Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:48:52 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2000 at 02:10:17, Bruce Moreland wrote: >I'm confused about the political posts we've had here. > >We had Thorsten talking about something to do with the US election, and he was >told to stop talking about it, either because he didn't know what he was talking >about, or because it was so evidently off-topic, either moderator explanation >works fine here. I specifically asked Thorsten to stop for _two_ reasons: (1) complaints via moderator email; (2) his posts were "abusive" with respect to people living in the US. I don't personally object to a thread discussing the US Vote, if it doesn't get out of hand. There are a couple that are ongoing. If they are made as a factual discussion, and are kept "light" in nature (no insulting, name calling, etc) then I don't have a problem with them. If we get complaints via moderator email, then we usually ask that such threads stop immediately. Thorsten's thread was abusive, plain and simple. That was the problem with it, and I assume that was why we got the email complaints. I personally read maybe 20% of what is posted here. Which means by _my_ judgement, 80% is not interesting. ... to me. I don't try to impose my interests on others by whacking that which is outside my 20% interest. We have had (recently) some abusive (anti-US) posts that we reacted to. Some flagrant commercial posts... etc. > >Then we have someone else start a post about the US election, and moderation >says fine, this is a fine topic as long as it doesn't get out of control. > >Then we have another moderator saying, no, this is not a good topic. > >So now we have an ongoing thread about the US election, with moderators taking >part in the thread, and various complaints about topicality scattered throughout >the board. We have people wondering why they have to see posts on topics >related to "pregnant chad", while moderation gets on someone else for discussing >a lawsuit involving several major computer chess figures. Discussing a legal action _anywhere_ in public has certain perils. From simply trying to bias everybody by letting them see one side in public, while the other side remains silent. To becoming involved in the litigation by making a statement in public that one side or the other can use to support their arguments. I don't think we want to hold a trial in CCC. I'm pretty sure Steve doesn't want to do this. Because he can become directly involved in something he would rather not be involved in. > >And there is no sign of Thorsten, who I believe was threatened with something >nasty if he kept bringing up the election himself. Remember, not the "election topic" but the inflammatory anti-US stuff only, was the problem with his posts. If you re-read them you will see what caused the email complaints to us. > >This seems inconsistent. > >Perhaps we can agree that the following topics have nothing to do with computer >chess, and that threads dealing specifically with these topics are not allowed: > >1) The recent US presidential election. >2) The US president or lack thereof. >3) The US electoral college and other constitutional issues. > >Does this sound like a bad idea? > >bruce Probably not. But the problem is that if no one minds, then we aren't going to know about all such posts. I, at least, don't read every thread. And if more US election comments appear, I (and the other moderators) may well not see them. If they are calm comments, nobody complains. And I mean _nobody_. If they get inflammatory, then email rolls in. Therefore, I don't see how to be consistent, other than through the guidance of moderator email. In the absence of any, we generally don't take any action at all. When we get email, and the subject seems to be problematic, we do act. The inconsistency comes through what gets reported to us via email, which is the thing that drives our moderator activities.
This page took 0.01 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.