Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 22:21:24 10/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2001 at 09:27:53, Albert Silver wrote:
>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".
Right. A complaint doesn't mean that something must be done. A complaint is an
indicator that someone is upset. It shouldn't mean that something needs to be
deleted. Otherwise we have the moderation policy set by the most sensitive
person here.
>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
Yes. Writing a post that explains how stupid Ed is shouldn't be allowed, but
writing a post explaining why you don't like Rebel should be.
This is just common sense stuff. It's usually pretty clear when someone is
expression a passionate opinion about computer chess and when they are aiming
for someone's head.
There is a difference between saying things that make someone mad and saying
things that are designed to harrass them.
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.