Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Moderator questions

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:22:46 12/13/98

Go up one level in this thread

On December 13, 1998 at 20:17:14, SEAN EVANS wrote:

>On December 13, 1998 at 18:49:43, Prakash Das wrote:
>Hello Prakash Das, thank you for responding,
>>I did not say or imply this. Obviously I will not be moderating rgcc or
>>anything else.. I implied any related problems from CCC which spilled over and
>>if they were brought to my attention that as a result made the life of a CCC
>>member here so difficult he could not participate in these boards.
>Uhhhh.... How could something happening at rgcc make it impossible for somebody
>to participate at CCC.  I have *never* seen this situation... granted posts are
>made at rgcc that CCC members do not like but nothing *said* can or should be
>construed to affect a CCC members ability to post *here*....
>>example would be where as a result a post here, that member was harrassed
>>repeatedly in email, and as a result he/she complained to me. Obviously the
>>moderator (in my view) has to do something about this.
>Why !?..... CCC Board members are elected to look after what is posted at the
>CCC Web Board, that is it.... Board members are not elected to be "Internet
>Cyber-Cops", if somebody is being harrassed illegally then that individual
>should speak to legal authorities not the CCC Board members.... I understand
>that you say this with *only* the best of intentions but you simply do not
>understand what the rules of Usenet and the responsibilities of the Board
>members are and/or should be.....

that is utter nonsense.  You do realize that if you get arrested by a city
policeman, who is sworn and empowered only to uphold the law within the legally
defined city limits where he works, that he *still* contacts county, state
and federal law enforcement agencies to see what *else* you might have done,
and that is used against you in your arrest.  And that they may even contact
Interpol if they think it is necessary.

Actions outside CCC are a part of overall behavior...  and misbehavior somewhere
else is just as valid to consider here as it is where it actually occurred.

When scout leaders are evaluated for positions such as scoutmaster/assistant
scoutmaster, their actions *outside* the scouting environment are *definitely*
used to accept/reject them.

This "premise" is baloney...  it might be how you'd "like" it to be, but that
doesn't mean that is the way it "ought" to be...

>>So, while a moderator would ideally like only to focus on CCC and nothing else,
>>in practice this will not be so, and there will always be exceptional cases.
>I believe that your statement is incorrect... rgcc and Usenet *cannot* and
>should *not* be policed by CCC Board members.... it is impossible to read every
>single post on every single Chess group on the Internet... remember there is
>ICC, rgcc, etc... it is simply *impossible* for the CCC Board to monitor every
>post and situation.... A post made at rgcc *may* be considered acceptable there
>but here that post would be deleted... Different NG different style of Post..

moderators can't "police" usenet, but there is nothing in CCC's charter to say
they can't use behavior there to affect their decisions here...

>>A moderator by necessity has to keep all options open, and not be forced to
>>admit to some narrow viewpoints. At least that's how I feel.
>Admiting one's limits in life is a strength...not a weakness...staying focused
>on the issues and postings at CCC is a Board members singular responsibility....
>> How does saying being understanding and not a hot head rule out objectivism  > and fairness?
>>Making baseless and provocative assumptions and reasoning is not an intelligent
>>way to communicate.
>Agreed.... If you believe I have done this I *apologize*... My personal belief
>about Usenet is it is a *mediocre* form of communication... I did not mean to be
>provocative.... yet you have interpreted that way... this is another reason why
>CCC can only be monitored by it's *standards* alone... Different groups
>different assumptions about such things as *being* provocative...
>> Well, then please do not smile while making ludicrous statements.
>Ludicrous ?!.... perhaps a CCC member with less thickened skin than myself may
>consider this provacative.... but at rgcc... we would consider this mild...
>Have a *great* day Prakash Das and good luck,
>Sean Evans

This page took 0.02 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.