Author: Prakash Das
Date: 12:47:48 12/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 1998 at 14:35:44, Bruce Moreland wrote: Since I am one of the nominees, I will give some answers. However, I haven't yet decided whether I really want to accept the nomination, most likely no than yes. However, I hope my answers are of assistance to any future moderators. In general, I believe in giving two warnings. If the first is ignored, due to a hot head and heat of the moment, the second warning should suffice. If not, then then there would be no choice but to ban/delete the account. I wish (I don't know) there were an option instead of banning, like allowing a person no privilege to post, just read messages. Is there anything like this, or can be implemented? > >So, in the following cases, the question is, how would you handle this? > >1) Some random member that nobody has ever heard of, and who has never written a >post before, writes as his first post some random nonsense laced with obscenity, >not necessarily directed at anyone. Two warnings. First one followed by another. It doesn't matter to me if it is a random member or regular. > >2) A regular poster responds to a post about Fritz by calling ChessBase a "shit >company". A few days later he does it again. Another poster responds with a >defense of ChessBase, and concludes by making unfavorable comments about this >guy's intelligence. Chessbase hater replies with a very long obscenity-laced >tirade against ChessBase and against this second guy. I would again give warnings to the person who started the thread by calling any company shit. Clearly, this would have no place in CCC. These kind of grievances should stay in rgcc or usenet. > >3) A member complains to you that a regular poster compared him unfavorably with >Adolf Eichmann on rec.games.chess.computer, and includes with his complaint a >long narrative about how seriously he takes this, since his family suffered at >the hands of the Nazis, and demands that someone like this not be allowed to >continue posting where he can see it, meaning in CCC. Again, warnings to the person who wrote first comparing to Eichmann. > >4) Same guy as in the previous example complains to you that this guy is now >copying his CCC posts into r.g.c.c., and is responding to them there in such a >manner that would clearly be against the CCC charter if he made his responses in >CCC. I believe as default, that people are going to behave intelligently and respectfully. It would not be acceptable to take a originating "nasty" discussion in CCC and continue attacking the person outside it. That person may/may not be reading usenet and CCC, or one of them. CCC members should behave responsibly towards other members. Having said that, I will always reserve my right for exceptions. > >5) Same guy as in previous example complains that in response to one of his CCC >posts, his nemesis wrote a sarcastic reply to it (in CCC), including a ":-)" at >the end of the post. You look at the reply and can see the sarcasm, but it's >not something that ordinarily would have demanded attention. This depends on the particular example. Sometimes :-) means :-), sometimes it's just an excuse to hurl sarcasm in the guise of attempted humor. > >6) A regular poster refers to a banned member as a "jerk" in a CCC post, which >is a more or less true assessment, in your opinion. It may or may not be true the banned member is a jerk, but it would not be acceptable to me to call him/her a jerk on CCC message board. By extension another case which I would frown on too would be for example calling Kasparov a jerk in the Deep Blue match. He may or may not be (he is my idol but that is beside the point :-)), but it is not acceptable to me to call =anyone= a jerk on these boards. I would assume members would write in responsible language in order for CCC to be considered a forum for exchange of ideas and opinions in a responsible and controlled manner. > >7) Some guy registers from a hotmail account as "Donald F. Duck" and starts >posting informative stuff. I don't care. If he/she is posting informative stuff as related to CCC charter, that's fine with me. But clearly, an obscene name would not be acceptable. > >8) A member posts instructions regarding how to break the copy protection on >some commercial chess program. Clearly not acceptable. I recognize people lose temper sometimes, but as responsible CCC members, we should ultimately be able to control ourselves and not go bersek :-) I believe a moderator should be understanding and not a hot head. Prakash Das
This page took 0.01 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.