Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 13:55:08 12/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2000 at 16:18:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 03, 2000 at 14:27:16, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>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. > >Unless my memory is failing, my defense was topicality _and_ the "US bashing" >approach he used... You mentioned it about as much as you mentioned topicality in the post I responded to. It's not unfair to say that the two posts I quoted from were about topicality, although you did mention the "troll" thing in passing. If you gave those posts to 100 high school kids and asked them what it was about, they would all say that your primary argument was topicality, and a few of them might get extra credit for noticing that you mentioned that Thorsten was a troll. If you want to stipulate that it's off-topic, that would be great. That was all I was trying to do anyway, to stipulate that the US election is off-topic in the computer chess discussion group. I figured this would be fine with you since you'd said it so emphatically previously. End of point one. [snip] >>>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 posted the "stop" request because this has happened _before_. About a month >or so ago. And the same topic was discussed, it got heated (again), and I >received requests to delete the entire thread. From many people. I did so. >I fully expect this to reach the same level over time.. "he said... he >said..." type arguments are futile. And if litigation is ongoing, it is >actually inappropriate to discuss it in this (or any other) forum. > >I personally don't care who says what, about whom, in that thread. I have >no problem with it personally. I do have a problem when one group starts to >say "delete it" and another group says "it is fine." If someone wants to pay >me to take a phone poll each time such things happen, I'll be happy to do so. >But it takes time... I think your ability to decide is enhanced if the election thread goes poot. I don't care what you decide, and I'm glad I don't have to do it. >>>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. > >That was just one. _MY_ reason for asking was to avoid another huge problem >with having to delete a thread with hundreds of posts. That takes forever. Open two browser windows and copy/paste the message ID from one to the other. You can stay in "browse" mode in one and be in "delete" mode in the other. >>>>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. > > > >I try to do what I said I would do when elected... that is to not delete >posts whenever possible. I said I was tolerant of off-topic posts. I try >to be so. I take a less favorable stance when the post is both off-topic >_and_ abusive. Your position is evolving a bit, I think. bruce [snip]
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.