Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Invisible Moderation??

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 12:46:33 03/29/04

Go up one level in this thread


On March 29, 2004 at 15:40:36, Jeroen van Dorp wrote:

>On March 29, 2004 at 15:18:15, Brian Kostick wrote:
>
>
>>I'm in favor of silent moderation, as far as in what the average board reader
>>sees. It's seems appropriate that offensive posters gets a warning email and
>>perhaps a chace to talk things over with the moderators when necessay.
>>
>>Anyway that's neither here nor there, just my opinion. Thanks to the moderators
>>for doing such thankless tasks for us. BK
>
>You know, I agree with you, and yet I disagree at the same time. I found it a
>neat thing finding the whole thread disappearing without even a puff of smoke.
>
>Not to fire off an endless discussion, but...
>...OTOH it shouldn't be like the pictures from the old Sovjet Union, where
>people where cut away without a word, sometimes only there shadows remaining :)
>
>It's no problem to have spam or abuse aboard, to deal with it, to wipe it, and
>to indicate openly that it has been wiped, and why. It's always good for
>everyone to know how "the judicial system" in an open community works, even if
>it's in such a simple place like a message board as this.

Moderation should be up to the moderators.
If (for instance) a single infraction arises, a good procedure would be to
remove the post and send email to all the parties involved (the OP and the
complainers via BCC).

But if there is a long thread that would require dozens of emails and a ton of
effort, I think that vaporization without a trace is the only sensible answer.

There is always r.g.c.c and CTF for off the wall insanity.



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.