post ages and cycles out, at which point they will realize that any attempt to change anything is futile, and they won't try again. This is not a particularly bad governmental structure. Nobody can permanently screw the place up since there is no long-term memory. Topicality is always going to be a subjective decision, and I don't think people should take it personally if the moderators get on their case about it, especially if there are some grumblings from people who aren't particularly crazy (Peter). I threw in my two cents, which won't result in any policy change, but which might be subconsciously remembered next time someone is trying to decide whether to do something stupid either way. bruce >>It seems obvious that if you know who to ask, and the answer won't be of >>interest to anyone but you, you should use email. The other cases maybe should >>be posted here. > >OK, that is fine but the key phrase here is "If I make a _judgement_......Again >do not be critical when the judgement is made on the complement side of that >statement. > >> >>Posts cycle in this group so fast, and it is so hard to search on old posts, >>that questions that are asked in public, so that someone else can look up the >>answer in six months, don't really work. It's better not to clutter up the >>group with this kind of stuff. >> >>bruce > >Wayne
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.