Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:57:12 12/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2000 at 17:08:39, Chessfun wrote: >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. That is just words. Reality is different. Go re-read the moderator bio's if they are still around. But it is 100% unrealistic to elect three moderators, and then say "go develop a policy that everybody will agree with." First, what everybody agrees with _today_ won't be what everybody agrees with _tomorrow_ yet the moderators have to live with it for 6 months. If this nonsense keeps up, it won't be long before there will be _no_ moderators, because no one will want to continue to put up with nit-picking out of context statements. And when there are no more moderators, there will be no more CCC either.
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.