Author: Albert Silver
Date: 09:23:40 06/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1998 at 08:32:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On June 19, 1998 at 02:18:28, Danniel Corbit wrote:
>
>>Moderators are chosen by people who hope that the moderators will be objective
>>and rational. We hope that the moderators will screen out the utter, horrid
>>crap so that we won't have to read it. If the moderators reject a post, then
>>the rejected party could appeal by email to the other moderators perhaps. At
>>any rate, if you bounce a post that did not need the bouncing it is a small
>>price to pay. I posted a message a while back that offended a few. That was
>>certainly not my intention, but if it had been bounced, I would not become
>>incensed.
>>
>>Being a moderator is an enormous and and arduous job. I thank all of the
>>moderators for keeping a sane forum for the rest of us who are too lazy to
>>moderate.
>
>I agree. I'd say "delete the f*** y** posts, and the program *** sucks"
>posts immediately. They won't be missed.
I'd agree with the first unreservedly but the second is tricky. If it is just a
lot raving without any substantiated arguments such as "Program X sucks because
it's lame and dumb and stupid and..." You get the picture... then you might
consider removing it, but what about the argument that goes "Program X sucks
because it's database functions are faulty, it erased my harddisk on 3 occasions
and the manufacturer tried to have me evicted from my home!" Here we have the
same excessive comment but followed by an attempt at justification. The last of
course has nothing to do with the quality of the program, but should it be
removed? I would argue not.
Albert Silver
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.