Author: Terry Presgrove
Date: 07:46:31 12/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1998 at 09:24:06, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On December 12, 1998 at 09:12:02, Terry Presgrove wrote: > >>On December 12, 1998 at 05:03:57, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>>In the first post to announce moderators nominations, I think I read that the >>>people being nominated where going to write a few words on how the CCC would be >>>moderated by them. >>> >>>I am very interested and want to hear from the nominated people their views in >>>order I can choose the ones I like, is that going to happen. >>> >>>Because from a few postings of late I think the moderators now are not currently >>>doing what the CCC charter tells us. >>> >>>If someone can tell me when this will happen I will grateful. >>> >>>Regards >>> >>>Micheal >> >> I agree it would be good to here from the candidates before the election. >> I do disagree about the CCC charter issue.......personaly I have seen very few >> offensive posts of late that warrant moderator attention ......if this a forum >> of ideas, communication will always bring about certain amount of disagreement. >> While its true that disagrreement is judged much by whose goose is being >> cooked, in the main I've thought the current moderators have done an >>outstanding job...... > > >I agree, they have done a great job, But the main part of the charter I am >refering too is that of being free from personal attacks. I think that is the >main problem for the moderators on here, and I believe it should be more >forcefully enforced. > >I think a thread posted just recently should be removed, its heading is a >personal attack and I believe not part of computer chess. > >Even if there is one sentence related in a post, if it contains an unwarranted >personal attack then that post should be removed. > >That is why I want to hear from the nominated moderators to see what their views >on things like this are, and how they should be treated, or just let things like >this happen, then you might as well change the charter and get back to r.g.c.c >which I have never looked at, but I hear is a very unlimited place in what you >can say or do. > >Personally I do not want to read people having jibes at each other, I know I >have responded to some aimed at me from replies I have made to some things, but >I am now going to try not too, it is not worth the stress. It is very difficult to seperate ideas from the man/woman who express those views. One should be able to attack / defend any idea presented in an open forum discussion , regardless of its unpopularity. But I agree when it crosses over into personal attack ......it should be handled in a private way....email whatever, but not in this forum. The problem is making the distinction between what is an attack on the idea (which is acceptable) and an attack on the person which is not.....it can become a very gray line and a balancing act for all of us. Example : it seems if CM6000 is attacked some take it personal as an attack on themselves....as though it were an extension of the person. This sometimes leads to personal counter attacks and very heated exchanges. When in point of fact it is merely a valid criticism of ones personal views on a particular product (no matter that others disagree). It is to that person his personal opinion and is as valid as anyone elses to that person. This is a very complicated issue .......I don't envy the moderators as they will always be criticised no matter what action they take or through lack of action. It will always be a point of tension in a forum where limits are put on speech.....even in a land (USA) where we pride ourselves with free speech there are limits to what is acceptable /legal free speech ...example : you cannot cry fire in a crowded theater. I think it should be a prerequisite to hear from the moderator candidates to see their views on this subject before the election. TP
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.