Author: Don Dailey
Date: 10:49:45 06/20/98
Go up one level in this thread
Enrique, Don't worry about the off topic posting. As a group we accept these and this has nothing to do with main point I was trying to make. - Don On June 20, 1998 at 09:22:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >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.