Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:27:53 10/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2001 at 13:48:59, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>Could be worse though. I tried to send a post to another forum, and it was
>>rejected because I used the word "crap".
>
>If some of my posts get removed (and I would not be the least bit surprised if
>they do -- they certainly have been in the past) then I don't think it is a big
>deal. I can always repost it in an unmoderated forum.
>
>I don't see removal of any post, including ones that I write, as something to
>get in a huff about. I have had at least a dozen posts removed. Never bothered
>me once. Each time, I had no intention of offending. But someone *was*
>offended. And so the post was removed. I think that is a good thing.
>
>I don't think we should remove posts willy-nilly. But if common decency makes
>CCC a boring place, then I vote for boring.
Perhaps, but then let's define the limitations of common decency which are not
the limitations set out by the charter. Of course, the moderators must use their
judgement, but I don't think the limitations should be the number of complaints.
The complaints (any number) should merely serve to draw attention to the
potentially offensive post, nothing more. Lot's of people tend to get fairly
worked up when commenting a program they particularly like or dislike, but I
wouldn't dream of muzzling their voices merely because of the number of people
who disagree vociferously. Naturally there are limits, and if someone insisted
on spamming the forum with loud rancourous complaints with no genuine content
(another judgement call), it would appear the purpose was more to antagonize
than to express dissatisfaction, so I'd say "out it goes".
I saw this happen in another computerchess forum very recently and was pretty
unsettled by it. I posted the announcement of CA Light exactly as I did here,
and didn't make too much of it. To see the descriptive content you have to open
the post, and as the program in question is free, it isn't exactly a commerical
ad, though demos and light versions are certainly marketing tools. Well, the
title was quite clear in what the content was, so no one was being mislead as to
what lay ahead, yet the moderators of the forum got on my case, and told me in
the future to restrict myself to a subject and a link. They WERE kind enough to
leave the post. This was strange as the forum discusses in enormous detail all
manner of other products from another company. Well, the other readers thought
the criticism unfair as well, and suddenly the number of responses to the
moderators began to multiply. Some of these responses were almost funny in the
sarcasm that accompanied them ("why don't you require a password to post here,
one that can only be obtained in exchange of the serial number of Program X",
wrote TN), and some were truly nasty. I could have understood removing the
latter, but the moderators didn't take to criticism too well, and began removing
any criticism, no matter how politely put, shortly after it appeared, until only
my post and their curt response were left. They later posted a 2-year-old review
of a bygone Chess Assistant version as a means of apology, while still deleting
the criticism, to show the "lack" of bias. The message was clear though: The
secret police had spoken.
I would truly hate to see this sort of attitude cultivated here. Openness means
that I can say not only what I like, but what I dislike as well, and if I lack
tact, so be it, so long as I avoid clear transgressions of the charter by taking
aim at individuals.
Albert
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.