Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:39:14 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 04:05:53, Ed Schröder wrote: >On October 08, 2000 at 23:02:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 08, 2000 at 19:22:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On October 08, 2000 at 18:02:15, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2000 at 11:39:42, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 09:49:51, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On October 08, 2000 at 04:58:50, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On October 07, 2000 at 22:53:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On October 07, 2000 at 02:20:09, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On October 06, 2000 at 23:05:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On October 06, 2000 at 11:29:46, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On October 06, 2000 at 10:47:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On October 06, 2000 at 00:12:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On October 05, 2000 at 22:36:38, Daniel Chancey wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Castle2000 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, this is getting crazy. We have people running world cups and we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>grandmasters playing games, only it's all taking place between two computers in >>>>>>>>>>>>>someone's basement. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>It is like watching the news and the lead-off headline is about a gigantic naval >>>>>>>>>>>>>battle, and you find out after sitting through three commercials (internet lag >>>>>>>>>>>>>to load the page) that the naval battle took place in some kid's bath tub. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't know what should be done about this, but this is annoying and I hope >>>>>>>>>>>>>that something can be worked out. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Perhaps these kind of posts can be prefaced with "CM:" or something, so those >>>>>>>>>>>>>who couldn't care less could skip them. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>bruce >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I agree. The subject has to be better defined. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Please stop with the current approach. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Is this a moderator issue? As much as I dislike the CM personalities >>>>>>>>>>>issues (there is hardly any interest for me), isn't this forum for >>>>>>>>>>>everybody? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>It is a moderator issue when we get emails complaining about the subjects, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Then as a moderator you could also answer that on CCC we have free speech. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Free speech within bounds. I don't agree with dramatic subject lines that >>>>>>>>are misleading. I think it is perfectly within reason to expect that members >>>>>>>>choose a reasonable subject line so that others can decide whether or not to >>>>>>>>read the thread without having to first read each post to see if you want to >>>>>>>>read the posts. Bruce's comment about "World Cup" was right on target. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don't mind the posts. I would simply like to see the subject line reflect >>>>>>>>the true content. And get off the "world cup" and the like nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>and when the threads here also have complaints about the subjects. I don't >>>>>>>>>>mind the chessmaster threads, as I said during moderator elections. But I >>>>>>>>>>don't like "world cup underway". A person can't hold a "world cup" event. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Fine with me as long as you say that as a CCC member. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe that this falls under the moderator job description. Or should >>>>>>>>we simply have Tim delete the subject line option so that you can't tell >>>>>>>>what is in _any_ post without reading it? I like the subject title. But >>>>>>>>only if it is _really_ the subject. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>So the subject matter is fine. I would just like to see more "truth in >>>>>>>>>>subject lines". IE "world championship delayed as fischer is in two groups" >>>>>>>>>>is way over the top. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I agree but I got the impression you gave your opinion as a moderator. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I did. Complaints from users (more than one) brought this up. I happened >>>>>>>>to agree and asked that it be 'fixed'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Otherwise we will be up to our armpits in world championships, world cups, >>>>>>>>international championships... and they will all be played in somebody's >>>>>>>>basement on one computer. And have nothing to do with the real WMCCC or WCCC >>>>>>>>events. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Most recognize two WC events related to computers. faking up more is simply >>>>>>>>confusing/misleading/aggravating. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Moderation on a confusing header-line. I can't find it in the CCC >>>>>>>charter. You? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Ever seen a law about driving a little erratically? Yet a police officer >>>>>>will stop a car to see why and suggest a little more caution. What if someone >>>>>>posts an article "Rebel clobbered by Shredder in world cup match". When you >>>>>>read it you discover it is just another personality tournament with a "rebel" >>>>>>personality in chessmaster and a "shredder" personality as well. And the world >>>>>>cup was played in a basement. >>>>> >>>>>Peanuts... >>>>> >>>>>>Do you think new readers would be a bit confused? A _lot_ confused? Isn't it >>>>>>more reasonable to simply avoid sensationalism for basement tournaments. When >>>>>>several have said that it is misleading? >>>>> >>>>>Paenuts too. >>>>> >>>>>You are making CCC a kindergarten.... >>>>> >>>>>There was absolute no need for the moderators to interfere. Remember the >>>>>occasion when you was subject to moderation? How did it feel? That's what >>>>>you are doing each time you interfere so it better should be big when you >>>>>decide to speak as a moderator using your power, because that is the >>>>>position you have as an elected moderator. >>>>> >>>>>Some people got annoyed about the confusing headers, they expressed their >>>>>feelngs in public, case solved. It's called adult behavior. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>> >>>>You need to run for the job next time. You are well-known and well-respected >>>>enough, and you are willing enough to speak out on moderation topics, that you >>>>should have the experience of doing it. >>>> >>>>bruce > > > >>>I am just concerned... >>> >>>Ed > >>About what? > >About how you moderate. > >You behaved like a bull in a china shop on a peanuts issue. I am still waiting on you to show me _where_ I did this. Wouldn't a bull in a china shop break _something_? Wouldn't the analogy be that I either deleted something, removed something, threatened someone, or banned someone? Where did I (or any other moderator) do _any_ of those things, except in the chessbits thread which should have been deleted? > > > >>A moderator suggesting to a poster that he use more accurate >>subject lines? What is there to be concerned about there? I'm beginning to >>remember why I have turned down the moderator nomination each and every election >>we have had. > >>I remember this nonsense from the first term. > >It is no nonsense. It is about power what is allowed here and not. >You interfere on a peanuts issue ruling with an iron fist. All very >fundamental stuff... > > >>I was quite honest here when asked to be a moderator. I didn't want the job. >>I simply felt obligated since I am also a member, and without volunteers, the >>thing won't work. You ought to volunteer next time. It isn't as cut and dried >>as you seem to think. >> >>You will find you can't please _anybody_ when it comes to moderating. But if >>you don't moderate, CCC will cease to exist. Just look at r.g.c.c. But for >>the moderators, CCC would be _exactly_ the same. >> >>not a pretty picture. > >CCC will never die. There are no stalkers here having agenda's. And if >there are stalkers moderation will take care of them. Isn't that how we >started 3 years ago as founder group? And the formula has worked. > >The intention of CCC was: CCC = RGCC - personal attacks. > >But CCC is changing and that worries me. First user questions asking for >support were not tolerated since these questions became under fire as >being not appreciated. These days people post their questions in RGCC >just have a look at RGCC it is full of it. > >So people move each time you set a new narrowing policy. And right they >are. > >Ed
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.