Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:20:40 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 11:48:19, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 09, 2000 at 10:17:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>What are you talking about? "in advance"? DId he not post (starting) threads >>here that were obviously designed only to cause trouble? And you consider that >>"OK"? Then why has _every_ group of moderators had trouble with him. Dating >>back to _huge_ problems when we first started CCC. > >Of course it's not okay to stir up trouble, but it takes at least two to argue >and make it happen. I didn't find the initial messages by PD particularly >interesting and/or provocative. Nothing that warrants the commotion it caused. >Besides, if you're convinced that it's no other than CW then stop the account >instead of playing along. Either that, or ignore him alltogether. The three of us had several discussions after the election. We all _want_ to be 'silent'. It isn't always possible, and at times, action will be required of us. Just as it will be for the next group elected. I'm all for giving Chris some slack. In the hopes that he will choose to become an interesting member to have. And sometimes it seems possible. At other times, not. > >He did have a point in one thread, which is the one I'm interested in. The >obligation of moderators to behave appropriately towards other members due to >their unique position as judge and jury. That's independent of your person >completely, though you happen to be the current example. The only 'obligation' I see is that if a moderator is involved in a discussion with someone, then for that 'discussion' he isn't a moderator. That is why we elect more than one. Same thing happens in politics, in the legal systems around the world, etc. Conflict of interest == recusal. Which is my personal policy. You won't _ever_ see me moderating a thread that I am involved in, unless there is a public outcry demanding action (as in the chessbits thread). > >>Just read the post she quoted. And explain how to interpret the comment >>about "He has noplayed half the beta testers already". A statement made >>with _no_ data to support it. > >Then you should have asked her to produce the evidence and ignored her until she >did. The other option would be to state the reasons why the noplay list is as it >is an leave it at that. You can hardly consider the statement to be a personal >insult if it doesn't contain an ounce of truth. Statements without connection to >the truth are very ignorable. > That sounds good. In theory. But would _you_ like to be called a liar, and then leave it at "show me the data"? I have asked for data. I have gotten none. I don't like to leave the implication that I lied on the table. Above anything else, I value honesty. >>Don't you think I _would_ if her questions/comments didn't contain direct or >>indirect insults themselves. > >Well, I'm hot tempered myself when I sense an indirect insult, but I'm beginning >to realise that treating it as if it wasn't, works quite well. The most >effective weaponry against a perceived rude remark is seriousness or humor, not >escalation of insults. You may well be correct. However, it doesn't always work out that way. > >>Ask yourself the question "Why would ne not insult me, but would insult someone >>else, when he doesn't know _either_ of us personally?" The answer to that >>question is easy to figure out, when you think about it. > >Since I don't think my approach varies significantly from the one used by Sarah, >my guess would be personal animosity. > >Mogens. How could I _possibly_ have any animosity toward someone I have never met, never communicated privately with, never talked to on the phone, etc??? I would say that _if_ there is any animosity, it is at _least_ equally distributed between the two of us. You only have to read all the posts to see that...
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.