Author: Don Dailey
Date: 19:50:13 12/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1998 at 13:35:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On December 11, 1998 at 07:09:30, Peter Herttrich wrote: > >>This answer also to Bruce. >> >>If someone acts like a moron, i call him so. >>You say: This is not an ExClusionary Club. I don't think so. >>This club is for people, which have to say something abt >>computerchess. The namend guy had nothing to say (see RGCC) >>abt this, only agitation, insults, moronics. Why should >>i wish to see him here? >>Give him chances? He had time enough to take his chance in RGCC. >>Why should i give him here a chance? > >I will respond to this with a personal opinion, once again. > >It is real hard to disconnect CCC from r.g.c.c., since it's many of the same >people writing in both places, and the topic is the same, but I think it is >important to try. > >One very good reason is that it puts the moderators in an impossible position. >You can't assume that they read r.g.c.c., and you can't assume that they are >well versed in the politics of that place, it is enough of a job to be able to >judge the pulse of *this* place. What the moderator sees is a personal attack >on someone who has done nothing here to earn it, and a complaint about this >attack. If the defense is that the person is misbehaving elsewhere, it puts the >burden on the moderators to evaluate the truth of this, and that's a big burden, >and I don't think that anyone should assume that they will volunteer to accept >it. > >It also might lead to unintended consequences, for instance a person making a >personal attack on someone, and saying that it is justified by their off-line >(in person) behavior, which would be even less possible to judge, but >approximately as valid. > >It makes a lot more sense to just not let external stuff carry over into here. >It's safest for you and deprives the person in question with a lot of laugh >opportunities, assuming that is an issue for them. It would have been *way* >better had the post that started this just been *ignored*, but some people just >had to poke at him, and here we are. > >>When I live in a street with moron-neigbourhood and I have no >>chance to get rid of them, I move away. When they follow, >>then the point is reached, where i begin to defend my infrastructure. > >It's not the people that are the problem, it's the behavior. When this place >was founded, there was a lot of debate about excluding Rolf at the start, before >he had a chance to write even one post. What happened is that he was allowed to >create an account. I don't know if this was because that group had a majority >who really opposed excluding Rolf at the start, or if it simply didn't get >around to blocking him from creating an account, but in any case I think it was >the right thing to do. It is a person's behavior in CCC that matters. > >>Last: Take a look at RGCC and the last posts of evans and rethink, >>if you really want to see him here. > >I assume that if Sean's r.g.c.c. behavior spills over into here, it would be >handled. > >>Ofcourse IMHO. >>One Question: How abt an opinionpoll abt this problem? >>The community should say, if one should be a member or not. > >No way. There is a reason that trials are done with a jury rather than with a >pair of 1-800 call-in numbers and "Court TV". The public should have the power >to govern themselves however they want, but regarding personal issues like this >I think it makes way more sense that the public appoint people, who are in the >end accountable to the public, of course, to look into the issue carefully, >discuss it in detail, and make the best decision they can. This is not an >elitist argument, it is simply an argument that it is not appropriate to handle >every governance issue via referendum, and threat of referendum doesn't help the >people who are trying to solve these problems. Not to mention that a group can often make much worse decisions than an individual or a panel. You get the group mentality thing and the whole group can carry you along. In a large group, it's hard to feel very responsible or guilty over a singly tiny vote. Even if your vote is proved to be wrong, you can share the blame with hundreds or thousands of others, and rationalize that voting the other way would not have made any difference. But if you had to make a sole decision and you knew the group was watching, you can bet you would think it through a lot harder. - 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.