Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:10:25 01/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 1999 at 16:53:44, KarinsDad wrote: [snip] Comment #1 -- I agree with Don Dailey. >KarinsDad: >My only comment is that we should have a mechanism to discuss how things are run >on CCC. On off topic posts that deal with how the CCC is run, it appears that >there should be a way to get your point of view out to the rest of the CCC >membership without either having your post deleted, or resorting to stating your >opinion on rgcc. Having a separate "loosely" controlled message board where rule >#1 is modified to state "general topics of CCC" would ensure the strength of >having diverse points of view while at the same time reinforcing rule #1 on this >message board. If it does not deal with computer chess and is not offensive, it >gets moved to the general topic CCC message board (possibly with some way to >indicate that it was moved). Comment #2: Typically (on Usenet, for instance) it is topical to discuss what is topical. Hence, for instance, in news:comp.lang.c the following would be topical: SUBJ: "Is it topical to ask about Skiplist implementations in C" While this would not be topical: SUBJ: "Please give me a Skiplist implemented in C" IOW, discussions of topicality are always topical. Else, how can new people possibly find out what is topical? Certainly a charter can never cover every possibility. On the other, other hand -- if I use a discussion of topicality as a veil to rail at a moderator or some other person whom I disapprove of, that would be a candidate for the ash heap. All of the above is IMO-YMMV P.S. I will not be insulted nor offended if this post, along with everything else that I do here, gets canned.
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.