Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 23:33:11 05/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 1998 at 01:49:38, Keith Ian Price wrote: >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 I don't look at it as quitting. I think my volunteer hours would be better directed somewhere else. For instance, there is a local computer competition for kids in grades 5 through 12 two weekends from now in Calgary, and the weekend after that there is a fundraiser for the Alberta Chess Association. I have plenty to keep me busy without being an unpopular person here. <grin> Instead, I can sit back and read CCC like I have since it was created, and if there are any new people who get put off of it because of comments they read such as the one I was recently unimpressed with, well, I guess we'll never read anything from them, so why worry about it, right? Dave Gomboc
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.