Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Moderator questions

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 13:52:33 12/18/98

Go up one level in this thread

On December 14, 1998 at 05:38:33, SEAN EVANS wrote:

>On December 14, 1998 at 00:03:20, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>Here's a question to answer, *then* we might be able to communicate here about
>>this issue.
>>You have a 16-year old daughter that meets a boy at school.  He asks here out
>>to go to a movie, or ballgame or whatever.  Before you tell here "yes" you do
>>a little asking around.  You discover this kid has been arrested twice for
>>driving while drinking.  You discover that he got some young girl pregnant last
>>year.  Do you let your daughter go out with him?
>>What?  you'd let actions *somewhere else* influence your decision *now*?
>Bob... you are confusing the issues with side analogies... 16 year old
>daughters, pregnancy..??!!

I think Bob's point is pretty strong illustrated by this scenario.
I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with this analogy.

Who would argue that the parent did not do the right thing?   Well
I can tell you who would make this arguement, every teenage boy who's
agenda was to get laid at any cost!   He would probably advocate
strongly that the parent should mindlessly ignored anything he did in
the past, after all, why should what he did yesterday be held against
him today?

I have seen this statement many times:  "What someone does in other
newsgroups should not be held against them in r.g.c.c."   Well I have
to say this is only a statement of someones opinion, it is
worded as if it is a self evident statement of fact.

Anytime you are called on to make a judgement, you will use all
the information available to make the best one possible.  If someone
asks you not to, then I have to question their motives.

It's true that we are all only human and will make mistakes of
judgement and will have biased opinions.  The solution IS NOT
to restrict the facts you have available,  depriving or artificially
ignoring information is just plain stupid in my opinion.

You have put forth the "cherry pick" argument, that people will
hunt down any bad post in an effort to assasinate you.  In your
case, this is easy to do and it's not surprising that you would
be worried about it.  In Bob's illustration, perhaps you are the
teenage boy?  Would you be able to stand up to the scrutity of
inspection or would you oppose any effort of the parents to
verify that you would not cause trouble to their daughter?

You have attacked people on r.g.c.c., the moderators on CCC
have seen it, and yet you are now a member.  If we wanted to
go out and cherry pick information to keep you out we could do
this without breaking a sweat.  And if we wanted to keep you
out, we would not need an excuse.  But we didn't.  we tried
to be as fair as possible and we considered ALL the facts even
though you would urge me not to.  "Pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain" you say, but it is hard to take the argument
seriously comming from someone who stands to gain so much
from such a policy.   I'm not saying there are no arguments
that make sense in favor of this "ignore the facts" policy, but
it's like trying to get the opinion of the man on death row
concerning the morality of the death penalty.  His opinion
might be perfectly valid,  but who would view it as unbiased?

>>Would that be a double-standard?  Or did you misunderstand my comments about
>>what is going on in r.g.c.c...  if someone is abusive over there, in a public
>>forum just like CCC, wouldn't you suspect he/she would do the same over here?
>>And if they do, and you kick them out, and you notice they *continue* to be
>>abusive over there, would you let them back in *here*???
>Just plain wrong...
>>That is the issue.

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.