Author: Oliver Roese
Date: 21:49:14 10/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2000 at 01:57:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >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) He said it, so that _all_ members have the benefits. I think ist as absolutely ok for a moderator, to teach others how to post. He was to elected to to do it and as long _he_ is the moderator others should do, what he says. That implies my understanding of democraty... I hope you will stay here in future, which will keep the forum on the niveau it has, despite all flamewars. The opinion of the pros and docs is the _only_ reason for me, to read this forum. Sorry, but this is so. Oliver
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.