Author: Chessfun
Date: 14:08:39 12/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2000 at 09:37:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 04, 2000 at 00:19:57, Chessfun wrote: > >>On December 03, 2000 at 23:46:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 03, 2000 at 23:27:03, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On December 03, 2000 at 19:59:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>At the suggestion of others, yes. IMHO, I would have no problem in deleting >>>>>_every_ off-topic post that shows up. But the general consensus is that that >>>>>is not what is wanted. >>>> >>>>I agree that the general feeling regarding deleting off-topic is that >>>>it was not wanted. And it was all made fairly clear during the election >>>>as to the candidates views on the subject. >>>> >>>>>Which is also fine by me... The headache is getting >>>>>yelled at by _both_ sides... (a) don't delete that.. (b) why in the hell >>>>>didn't you delete that. Etc... >>>> >>>>Personally I think the level of toleration is similar to how you have stated >>>>your views as being. That if it is left to fade then it's ok. But if you >>>>are contributing in these off-topic posts such as the current one which has >>>>been going on far to long, then your policy as stated by you isn't what you >>>>practice. >>>> >>>>Sarah. >>> >>> >>>What policy is not what I practice? I ignore more off-topic posts and take >>>no action unless asked to. I occasionally participate in one. >> >>By participating yourself how can the thread die?. which is what you >>have previously wrote. > >Hold the phone. I said that I would hope that off-topic threads would die >of their own accord. That doesn't mean that I personally will refuse to >post to them. If you look at the US Constitution thread for example, it has >effectively died off, even with a very few comments as late as yesterday.. That IMO is a conflict. > If you look at the US Constitution thread for example, it has >effectively died off, even with a very few comments as late as yesterday.. Well it lasted a long enough time so as IMO to be considered a normal thread. All threads die. One reason this may now have is the amount of attention drawn to it as being off-topic and posters choosing not to post in off-topic threads. >>>I tolerate off-topic as that seems to be the general wish of the members. I >>>participate in them when they are interesting. As I have said before, when I >>>was elected to be a moderator, I was _not_ suddenly removed from the normal >>>membership role, IMHO... >>As I said above. There is no doubt the US election and resulting constitutional >>questions and issues of ballot preparation are interesting. But they are so far >>off-topic and such an open ended argument that the resulting posts clearly from >>the first one of the thread would not simply die. If threads such as this >>continue we will only end up with more and more. >> >>I could make many posts on topical Canadian subjects, Quebec (there's a goodie) >>the Canadian election, even Elections Canada and could work any of those >>subjects into the above thread, especially elections Canada. But where does it >>end. If I want to post on those subjects I'll go elsewhere, the same applies >>here to these off-topic subjects. >> >>What is the policy, either it exists or it don't. From what I read there is a >>fine line and that line is one only known to you. I see no other moderators >>voicing an opinion on the subject. >There essentially is no policy. Which is a problem of sorts. This has been >left to the moderators. Which is not the way to run things. However, you >will _not_ get any definitive policy from the group of CCC members, because >opinions vary so widely on the subject. I think the current group of moderators >would like to hold the discussions very close to CC and stop off-topic >completely. However, if you have read previous discussions on the topic of >off-topic posts, you saw that there is no uniform agreement on anything, by >anybody. I think that the moderators have to act within the confines of what >the "general" members really want... It would seem to me logical that when a group of three moderators are elected that they between them decide on a uniform agreement. Whether that agreement between them upsets some members is IMO not the point. They posted their opinions prior to the election therefore their uniform agreement between the three would not be inconsistant with those policy opinions they previously posted. Therefore they would infact be within the confines of the general membership. At least with a methodology established either of the three could act immediately without having to wait for complaints...pro-active. Sarah.
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.