Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 22:57:26 10/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2000 at 10:24:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 11, 2000 at 05:29:40, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On October 10, 2000 at 19:13:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 2000 at 18:23:33, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>> >>>>On October 10, 2000 at 18:00:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 10, 2000 at 15:57:36, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>But moderators are not here to teach lessons. This was Ed's point, and he had >>>>>>one. >>>>>> >>>>>>On the other hand, Bruce had a point too when he said that Ed should run for >>>>>>moderator. Moderating well is easier to advice than to do. >>>>>> >>>>>>Enrique >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>OK. Lets start with the definition of "moderator" according to Webster's: >>>>> >>>>> 1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR >>>>> 2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or >>>>> discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian >>>>> governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a >>>>> town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group >>>>> >>>>>1. Is a good description of moderator at times. >>>>> >>>>>2. Is a far better one. And that would be the one that fits best, here at >>>>>CCC. It would seem perfectly normal to tell someone that they have stepped >>>>>over the bound in choosing poor subject lines. That is what the chairman of >>>>>a discussion group ought to do, IMHO. Because proper subject lines clearly >>>>>makes the discussions more productive. >>>> >>>>We made a charter and elected a troika to enforce it. Then we called moderators >>>>the members of this troika, no matter what the Webster has to say about it. >>>> >>>>So: moderators take care of avoiding personal attacks and off-topics, that's >>>>all. >>>> >>>>You may find headers confusing and say so, but it is by no means a moderation >>>>issue. >>> >>> >>>I just happen to disagree. Making things run smoothly _is_ a moderator >>>issue as that is what moderators are here for. And suggesting that subjects >>>be chosen with reasonable accuracy is neither an attempt to usurp member >>>priviliges nor curtail their freedom of posting. >>> >>> >>>This is _not_ an issue about whether the poster's posts were inappropriate or >>>should be deleted. It was an issue about _everybody_ else's right to be able >>>to selectively choose which posts they want to read. If everybody follows the >>>"world cup" approach, we could simply delete the subject line, number each >>>thread sequentially, and go from there. It would be inconvenient to the max, >>>of course. And the inconvenience isn't on the "poster's shoulders" it is on >>>_everbody's_ shoulders. >>> >>>That was why Bruce and a couple of others raised the issue here, and it was >>>why a couple more raised the issue via moderator email. And it was why I >>>posted the simple request to choose more accurate subject lines. >>> >>>I have moderated several "things" before. From debates, to message boards, to >>>email lists, and this is not an uncommon thing to have to do... to guide the >>>participants to make things better for everybody. He probably didn't even >>>realize how confusing those subject lines were until someone pointed it out. >>>And a few of us did without being insulting, threatening or overbearing. I >>>don't quite see what the 'uproar' is all about, considering the very little that >>>was done... >> >> >> >>I am not your student Bob and neither is CCC. That was the meaning of my >>one-liner and I am sure you got the point. Acting dominate only forces a >>reaction which I softly did with my one-liner. Calling for an explanation >>while you know the answer only keeps this subject going on. > >I disagree with line 1. A "moderator" _is_ a teacher of sorts. They teach >what is acceptable and what is not, by their actions in deleting posts, issuing >warnings, posting "please stop" posts and so forth. Including "please choose a >better subject line." Teachers don't just stand in front of a class. I learned >a lot from Slate and Thompson, years ago. > > > >> >>My opinion: a moderator should not interfere in peanuts issues especially >>not when things are already solved between CCC members. > > >Again, I didn't interfere. Check Webster's. I didn't prevent any post from >being written, I didn't delete any old post. I didn't demand that a poster >change the way he writes things. A "suggestion" can _not_ be interfering, if >it doesn't limit a poster in _any_ way whatsoever, except to ask for a more >accurate subject line. Interfere -> hinder. How exactly does asking someone >to choose a reasonable subject "hinder" them from posting what they want? > > > >> >>About me being a moderator: I don't think criticism is so bad and if well >>meant (and I do) criticism has the potential to benefit and improve so I >>like to stick in this role when there is a need for, which I found justified >>in this case. Remember my role in founding this forum, CCC has a special >>in my heart and if things IMO go the wrong way I like to say it. >> >>Calling this "uproar" is beyond the truth and you know it. I said your way >>of moderating worries me and in this spirit I have argued in the hope my >>criticism will lead till something positive. >> > >"uproar" is a "loud commotion". This has _definitely_ been that. Not what you >wrote, particularly. But the fact that this particular discussion has been >quite long and involved. > >IE other things I would _like_ to see would be: > >1. If, in the middle of a thread, the topic changes, then the subject should >be changed. > >2. (NT) posts be completely discontinued. A "one-liner" is not worth the >trouble to download and view. We don't need "attaboys" and the like. Nor >do we need "I agree". If we want to do that, let's have tim add a counter >to each post, labeled "I agree". You could click that and everyone would see >the counter when they see the subject line, without downloading _anything_, >which is what an empty post really is. > >3. non-computer chess posts -> general chess forum, not here. Why "blend"? > >I think those would make CCC better, and would not limit an individual's ability >to post whatever he wants. It might dictate where he posts it, or how he >identifies it, but the "body" of a post is 100% free format in terms of subject, >presentation, content, and anything else. CCC has become the kindergarten forum. If I want to post a one-liner that's NOT of your business. Ed (moving)
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.