Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:48:05 05/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 20:27:10, Will Singleton wrote: > >On May 06, 1999 at 18:46:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I'd like to suggest that this thread becomes 'inactive'. IE simply let me >>'die' in peace. :) >> >>No need to ramble on about what has happened, because it is (a) water under >>the bridge and (b) can't be corrected. And I'd rather be remembered for >>other things than as the person that started a stampede of folks leaving CCC. >> >>My problem doesn't have to be everybody else's problem... >> >>IMHO... >> >>I simply object to moderators (a) making statements that sound offensive, >>even if they didn't intend that; (b) deleting posts or threads on a whim, >>with no email or anything (I hate to have to come back to check and see if >>something was deleted, as it is counter-productive); (c) refusing to allow >>any discussion about moderation policy. Because moderation policy is >>_definitely_ "on topic". I was one of the original three moderators, and >>welcomed any input on how it ought to be done. This is perhaps an example >>of how 'democracy' doesn't always work. Because we don't 'elect' police >>chiefs since 99.999% of the people are unqualified to assess the capabilities >>of the 'chief'. Perhaps 'electing' moderators is a bad idea, particularly >>here where there is no clue about who is really who, except for a few of us, >>and 'voting' is pretty much anonymous. Too easy to stuff the ballot box to >>get someone elected for purposes other than to support the CCC charter. Not >>that that has happened here, as I don't know. But it definitely _can_ >>happen. And that's a potential large 'pain'... > > >Difficult to respond here, Bob. Very difficult. Hard to talk with you, for >some reason. But I keep trying. > >a) we are people; it's hard to say *anything* without offending someone. wouldn't you say, however, that making the statement "He won't come back unless the moderators get down on their knees and beg him" would be offensive to _any_ person it was directed at? IE _that_ seems inappropriate. In fact, it is a clear false claim. Unless you can provide an email from me that in any way suggests that this is true? I will be happy to provide _all_ of my email to the moderators and post it here if needed. > >b) posts are deleted on a whim, you imply we don't care or try to stick to a >uniform set of standards. Untrue. We try. As to not sending you a message >about the deletions today, well, there were just too many. So I posted a >message instead. But our policy is to always send a message, when practical. > >c) Well, that's just flat out not true. How can you even write something like >that? Do you even read what I write? even better, do you even read what you delete? Go back over _my_ posts and show me what was offensive. And when I suggested that the current moderation policy was not reasonable, _that_ post also disappeared (different thread entirely). So it is easy to 'write something like that'... because it is a simple truth. I saved copies of all my posts today. Should I repost them for critical analysis/discussion? > >And, now you say the election of moderators is a bad idea. Care to offer an >alternative? > >Will Before we proceed, how about your pointing _exactly_ where _I_ said that? And after you can't, perhaps you might figure out why I get so disgusted here? I said that perhaps the election, _as done here_ might be a tad corrupt. Because of the duplicate ids, aliases, and other shennanigans that go on here. Democracy works just fine. _when_ it is a democracy. Here, that is not a safe assumption. What I find interesting is that the first group of 3 moderators had _none_ of these problems. Ditto for the second group of three. But they all came from the original group of 'founders' that knew what we didn't want to see carry over from r.g.c.c. So there _is_ a difference. Not that 'founders' are smarter, or better, or whatever... we just had a good idea of what would be acceptable and what would not. This 'perception' seems to have changed with the current group. For better or worse? Debatable. But it is _definitely_ too easy to delete posts. If I call someone a jackass, or make a personal insult, it ought to be deleted. But look in _any_ of the posts I wrote today and show me the insult. I simply corrected false impressions left by a _moderator_ which seems to be a 'no-no'.
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.