Author: Don Prohaska
Date: 11:25:56 05/23/98
Go up one level in this thread
I think your comments are the best I have read. There should be general agreement on what you wrote. I hope there is. Very sinsible! On May 23, 1998 at 13:29:00, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On May 21, 1998 at 16:44:17, Steven Schwartz wrote: > >>Amir, Bruce, and Karsten >>I posted a question for all nominees a couple of days ago. >>The other nominees have responded. >>I think it would be helpful, for comparison purposes, if >>you could answer the question below. Thanks >>- Steve >> >>If you were to rate your tolerance for "off-topic" >>posts in CCC on a scale from 1 to 10, where would >>you place yourself? >> >>1 - Being extremely tolerant of every post except obscenity >>10 - Being extremely INtolerant of anything posted that is not >> directly related to computer chess >> >>In addition to a number from 1 to 10, you may want to also >>write something to further qualify your numerical value. > >I don't like the question since it forces people to give a subjective >and easily mis-stated and mis-understood answer to an important >question. > >I think it might be possible to come up with a correct answer to this. >The group as a whole can decide what it will allow and what it will do >if its rules are broken. > >But as of now it seems that discretion is left to the moderators, so I >will describe my attitude about this. > >I don't like extended off-topic discussions. This was one of the >problems with r.g.c.c., the discussion would start out on-topic until >someone would use an analogy or illustration or something, then you'd >get fifty posts about that, and that was usually some controversial >point of economics or history or something. > >These topics are fine, but there are other places reserved for these >topics. It is not censorship to ask that these topics be kept out of >here, it is merely an effort to get people to classify their posts so >that people who are interested in A can find out about A by reading the >A group, and people who are interested in B can find out about B by >reading the B group. If someone is totally hot about B, and thinks that >everyone else should be totally hot about B, they should be discouraged, >strongly if necessary, from continually discussing B in the A group. > >The preceding two paragraphs express a viewpoint, but don't say anything >about my level of tolerance for off-topic discussions. > >I think that my use of the word "extended" is important. I don't care >about little drabs of off-topic stuff, but if it gets out of control it >should be stopped. I think that people should avoid calls for extended >discussion of off-topic subjects, and I think that people should try to >have some sense about which subjects to avoid. > >I don't think people should worry about it too much as long as off-topic >stuff doesn't get out of control. It's not necessary to nip every >little thing in the bud. > >Nothing has been said yet about enforcement. > >I think that the best form of moderation is self-moderation -- you don't >send the post about one of the topics that will cause problems, you >don't accuse the other guy of being stupid, a cheater, or a thief. > >A concrete statement of what is encouraged and discouraged helps, and I >think was almost have that in the FAQ. Perhaps it could be expanded >upon a bit. > >If someone messes up and posts something nasty, I think they should be >asked or told to stop, depending upon what they say and how much >additional trouble they've caused. > >If someone is here mainly to cause trouble, they should be prevented >from posting. > >bruce
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.