Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 05:05:47 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
As far as I have seen, each time Marcus has started a new thread on this topic,
it was because something new had happened.
I would bet that if nothing had happened he wouldn't have posted on the topic
again, that's why it does not look like a campaign to me.
I have not tried to see if the posts were sent on a regular basis (i.e. once per
week or so), but apparently something has been posted each time a new event has
occured.
Looks more like information about what's happening. OK, it's bundled with
personal comments, but it's basically informative.
Christophe
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.