Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:26:48 02/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 1999 at 21:17:38, Lawrence S. Tamarkin wrote: >Thank you for your kind words. I don't know if I would run. many People here >appear to get upset far too easily, and the percentage of people here (at least >that's my opinion, I hope I am wrong), who approve of yanking post with the >slieghtest little human touch of personality in them, so high, that if I did run >in the next election I would get badly defeated. I really don't know if I want >to face that possibility in 4 or 5 months (or whatever it is). But you never >know. I have a pretty good sence of humor, (about most stuff), although I don't >know how bad a beating I can take, so we'll see... I voted for you too. (Of course, I voted for everyone but *me*). ;-) I think your approach is a very sensible one. On the other hand, you have a high toleration of noise as is evidenced by your posting in rec.games.chess.computer. I post there too, but I stuff annoying persons into my killfile, so that does not count. There are two kinds of moderation in a newsgroup. There is the official moderation that gets posts blasted into the ether-bits. Then there is unofficial moderation. This takes two forms; pro and con. When someone posts something that has great benefit, and makes all of us ponder, that is a form of moderation. For instance, you keep calling for us to be gentle. Do you imagine that we are not listening? We are and it is a good thing, too. It might be a real animal house without a calming voice. Someone else might start acting like a real whinging twit [cough -- why is everybody looking at me?] Then, a bunch of posts by other people will reveal their displeasure. This also is a form of moderation. Finally, moderation can do nothing more than force us to discipline ourselves a bit if we really want to learn. Whether official or unofficial pressure mounts, we can choose to alter our behavior and continue to learn or we can continue our behavior and get the boot. Conformity in some forms is a great evil. In other forms it is a great good. Finding the balance is incredibly difficult. That is why we have human moderators instead of machines. Is one moderator's decisions superior to the other? I don't know. But I think they are trying their best which is all that we can ask.
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.