Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:21:11 01/04/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2006 at 10:50:59, Peter Skinner wrote: >On January 03, 2006 at 23:44:30, K. Burcham wrote: > >>The Computer-Chess Club is a free service that has been set up by a group of >>individuals who became concerned with the persistent breaches of netiquette >>occurring on the newsgroup, rec.games.chess.computer, namely a very high level >>of off-topic posts > >So far I am with you. > > >>A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the >>spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club > >So far so good... > >>Again, read the charter, and treat everyone the same. If you are going to delete something for one, do the same for another. > >To the point and BANG on! > >>I see the thread in question has been changed more than one time, someone is >>mixed up and not sure what to do because they have not been properly trained >and do not understand how to use the charter as a guide. > >The charter is a guide, correct. How does one train themselves for the multitude >of varying factors a moderator must weigh before deleting a post? Do we take a >course? Is there funding involved? > >>This type of managing makes it difficult to take this place or its members >>seriously. > >Please tell me how you would moderate the following problem... Before we could answer your point please take a look at this very last point by KB. He writes "this type of managing makes it difficult to take this place or its members seriously". That alone is a trap. because KB already decided that he doesnt want to take it seriously. And he does a lot to prove that it's the right decision. Here I say the following. This is a trap, an intended want to do evil for certain specific reasons. As if the moderation decided about the quality of the posted messages. Perhaps my point becomes clearer after the next remarks. > >Member A has very limited english skills, has posted what he thinks is a proper >well thought out post, but the way it comes across is he is slamming this or >that and offending people. He is not trying to do so, but has generated many >moderator emails. > >We moderators then have to come look at the situation, become deciphers of the >poor english involved, determine the meaning of that poor english, and decide if >the individual just has a language barrier or is a troll. See? Why you had to differ between language barrior and troll? What is this concept of troll good for? I tell you who is trolling. Know what? KB is a classical troll, but not people with language barriers. I know fake accounts who fake their language barriers. Never seen them? I dont get your problem, excuse me. If you as native speaker get complaints from native speakers or also foreigners who complain about other foreigners and their poor English I would answer all of them that they should shut up becasuse with you, PS, the CCC had a new level of decency where foreigners with their awful English are treated nicely. Just what is expected from polite native hosts. To accuse foreigners of trolling is somewhat funny. > >Once again I am puzzled as to where I would take training to learn to deal with >such a situation... can you point me in the right direction? Yes, I may add to the above this: you just examine if you can discover a clear-cut insult which is intentiously written. If not, let it go. You could warn the one and tell him how awful it looked and if then he continues you ban for a week. That should work in most of the cases. In case you are completely wrong a not too big damage had been done. - But at first listen to Graham's ideas about fake identities. Because I bet that 80% of your work is caused by fake accounts. > >>I will abide by the charter, but i am aware of the inconsistencies by >>moderators. > >We are only human, and by god I will be the first to admit we will make >mistakes. The worst mistake one could do is to take oneself too seriously. Therefore I say, a little email exchange with Fernando wwill improve your qualities by margins. You will also become resistent to fake identities and their nonsense. > >I am purely humbled by your lack of flaws, excellent understanding of the >different challenges that users or moderators face here, and the willingness to >point fingers and not give any real input. Hehe. I think you got it now. As I said above KB is a good example for trolling himself. His presentation is simply ambiguous. Something doesnt fit. > >You also stated that users are given favoritism. Who are these people? > >If you have the balls to make such an accusation, please use the same balls to >name these people. > >And don't just post "I disagree" under everything I have said. You did that to >Graham, and it made no sense. I don't even get what you were disagreeing to... > >Peter
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.