Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 06:22:38 06/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1998 at 18:03:25, Don Dailey wrote: >On June 19, 1998 at 02:02:06, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>I haven't asked my fellow moderators if I should write this post, so please >>blame me if it's dumb or wrong to write this post. > >I don't think it is dumb or wrong at all. > > >>1) Do folks think that it is OK for the moderators to summarily remove stuff >>with no semantic content? What happened today is that Steve removed it after >>consulting with Don, but he sent the post on to Amir and I, and offered to put >>it back if we objected. > >I want to clarify that I actually asked the others to handle this >instead of me because it involved a personal attack against me. I >did not want anyone thinking I was reacting in personal vendetta >mode. I did suggest the possibility of just quietly deleting the >two drunk posts but made it clear that I wasn't offended by the posts >and wouldn't object either way. In my opinion this is a matter of >personal style (we are not robots) and I don't feel that either course >of action is inherently "wrong." We are not robots and should have >some choice of personal style within limits. > >So here are my thoughts on the general issue of moderation: > >I keep sensing this idea that some of us are viewing moderation as >some kind of horrible evil. Just the idea that some hurtful post >might be deleted is viewed as a form of evil oppression. Even though >this has not been said directly, it's been hinted at many times. > >I would like to suggest that a small amount of moderation and even >having to delete an occasional post is a useful thing. I don't think >any of the moderators want to do this, it's just an unpleasant job >that needs to be done occasionally. I will also argue that this has a >beneficial effect on our freedom to express ourselves, not an >inhibiting effect as it's often been implied. I will be happy to >elaborate on this for anyone who does not understand why I feel this >way. > >Now an analogy to make my point clear: > >I had to go to a meeting the other day to discuss the release of the >latest version of some software. Suppose that during the meeting, I >decided I would rather talk about the political situation in >Timbuktoo. At some point very quickly other attendees would likely >request that I STOP this and focus on the purpose of the meeting. >Suppose then I started a verbal assault on one or the members and >refused to cooperate with them reasoning that they were trying to >interfere with my freedom of speech and being oppressive when >eventually I was asked to leave the room? > >This sounds a little extreme but I don't believe there is much >difference between this analogy and our computer chess newsgroup, >except that we are somewhat more casual. But the principles are >exactly the same. I ask you, in my example, who's freedom of >expression was being violated, theirs or mine? It depends. In your analogy, the meeting is of professional character, like a symposium. But imagine that instead of a symposium we meet in a club, where discussions are more relaxed and open to wider developments. And even the most scholarly symposiums go wild from time to time, as I have seen often enough and not only in the humanities. An example. Time ago we had a discussion about a world championship taking place in Indonesia. Some programs participated, some didn’t, and the topic developed quickly and unavoidably into politics, human rights, collaboration with a dictatorship, etc. Should we be in favor of putting an end to all arguments not directly related to computer chess? This is not an extreme example. Women in computer chess comes to mind too and some cc topics of discussion may (should?) take off into wider areas of interest. My point is that cc is not necessarily just cc. At one moment or another all discussions must revert to our main center of interest in a computer chess group, but in my opinion we should leave room for developments in other areas, even if seemingly unrelated, even if irritating at times. Enrique >I will also ask you to consider which chess newsgroup is getting the >most interesting exchange of ideas? Do you think the moderation in >this group is suppressing our imagination? > >I am absolutely NOT ashamed to delete an occasional post if it is >disruptive to the group or is a personal attack designed to hurt >someone and I will not apologize for doing this if we consider it >necessary. I do not consider it a political issue or a freedom of >speech issue and do not view this as inhibiting people. > >To those that believe otherwise, you can feel free to join the >unmoderated groups but you will still be welcomed here as long as you >follow this minimum standard of behavior. > >There is one more issue I want to express. Since there are 3 >moderators, there may be 3 different points of view on any particular >issue. Being human, we will all have different sensitivities. Bruce >once observed that what feels like a personal attack for one person, >could seem like a point of fact for another. So judgement will be >required, there is no way around this. I believe all three of us are >reasonable people. We should allow for this and recognize that some >decisions are judgment calls and there will be no clear right or wrong >thing to do. At least one thing I am sure of, that with hundreds of >members there will never be complete agreement on anything. > >- Don
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.