Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:49:57 06/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 21, 1998 at 10:08:33, Paul Onstad wrote: >>This is just my opinion Bruce, and I understand your concerns and >>have them too, but I think we should simply delete any post that >>is clearly abusive and leave it at that. There are 3 of us to keep >>each other honest. I personally don't see it as being more complicated >>than that. > >>- Don > >Ah, the problems of moderation... This is a moderated newsgroup so that has to >mean something, but then comes the nasty fact of applying it to policy. > >Before rgc, my experience was Compuserve and its Chess Forum. CSi was far from >being as intrusive (ie, as aol has been made out to be) but on a few of the very >few occasions when messages were deleted, it could create an uproar. It even >lead to disagreements in staff and resignations. To delete or not to delete is a >very serious question indeed. > >CSi had a policy that if abusive posts regarded staff, they would normally not >be deleted. (The staffers were supposed to be tough enough to take it.) OTOH, >one could not string a long series of f*** words together and expect the post to >survive. (While difficult to believe, this only happened once or twice.) The >creative, or implied, use of the same words might be tolerated (if used >sparingly.) > >The major problem with deletions is that other members hear about it. They then >wonder what was so terrible that it had to be removed from their sight. >Imaginations take over in uncomplimentary ways. > >Some messages will meet nearly everyone's definition of complete >inappropriateness but for anything short of that, there will be problems. > >The second policy of moderation is membership. If someone, posts abuse; is >privately warned; and continues to do so, then revocation might be the answer. >If these messages were _not_ deleted then when So-And-So disappeared, we would >have the message trail, and all likely understand why. I hope! > > -Paul Very eloquent, you described the problem exactly. My feeling is that in view of all of this, if we just consistantly removed personal attacks and not entertain endless discussion about this, then we would be ok. The group can feel free to discuss it all they want and we can listen to get their viewpoint but it's ultimately our decision and we might even choose to stay out of the discussions and only listen. I think it is important to be consistant about our policy however, I really hope we don't cut some more slack than we might others, for instance the more popular ones. It's only human but we should try hard to avoid this. I believe I am capable of judging for the most part what is a direct personal attack. The key word should be DIRECT because almost anything can be construed as a personal attack if you "build a chain." I cannot help but notice in view of the recent "drunk" posts that got deleted that no one has screamed bloody murder. I think the group as a whole is very sensible about this and just wants to feel sure we won't indiscrimantly pick and choose which posts to delete. Thanks for your comments. - 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.