Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:27:16 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2000 at 10:48:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Thorsten wrote some stuff and you responded by telling him that he should stop since he didn't know what he was talking about. People harassed you about this for a while, and your defense was topicality. For example, in post 139971, available in the 20-Nov archive, you state that "I would think it would be intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers as to what I meant. The post was off topic." In post 140040, also available in the 20-Nov archive, you state, "I would think it pretty obvious that it was off topic, without my having to say that." Later on in this second post, you state, 'Good argument, if this were a room full of 5 year olds. Here is the first test: "Does _anybody_ actually think the US election recount in Florida is a valid subject for the Computer Chess Club?" For those that _do_, then my note needed more explanation. For those that don't? I rest my case...' I'm having a hard time understanding your position is going to settle. You started out by telling Thorsten that he was to stop, because he didn't know what he was talking about. When people including me challenged you regarding moderation based upon quality of contribution, you accused us of taking you too literally and hit the idea of topicality real hard. Your retorts were pretty rough, talking of 3-year olds and 5-year olds and people wanting to make "small waves" by intentionally refusing to understand your position. In these posts you barely touched on the actual content of Thorsten's posts, you focused on topicality. And now when I bring this issue up, with reference to the current discussion of the same topic, you focus upon his presentation, not the topicality. It is frustrating to try to get anywhere when someone keeps changing the meaning of what they've said (and not said) in the past. I can't pin you down on anything. You are always be right if you can move from position to position depending upon where the counter-argument is coming from. >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. I will complain them later in this post, since I started the thread. I'll also send my complaint via email. >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. I don't know that the post about hardware was a flagrant commercial post, I think it is possible that it was misinterpreted, and I'm a little worried that just because the post came from Taiwan, that people reacted more harshly than if it had come from the US or Europe. If someone writes a post telling people that you can get CM8K for $24.99 at Toys-R-Us I doubt anyone would object, and certainly not as strenuously. I don't know if this guy is the seller, but just because he is from Taiwan, and the computer is from Taiwan, does not mean that he is the seller. It is a big place. So perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. >>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. The perils are to the one discussing it, and I think that if that is the only issue, it's not a moderation issue. Telling someone that they can't post something, because you think their lawyer wouldn't like them posting it, is a bad idea. >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. I think it's a nasty situation and I wish it weren't played out here either. Perhaps both Ossi and Marcus should be asked not to argue their suit here. There needs to be a better reason than that their lawyers wouldn't approve. >>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. I am one of the ones who complained about that, but in the posts mentioned above, which I am sure were written after these complaints, you focused heavily upon topicality, not the content of his posts. It wouldn't have suited you to argue based upon the abusive content of his posts at that time, since what you were being criticized for involved the quality of his posts, which is a related issue. It would have been somewhat difficult to seperate the tone of his presentation from its content. Topicality is something that couldn't be argued against, so you used that then. Now it makes no sense for you to argue based upon topicality, since this directly contradicts that point of view, so you redefine those posts. But you can't edit the archives. >>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. I am complaining, and here is why: 1) The election really is off-topic, and it's a serious topic so it's going to get attention and discussion. I don't think this place should be a Hanoi prison camp, where you get in trouble if you are caught tapping some small off-topic aside in code on the wall. But these larger topics invite the group to divert its focus more permanently. I don't think that any topic is fair game here as long as the discussion remains civil. I would hate to see this place turn into a debate club where we regularly discuss politics and religion *for their own sake*. The idea of online moderated debate is perfectly fine, but this isn't the place. 2) Enforcemet of topicality in this case has been inconsistent and this has caused confusion. The reason I brought this up in the group is that I thought that there might be a bunch of people who wanted to comment one way or the other. >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. My only argument here is a point of detail. I do agree that people shouldn't get upset about something unless they've complained. And I do agree that the moderators should be forced to read everything. But I think that we shouldn't become completely complaint-driven. If there is something wrong with a post, please get rid of it. And if there is nothing wrong with a post, please let it stay, even if there are a dozen complaints. bruce
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.