Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: About Stupidity, Moderation and the Future of CCC

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 13:08:21 09/25/98

Go up one level in this thread


On September 25, 1998 at 05:43:53, Steve Blatchford wrote:

>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

I don't feel this way Steve but I appreciate the compassion you show.
Actually, I think 90% of the group feels the same way I do.  I think
there are a very tiny few (making a huge amount of noise) some
on the extreme left and a few on the extreme right who are making
it seem that no one can agree on anything.  But I don't think this
is the case at all!   We know this is true because we have had
many positive posts and positive emails.  And the critical stuff
we are getting is always extreme, we are either violating peoples
civil liberties or we our permissive liberals afraid to apply stern
discipline.  My main point in this discussion is that I firmly
believe both points of view are just plain unreasonable.   If you
happen to be one of these extremes of course you will not agree
with me.

But in a group full of people from one extreme to another with
most firmly planted in between, what do you expect?   I really
believe that MOST of the group knows most of this stuff has been
blown way out of proportion and would have more or less made the
same decisions we have.

If you want to do an experiment, suggest an idea or a concept
and do not address it to anyone in particular, just claim it
is about to be implemented.   I don't care what your idea is,
or how reasonable you think it is, just stand back and watch
the sparks fly, because it will offend someone!

- 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.