Author: Steve Blatchford
Date: 02:43:53 09/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 25, 1998 at 03:31:45, Don Dailey wrote: > >Hi Fernando, > >I want to make a couple of points here. First of all your post is >extremely pessimistic and I believe also unrealistic which I'll >explain shortly. > > >> The ?sortie? of Thorsten has rekindled once again the old issue of how we pamper >> the baby without killing him. It is clear CCC will not resist too much time as a >> living and creative site if more people is going out due to his attacks on this >> or that guy, followed in the next step by his expulsion. So pressing is this >> that many post has been dedicated to the task to look for another method of >> moderation: some of them, IMHO, are a lot worst that the illness they try to >> cure. > > >I think you are going way overboard here if I may politely disagree. >First of all, I believe it is nonsense that removing 3 people in >several months time is tantamount to killing the creativity on this >site. This site if full of creative thinkers, and creativity on this >site is not threatened in any way. The way you make is sound, sooner >or later everyone will be removed until only the 3 moderators are left >standing, and if you dare say a single word in protest you might be >next! I find your statements offensive but not you of course, I like >you and consider you a friend and I hope to meet you someday. > >You are making the tremendous (and I think paranoid) leap of logic >that agreeing and enforcing a no attacks policy is equivalent to >stifling creativity. This I just cannot accept and will not stand by >and let a post like this one go unchallenged. > >There have been a whole lot of posts very critical of every decision >we have made. How many of them did we remove? Not a single one of >them. Did we ever consider removing any of them? It never even >crossed our minds. Is this consistant with the notion that we are >interested in supressing your creativity and your ideas? What sort of >creative expression would you like to make Fernando, that you feel you >cannot make on this group? Do you think if you post a thought you are >likely to be censored? I don't think you feel this way but perhaps I >am wrong? > >You are a man of words, with unusual literary skills. It seems ironic >to me that you do not seem to understand that words can do much more >damage than any action can. It is criticism and personal attacks that >suppress creativity and the expression of thoughts. I suspect you are >a good parent, but do you suppose that if you were constantly critical >of your children they would thrive because you were free to be >creative and criticize them in any way you see fit? I susupect this >would be a powerfully supressive influence on them and your children >would grow up to be either inhibited or abusive. I know from talking >to you that you are not this way with your children, so you do seem to >have an intuitive grasp of what I am saying. > >The truth of the matter, even if you do not want to admit this, is >that in a small society like ours, a certain level of politeness MUST >be maintained in order to have the maximum amount of freedom to >express yourself. Freedom is always a relative thing Fernando. You >have the freedom to jump off the roof if you want to, but this is >certain to encroach upon your freedom to live. A wild free for all >where no discipline is maintained is no freedom at all. Why do you >think so many people have chosen a moderated newsgroup and why do you >think this one is thriving? > >I took this chance with you because I know you are one (as you say in >your post) who can listen to some constructive criticism. I am taking >you at your word and asking you to soften your viewpoint just a little >bit towards a more human approach. > >- Don > > This is so sad. You mean well, but you're caught in an impossible situation, not of your making. Not grounded at all. No tools. Just a mess. And the wheel is still in spin. Steve > >On September 23, 1998 at 23:43:36, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >> >>The ?sortie? of Thorsten has rekindled once again the old issue of how we pamper >>the baby without killing him. It is clear CCC will not resist too much time as a >>living and creative site if more people is going out due to his attacks on this >>or that guy, followed in the next step by his expulsion. So pressing is this >>that many post has been dedicated to the task to look for another method of >>moderation: some of them, IMHO, are a lot worst that the illness they try to >>cure. >>I only can say that I have reached the following conclusion: in a discussion >>group, moderation is not possible without killing the discussion in the long >>run. >>How could it be other way? Do you know a discussion where very soon personal, >>vicious attacks does not arise? Even theologians are prone to shoot each other >>discussing about the third or fourth attribute of Christ. How can you rule human >>passions without killing human passion, a necessary attribute of any discussion >>to begin with? >>Easy to say ? you can discuss these matters without getting personal?. Wrong: >>every issue becomes personal when discussed long enough. Sooner or later EGO is >>involved and war begins. Nobody wants to appear as the guy that shut the mouth >>after a broadside was shot at him. Everybody want to say the last word. >>Everybody is willing to scalate the conflict in order not to appear as the >>defeated side. >>What this means? >>It means that if we are not capable of living with that, we soon will be not >>capable of living with CCC anymore. We have lost Chris, we have lost Sean, now >>we lost Thosrten. Who will be the next? Will this site, be governed undirectly >>by the delicate skin of those that cannot sustain an attack? >>I know I said something different a couple of days ago. I said that Thortsten >>really went beyond limits and that the things had not remedy. And in fact it is >>so, IF WE persist with the moderation kind of site CCC is now. Not that the >>moderators has made a bad job, but they are trapped by the system; they are >>compelled to do a job that is heading toward the peace of cemeteries. I cannot >>see much sense in putting Amir, Bruce and Don in the task to look the site hour >>after hour in order to detect undesirable material or answering petitions of >>expulsions, etc. I think they have the right to live easy lives, quite lives, >>programming lives and not expend his time in this unfruitful task. >>What is the solution, then? >>Is so easy or should be or at least is in words: nobody is coerced to read an >>insulting post and nobody should feel idiot because a post say he is. My >>experience in this is not exactly the same as that of those that were permanent >>targets, BUT I have received here and there some post where I was treated as a >>thief -the piracy thread- or a guy that was saying something stupid. Did I ask >>some ?protection?? My system is take a look at what is said to me and >>objectively see if what they say are at least partly right, if not entirely. If >>so, even the harsh words are useful. As a chess player I have learned to learn >>from my mistakes. I don't give a blow to Fritz each time he gets me badly and >>besides he makes an ironic commentary. If the attack has not ground -and in my >>profession as journalist I receive a lot of them, grounded and not grounded- why >>should I became worried about? I do not care if someone thinks I was defeated or >>mistaken; I am grown-up enough to feel confident in myself when I think I am >>right and not to worry too much if I am in the wrong side. To commit mistakes is >>the destiny of all of us even in the craft we best know and sometimes a good, >>fresh, sharp insult and deprecation could be a good healing method to avoid them >>next time. I am not stupid but I have been stupid many times. I have been stupid >>even in the issues I handle best. Of course, as everybody else, I prefer to be >>considered a bright genius, a wonderful guy, but that is not very useful after >>all; an acusation of imbecility has been many times a great asset to improve my >>work, a kind of purification even if repeated, wrong, malignant. Even these >>serve a purpose if you are strong enough to put them in use. . >>But then, if you are not strong enough to see things in that way, you always >>have the resource not to read something unpleasant. I do that all the time >>because I am not. There are people here whose style is very harsh when something >>does not fit with his tastes and so, when the issue they are writing about is >>non chess and computers and I see that they are going to the kind of sentences I >>do not like, I just stop reading and go for another post. Ii is so difficult to >>do so? >>By example: maybe one of you will think this post is awfully stupid and they >>will say it in a way or another. Well, if they do, I will get angry, of course, >>but then I will see my post again to detect the stupid things that really were >>said ; if I meet some, I will be thankful to the guy; if not, I will be >>indifferent. And if I feel in the vein of waging war; I will launch my own >>attack. Sometimes a good quarrel is very good for the spirit, kind of storm to >>clear the sky. What I will not do is asking the expulsion of the guy. >>I think this is the only way. >>Fernando
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.