Author: Keith Ian Price
Date: 22:49:38 05/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 1998 at 19:38:48, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 19, 1998 at 10:57:54, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: > >>On May 19, 1998 at 09:39:21, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 1998 at 21:35:55, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>>On May 18, 1998 at 21:23:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 18, 1998 at 21:12:31, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 18, 1998 at 19:37:07, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Thankyou Throsten, I will follow advice and I will seat near Uhura. But >>>>>>>I don't remember how she was. What about the rest of his body? Currently >>>>>>>I am less interested in eyes than in legs, ass and the rest. >>>>>>>Fernando >>>>>> >>>>>>Here, I'll give everybody a reason to not vote for me. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>>The comment quoted above is one I would discuss with the other >>>>>>moderators. It manages to be both degrading and off-topic >>>>>>simultaneously. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dave Gomboc >>> >>>snip, snip, snip... >>>> >>>>I'm not sure why you would be worried about punishment. Even if the >>>>other moderators agree with me (and that is IMO unlikely in this case) >>>>the comment would simply be omitted. I'm not terribly interested in >>>>reading comments that some would consider "piggish" on CCC, maybe others >>>>are. <shrug> >>>> >>>>Please don't take that as a personal attack either. >>>> >>>>Dave Gomboc >>> >>>Was this 'piggish' or priggish? What do you people think? Methinks the >>>latter... >> >>Me too, definitely. And this can work as an example of the difference >>between moderation and censorship. >> >>I don't see the point in wearing white gloves full time and avoid >>posting any words that don't apply to computer chess. I would find this >>unnecesarily restrictive, even suffocating. Why don't we all stick to >>the original idea of this group: post whatever you want, as long as you >>don't insult and make discussions unfeasible. Off topics will come now >>and then, which in my opinion not only is not disruptive but it makes >>CCC more varied and interesting. >> >>Please, let's avoid the temptation of coming with too many rules, dos >>and donts. Since the election of new moderators is coming soon, this is >>the right time to make this point clear. >> >>Enrique >> >>>Djordje > >My only comment is that you would not find that post on any moderated >news group (e.g. comp.lang.c). If you don't want the subject of >discussion moderated, why are you electing moderators? Just get Steve >to nuke any messages with too many swears, and you've covered about >every case you're interested in. > >Please don't list me as a candidate to vote for, Steve. It appears that >most of the group's idea of "moderation" is different from my experience >in usenet groups. > >Dave Gomboc Actually, I also thought his comment was tasteless, but I wouldn't have brought it up to the moderators, because of my idea about what the job of moderator should be. While I would not have made such a comment, I don't personally take offense at it, but I suspect you don't either. I would guess you were acting on behalf of any women readers we may have here, or whoever else may have been offended. I have an idea about how the moderation should be done on CCC. I think that the moderators should not initiate any "warnings" based on their own ideas of the appropriateness of a post, but should work as "moderators" between the poster and anyone who is offended enough to complain to them. The complaint should not be posted in the group as it is at best off topic and also has in the past repeated offensive words in describing the offense; instead, it should be emailed to one of the moderators. This would serve two purposes: 1) The moderators would not be seeking the job to impose their ideas on the group through "censorship", since the job would not allow them to initiate any warning without receiving a complaint, and complainants would remain anonymous, thus avoiding long back and forth flame wars. The moderator would always be acting on someone else's complaint, and so would not be viewed personally as a censor. This is how I would see it working: Someone who is offended by a post for language, or personal insults, should e-mail whomever of the three moderators he wishes, and make a complaint. If the moderator agrees the complaint is valid, he contacts the other two to decide on a course of action. If he considers it not valid, he responds to the complainant by e-mail to that effect, giving his reasons. The complainant then can contact a second moderator, and try him, if he likes. Same thing goes. If the moderator agrees, he contacts the other two, etc. If he disagrees, the complainant should then realize that even if the third agrees with him, he will be outvoted, so the complaint will not be acted upon. This way the CCC is freed from complaints which are boring for the public to read--and one bad post can engender many responses, and the moderators are doing a public service for the other members, and not carrying on personal agendas about how the board ought to be run. This may not be the place, but I must also state that until these recent posts, I thought the three moderators were just going to vote on posts being deleted, and the original founders were keeping their power of "removal". If this is not the case, and the new moderators will decide on access issues as well, I want to make it clear that I will, if elected, immediately vote for the reinstatement of the two "red-carded" previous members, and allow them to post, as long as they avoid insults, etc. here in CCC. Why would I do this? Well, I would like to hear from either of them on computer-chess-related subjects, and as far as I know, neither ever violated the rules of the charter. While their comments in rgcc have been personally insulting to others, neither has posted here enough to be thrown off for what they posted here. I think Rolf could have something to contribute in computer chess, if he can stay on topic, and avoid insults, and I think everyone knows Chris could. If they post stuff here that is insulting that would be another matter, and would be acted upon, perhaps, as I outlined above. I am just informing everyone as to where I stand, so they may make an informed decision. Dave, don't quit. We need all kinds of opinions. Also Fernando, don't quit, as Hillary said, "it takes a Villegas"... ;-) kp
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.