Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:28:27 06/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1998 at 12:23:40, Albert Silver wrote: >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. Yes, you are right. There is a spectrum here. At the one end you have the "f--- you" posts, and at the other you have a post that is well thought-out, considerate, accurate, and yet introduces a degree of dischord, because the poster doesn't approve of something and is telling us about it. It's not like we don't want the posts at one and, and we lightly discourage the posts at the other end, I think we really do want those posts. And I think we want some that are closer to the middle, too. But it does seem apparent that there is a lot of potential for gray areas and mistakes. 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.