Author: Peter Davison
Date: 04:07:23 10/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 2000 at 05:48:02, Jeroen van Dorp wrote: >It's well known we can't discuss anything worse here than "is Fritz 6b the >strongest ever and if yes why not". The subject deleted was an interesting >subject for discussion, no doubt about that, and sometimes flames go high. It >gave some pretty nice insight about the strange planet computer chess people >seem to live on. > >It is clear not everyone understands the rules of discussion, and is able to >handle opinions of others. >That goes for the "normal" world, it goes for this message board, and no one is >really to blame. > >People enter discussions proclaiming statements, leading to even fiercer >statements in response. As we like congeniality here above all - sometimes to >the point of a complete lack of opinion sharing- the complaints about those >messages come streaming in quite fast, yet the moderation rules must initially >just have been meant for verbal abuse and personal insults only. The original rules were meant to prevent stalking. It was accepted in the Founders Group that there would always be some flames and disagreements between individuals and groups, but that persistent, nuisance attacks that effectively disallowed an 'on-topic' thread to make progress needed to be stopped. Of course the Founders Group discussed the likely effect of moderation or censorship of posts and/or posters. As a result of these discussions various markers were set down, one of which was the 'Jakarta' example. For those of you who may not remember this episode, I recount it: In 1997 (memory?), but when all debate took place on rgcc, the ICCA announced that the next WMCCC would be in Jakarta, Indonesia. The organisers (a university in Jakarta, or the Indonesian Government PR agency, depending on your view, were pretty much paying all expenses, including flights and subsidised hotel). There was a lengthy debate between programmers who wanted to go, and programmers who argued that the regime was so repressive (East Timor, Jakarta riots etc), and the event should be boycotted. In the middle of this debate, the Indonesian government started to make difficulties for the Israeli team (Junior) programmers to attend on the ground that they were Israeli jews (Indonesia being Islamic). In the event the Israelis, who had applied to attend, did not do so. As you can imagine there was a good deal of heat generated. The debate continued right up to and beyond the tournament itself. Now, in the Founders Group, it was agreed that a 'Jakarta' type debate would not, should not and could not be censored out. This agreement was also made by Bob Hyatt, even though, on rgcc, he (and Bruce Moreland) really wanted the debate to end, mostly on the grounds that those who were going were going, and there was no point in arguing about it anymore. I think everybody accepted the concept that even though continued debate was hurtful to some persons; democratic ideals and the importance of the subject (it was, after all, fully on-topic) meant that the thing had to be argued out until it was done, rather than suppressed. My view was that the debate, though heated, was of high calibre, and showed that computer chess people could argue at a high level when appropriate. What has happened here by now is that such a debate, despite the promises and agreements of 1997, could never happen. It would, like Shredder-Marcus K. be thread-deleted. As Jeroen says "It's well known we can't discuss anything worse here than "is Fritz 6b the strongest ever and if yes why not"." For me, the only purpose at all to read this group is to observe the group behaviour of fans, fanatics and those just passing in a strange and sheltered environment. It really is very funny. Sensible it is not. Building to any kind of conclusion or creation it is not. It has become, really, a sort of chess programmer kindergarden (object code included, if compiling is too difficult) with a kindergarden nanny or two. The high-level debate on AI, chess programming, philosophy of chess programming, implication of AI on real world, cross mapping between chess-type AI and human thinking etc. etc. etc. is practically all gone. It is just "is Fritz 6b the strongest ever and if yes why not". There was always a tension between two groups, 'chess programmer technical types' and 'chess program philosophy types'. This tension produced some of the best computer chess debates. Of real interest. What happened here was that the 'technical types' won and now dominate the forum, what can and cannot be posted, who can and who cannot post. I guess it is Bob's forum. > >It inevitably leads to use of the kind of cover up language and new annoyance >like where one can leave the building instead of saying one is annoyed postings >are deleted, including maybe one's own. People vote with their feet, not with >semi-dramatic and irritating statements about leaving the message board. It's >always a challenge to find out what the effect will be on the value of the >content of a message board like this. People come and go, yet I didn't notice >any change in message content whatsoever. > >It seems we're not even able to discuss in a normal way over the deletion of a >thread that for some reason disturbs people, because the only thing they seems >to be interested in is "is Fritz 6b the strongest ever and if yes why not". > >Setting my own thoughts about that aside, I must admit it's a well known fact >for the time this message board exists. The Moderator option is also. The "I >agree" terms also. > >People not noticing that aren't especially blessed with 20/20 eyesight, so much >is clear. > > >Jeroen ;-}
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.