Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 05:20:05 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 22:46:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I suppose that any critical analysis of a member is 'subjective' in ways, >although other parts are very objective. I don't personally make personality >assessments. I do make qualitative judgements based on posts written by >a member. The charter _does_ cover that, in fact. Are you talking about the rubber paragraph concerning violation against "the spirit" of the Computer Chess Club? I find number two much more important when it comes to active moderation of CCC. An option you should have used if your claim about feeling insulted was indeed true. >There _have_ been multiple protests about his posts. You can confirm this >with the other moderators if you like. That is what brought him to the >'action level' with us. We generally ignore things unless someone complains. >Just like prior moderators. If everyone is happy, then we aren't needed at the >time. To get our attention really requires complaints. And in this case, we >got them. Also for the chessbits issue... I'm not at all surprised about the moderators receiving an abundance of complaints regarding the threads started by CW, because a lot of people would jump in on your behalf whether you want them to or not. However, that is not the same as valid complaints. And it's not a poll either. One valid complaint counts infinitely more than hundreds of bogus ones. Besides, at no point in time will there be a 100% happiness. Absence of complaints doesn't prove that. The Chessbit incident was completely harmless and almost completely devoid of libelous attacks and insults. They didn't even argue with each other directly. Nothing to worry about at all and the behaviour of software companies is on topic IMHO. >Maybe. Although I don't believe so in _this_ case. How many of the members, do you think, interpreted Sarah's message as an insult to you? Not many IMO, which has been proven by quite a few recent messages. I believe that Uri gave the most logical interpretation. You didn't comment on the paragraph explaining my opinion about the way moderators should behave when engaged in discussions with members, whether it is with or without the moderator badge. So I'll try again. Should moderators try to behave in an exemplary manner appropriate of their status or not? If yes, did you find your behaviour towards Sarah to be reasonable with that presumption? I must admit, as an unbiased observer, that I find your explanation to be after the fact, ie. looking like something you made up to explain your outbursts towards a fellow member. I could certainly be absolutely wrong, but you have been critiscised for your ICC actions before without reacting in the same manner. Either way, it's apparent that I can't convince you that it would be correct (and gentleman like) to issue an apology, so I'm not going to continue this thread unless provoked. The original thread and its repercussions have already taken up too much room. Mogens.
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.