Author: José Carlos
Date: 02:25:56 12/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2000 at 00:30:11, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On December 10, 2000 at 23:10:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 10, 2000 at 22:32:15, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2000 at 17:18:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2000 at 14:57:01, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 10, 2000 at 10:28:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 10, 2000 at 05:06:58, Marcus Kaestner wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Marcus... while I understand your frustration, I want to point out that CCC is >>>>>>_not_ the place to "try" this issue. Moderator email traffic is high, wanting >>>>>>the thread deleted. I would prefer to see it die. But be aware that sentiments >>>>>>run high on not allowing this kind of back-and-forth here... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What is the appropriate procedure if somebody wants the thread NOT to be >>>>>deleted? >>>>> >>>>>Should I send a moderator email in order to ask you to keep the thread, because >>>>>IMO it's very on-topic? >>>>> >>>>>If somebody thinks the thread is OK, then obviously he is not going to complain >>>>>to the moderators, isn't it? >>>>> >>>>>I mean, if you get 10 emails asking to remove the thread while there are 100 >>>>>people interested in reading it, what do you think is the right thing to do? And >>>>>how do you make sure that there are more people wanting it to be deleted than >>>>>people interested in reading it? >>>>> >>>>>What in Marcus message is against the CCC charter? It is a translation of a text >>>>>about computer chess published on a computer chess site. >>>>> >>>>>Marcus could have posted a link to the site, but it is written in german, so >>>>>very few people could understand it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>First, it seems to be a _bad_ translation of something written somewhere >>>>else. Second it _all_ seems _very_ personal to this reader. You cheated. >>>>No I didn't, you did. No I didn't, you did. Etc... >>>> >>>>And the point for bringing a discussion _here_ when it originated somewhere >>>>else? That also seems to be unpopular. >>>> >>>>But in any case, it all appears to be personal accusations, counter-accusations, >>>>denials, and more of the same... >>> >>> >>> >>>Would you say the same if it had not been posted by Marcus but by somebody else? >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >> >>I honestly can't say... I suspect I would see no difference _who_ posted the >>stuff here. But I can't be certain without the circumstance actually happening. >> >>But an argument between two people really doesn't belong here, IMHO, when it >>just replays the same comments over and over and over... > >I'll talk to both of you here, if I can. I think that is a rough decision for >the moderators because a lot of people don't want this, but it's hard to say >why. > >I think that if something is going to be outlawed when it isn't specifically >against the charter, it would be best if there is a good reason for getting rid >of it, and not just a feeling that the thing shouldn't be here. > >I have a possible reason, and I'd like to ask what you guys think of this. > >If I post on a topic, and get my responses, then come back a few days later, >post on the same topic, get my responses, post on the same topic again a few >days later, ad nauseum, I haven't necessarily broken any rules. > >The post could be perfectly sweet and wonderful. But what if I don't really >give a damn what people say in response to me? What if I just want to bring up >the same issue over and over? > >I think this could be called a campaign. A campaign is when someone posts >repeatedly on the same topic, for effect, rather than trying to advance a >discussion. > >If someone says that they don't like something that Ossi is doing, that's a fine >post, I suppose. But if they do it once a week, ad nauseum, that's looking more >like a campaign. > >If I could give another example, I can pick one that Ossi initiated. When he >went on about the ChessBase autoplayer cheating, I never felt like Ossi's >position was being affected by the discussions that took place. It was more >like he fired these things (or others fired them for him), and then they were >forgotten. Some time later he'd be back with the same stuff, no matter what >anyone had said in the mean time. He seemed more interested in raising the >issue than he did in discussing the issue. > >So what about this? Is Marcus conducting a campaign here? Is he really seeking >to have discussion here on these issues? Or is he just dropping a weekly bomb >on Ossi? > >And is this kind of thing, in itself, enough of a reason that we should say, >"stop"? > >bruce IMO, it's interesting for the computer chess comunity to be informed about the issue, but not getting the same information over and over. So, when something new will happen about this, and it'll be post here, it should be respected. If the thing posted is the same again, I'm not against deleting it. José C.
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.