Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:35:34 06/19/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1998 at 18:00:14, Amir Ban wrote:
>On June 19, 1998 at 12:37:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On June 19, 1998 at 02:02:06, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>2) Does anyone really really want to see this stuff, and if so, should we ask
>>>Steve to set up a "censored" mailing list, so people can get a chance to see
>>>what is being culled from the group? I assume that we all have enough integrity
>>>to respond properly if someone brings up a good objection to deletion of
>>>something, and would put it back.
>>
>>This seems absolutely necessary to me.
>>
>>I'm pretty sure moderators will do their job correctly, and no post will go back
>>from recycle bin to CCC, but the recycle bin has to be archived somewhere.
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>I disagree with this idea for two reasons.
>
>First, it undermines the whole purpose of deleting posts. Whatever the reason
>that any of your moderators want to do such a thing, you will agree that putting
>it on a mailing list or moving it to a special place for "bad" posts achieves
>the opposite purpose. It will be more like: "Hey everybody, take a look at this
>!". To make it clear where this leads, I think that if I knew that to delete a
>post, I first have to put under a spotlight in this way, I would probably prefer
>not to do anything.
>
>Second, the way you put it, it sounds like the newsgroup is going to debate
>deleted posts, and maybe decide in some way to override the moderators. I wonder
>what kind of procedures you would have to make this work. Even if you do, I
>don't think it should work this way. As long as you have elected moderators, you
>should accept their decision. If you don't like what the moderators do, fire
>them and elect others. Ways of firing the moderators can be arranged.
>
>I see the need for transparency and accountability in the way we act. There's
>something sinister in posts vanishing completely, sort of like Orwell's "memory
>hole". On the other hand "deleting" posts by sending them to many people and
>putting them on debate is nonsense. I'm in favour of not physically deleting a
>post but replacing the subject by "Deleted by ... on ...", and making it empty
>or unreadable.
>
>Amir
Sorry Amir, I didn't make my point clear.
I just wanted to say that these posts should be kept somewhere, but not made
public.
Imagine that new moderators are elected. It may be interesting for them to
browse thru the deleted posts list, to:
1) Identify people likely to cause trouble.
2) Adjust their moderation thresold to the level the former moderator group was
using, if they want to.
...and whatever they want to do with these deleted posts.
The idea is to keep some memory of what happened.
Christophe
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.