Author: M Hurd
Date: 07:50:17 10/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2005 at 10:36:02, chandler yergin wrote: >On October 21, 2005 at 04:48:00, Stephen A. Boak wrote: > >>On October 21, 2005 at 04:36:30, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >> >>>>>The moderation team is getting annoyed by the constant emergence of these >>>>>threads. >>>> So what? >>>>Tryin to supress free thought & inquiry here? >>>>Trying to restrict legitimate comment, and response to comments? >>>>Outside your authority guys! >>>>We can get annoyed by having to remind you. >>>> >>>>"What types of posts will be allowed on these message boards? >>>>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>>>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>>>messages:" >>>> >>>>Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>>>Are not abusive in nature >>>>Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>>>Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>>>Are not of questionable legal status. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>It would be advisable not to get involved in arguments resulting from >>>>>such threads. >>>>> >>>>>Graham. >>> >>>The argument of free speech is so abused when it comes to _moderated_ forums, we >>>elect moderators through a democratic process and their job is simple (in >>>theory); to keep things free of topics that are against the charter and topics >>>that they find is not appropriate for CCC. >>> >>>The free speech argument falls apart already if if you have to answer this: >>>"can you use CCC to have lenghty discussions on automobiles or stamps for >>>example?" "no you can't!, take it or leave it". This should give you a clue that >>>the moderators are elected not to protect your rights to free speech at any >>>expense, but to moderate what _they_ find unsuitable for CCC and it is in theory >>>non debatable. >>> >>>However one concept that applies is free will and it is your choice to come here >>>or not and to follow the moderators way of implimenting moderation. >>> >>>Regards >>>Jonas >> >>Succinctly said !! >> >>There should now be no grumbling when the other moderation shoe comes down. >> >>Of course, I expect a spate of fake handles and schizophrenic conversations >>between multiple personalities (you know, the three faces of Eve, Sybil, etc). >> >>The expected price of 'freedom' for a private forum !!! >> >>Best regards. >As long as the Mods stay within the bounds of & Spirit of..The Charter, >I have no problem. I repeat" >"What types of posts will be allowed on these message boards? >Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >messages:" > >Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >Are not abusive in nature The definition for abuse : 1. Make bad use of 2. Misuse To name a few. >Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >Are not of questionable legal status. > >We did not elect them to interject their personal preferences, and bias. >If they do not understand this, and abide by it, they should recuse themselves. >as Mods.
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.