Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:33:54 10/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2000 at 08:20:05, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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. I refer to the part about personal attacks and the like. It is pretty obvious when someone is here only to attack others, and that isn't so "subjective". In the case of the thread I was involved in, it was sometimes direct, sometimes subjective... > >>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. You miss the point _big time_. Chris doesn't frequently attack me. This last time, yes. But that time didn't generate nearly as much moderator email as previous examples. He often just picks up on whatever is going on at the moment and flays away. > >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. I disagree as did many others. Threatened law suits. arguments about pirated versions of beta software. None of it belonged here. More suitable for "the National Enquirer" or something similar. > >>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. Bruce gave one that _exactly_ matched my take on the post. But it doesn't really matter (to me) how _others_ took it. It was obviously written to me, and when you read each point carefully, it was intended as a jibe, not as a friendly discussion. > >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 didn't see anything to comment on. I am a _volunteer_. As such, no, I don't hold myself to some higher standard than everyone else. If I were getting paid, and members paid to be here, it might be different... >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. I have no idea what you mean by "explanation after the fact". I don't see how you could interpret "I have seen ..." to be anything other than _exactly_ what I explained it to mean. So I remain puzzled about that... > >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.