Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Double standards on CCC?

Author: Ed Schröder

Date: 00:04:04 04/05/98


Here are my 2 cents concerning the raised problem Bruce introduced. I
am speaking for myself and not on behalf of the founder group.

#1. CCC was created to escape from personal attacks in RGCC.

#2. CCC was NOT created because we couldn't stand the heat of
occasional flame wars. Occasional flame wars do happen (like we are
having now) and are unavoidable in heated discussions. Is that so
bad? I don't think so. But IMO there is one GOLDEN rule, flame wars
after a few rounds do simply STOP. Common sense in the end decides.

#3. No, CCC was created to escape from hate campaigns in RGCC who
NEVER will stop, just read RGCC now.

#4. So CCC was created by the initiative of a small number of people
known as the Founder Group (FG). In group email the FG decided that
CCC = RGCC - personal attacks. The FG operates in a democratic way.
We vote and the majority decides.

#5. The FG is meant to watch over CCC and to ensure that we keep CCC
a place where we can talk about computer chess in the WIDEST sense of
the word. In my view this means if someone thinks Rebel is a lousy
program because of .............. he is allowed to say that. However
he is NOT allowed to post that 100 times. This would be a campaign.
If someone thinks Deep Blue cheated on Kasparov, we discuss it but
campaigns are not allowed.

#6. You are entitled to post your opinion and defend it. The big
question in such cases (as we are having now) what is the threshold?
Pick 1000 people, you will have 1000 different opinions about that.

#7. The FG is not perfect. If you expect the FG to make 100% perfect
decisions then your view of the FG is wrong. There are 9 people, 9
different opinions, we vote and majority decides. This is not perfect
but you can't catch life and opinions in rules. Two hurrahs for
democracy, not three, as three is too much.

To Bruce, I dislike to read that you think that there are double
standards in the FG. There aren't. We only disagree about THE MOMENT
when the FG should raise his voice against the current TOO heated
discussion about playing strength.

Bruce, we are not the police here. We simply hope and rely that people
will stop by themselves.

To Thorsten and others, you both have made your point loud and clear.
You both have had your six rounds.

Bottom line, isn't it time to stop?

- Ed -



This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.