Author: Albert Silver
Date: 15:25:27 01/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 15, 1999 at 16:08:45, Don Dailey wrote:
>Hi KarinsDad,
>
>Your story indicates to me that they are trying to be fair and
>so I don't see a big problem, thank you for posting it.
>
>The rest of this post is dedicated to the whole discussion and
>not to your comments so don't view it as a response to what you
>said, it just happened to be the last one in the thread.
>
>I think we just let the moderators do their job they way they
>want to. From everything I've seen so far it appears to me
>that don't want lengthy discussions on moderator issues. I
>don't think this point of view is right or wrong, it's just
>they way they see it and they are the moderators.
>
>I can tell you that they are just human and they are not going
>to see every issue exactly the way you or I might. But if
>we don't like it we don't vote for them in 6 months. That's
>how it works isn't it? But so far I like they way they are
>doing it.
>
>You can't just wait for your first disagreement with them and
>then talk about throwing them out. I really don't see any case
>where they've been unreasonable. And I can tell you right now
>that they will be taking more abuse than any individual member
>ever will, so let's give them a break.
>
>I told them in advance that they would get this the first time
>they took any action. The "big brother" facist civil liberties
>speech was the one I expected and predicted and sure enough they
>got hit with it quickly enough. It's not a very imaginative
>speech and it doesn't have a thing to do with what is going on
>here.
Really? Why would it have to be imaginative? Ernst was the one who got hit
quickly. What was all that nonsense about not being banned "yet"? And you're
wrong IMO, it has everything to do with what is going here. This very thread
should have been deleted as well, as well as ANY discussion or post not directly
related to computer chess. Fernando Villegas's reply on the "beloved one" for
example, and take your pick. Ernst didn't attack anyone per se, and posted
something that pertains to this group. The reply that his post was not within
the charter's conditions was nonsense and merely an excuse.
>Another point people never understand is that removing a post
>probably doesn't involve some evil motive and is certainly not
>equivalent to getting "beat by a cop" as has been implied
>though not said directly.
Agreed.
> Removing a post is a simple way to
>get rid of content that might cause trouble later. Anything
>that is critical or harsh in any way should go.
That's very tricky ground there. Anything that might cause trouble later? How is
that defined? Harsh I agree with, but even that can be ambiguous. How about the
threads that bash DOS based programs? Don't you feel that some people might be
offended by this? These threads already cause strong emotions in some. Should we
delete those as well?
> It's not
>personal at all, it's just smart and after all that is what
>a moderator is supposed to do.
>
>One thing we never had the guts to do as moderators was to
>remove posts that were direct insults of the moderators
>themselves. We knew we would get the obvious and also very
>unimaginitive evil dictator accusations. I hope these
>moderators are fair enough with the group and themselves
>to not let these posts stand.
>
>What is required is that we all have a thick skin. Don't
>be a cry baby if your post gets removed, it was more than
>likely a pragmatic decision and not a personal one.
I don't think Ernst was being a cry-baby when he complained, nor do I see the
removal of the post in question as non-personal and pragmatic.
> I
>can guarantee you that they DID NOT stand in the background
>jumping for joy because they got to remove your post.
>Instead I'm sure they found it to be an unpleasant task
>and they did it conscientiously and out of a sense of duty
>to all of us.
Surely you jest. That might be how it should be in Pangloss's "tout est pour le
mieux dans ce meilleur des mondes" (all is for the best in this best of all
worlds) but that isn't quite how I see what happened here.
>
>As far as quitting and leaving in a huff, that is each
>members own business. It's probably best for the group
>if you can't live with the rules that you leave.
>
>Now it turns out that this post itself is about moderation,
>and we have some evidence that the moderators don't like
>these kind of posts. So there is a chance that this post
>will get removed. If it does, I won't lose any sleep and
>I won't feel insulted in any way whatsoever. Let's give
>them the freedom to do their job the way they see fit and
>then we can make our judgements in 6 months, that's the
>best way. If it keeps going the way it is so far, I'll
>vote for them again assuming they haven't burned out yet
>(and even if they remove this post.)
>
>
>- Don
>
While I agree that the moderators are just as human as the next, what transpired
here was wrong, and I would have apologized via e-mail to Ernst. I also agree
that they should be free of having everyone second guess their job, but here
some feet were stepped on and lines crossed that shouldn't have been.
Albert Silver
>
>On January 15, 1999 at 00:20:40, KarinsDad wrote:
>
>>On January 14, 1999 at 22:30:49, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>deleting things helter-skelter isn't going to cut it, IMHO. I am not going to
>>>waste a lot of time trying to answer technical questions here, and then have to
>>>continually go back and check on them to see if something was deleted because
>>>I wasn't quite polite enough. IE an audit trail is needed. Because the
>>>moderators work for 'us', just as when I was a moderator I worked for 'you'...
>>>and it will avoid a lot of suspicion and distrust if everyone 'knows' what is
>>>going on (or not going on).
>>
>>I had a moderator make a "not politically correct" remark about me this week and
>>when I responded in a polite, humorous and artistic, but justly deserved manner,
>>he quickly removed both my posting and his remark. He conceded in an Email later
>>to me that he could understand how his comment was offensive.
>>
>>One suggestion I have is to Email the posts back to the original poster (I was
>>somewhat disappointed that my work of art was not read by anyone and I cannot
>>even Email it to a select few people here). This would enable a technical or
>>other informative message to be re-posted by the original author and at the same
>>time, the moderator could indicate why the posting was removed to the author (to
>>allow correction). Also, if the reason for the deletion wasn't made public, then
>>it would minimize the ton of posts on "why is this a reason for deleting a
>>post?". I think that the moderators are doing a good job and if the author has a
>>real problem with the reason, then (s)he can take it up with all of the
>>moderators via Email. But as a general rule, we as adults (mostly) are
>>intelligent enough to know when we step over the line.
>>
>>The important part of this is that mo messages get dropped on the floor and
>>people would not need to re-check their postings.
>>
>>Just a thought :)
>>
>>Happy Hunting!
>>
>>KarinsDad
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.