Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 00:31:23 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 1999 at 20:47:58, Todd Durham wrote:
>On May 06, 1999 at 19:56:23, Will Singleton wrote:
>>Don't understand your point. One can discuss the strike zone by defining it, up
>>or down, inside or out, without saying "That damn ump called it a strike six
>>inches off the plate! Kill the ump!" You simply define the strike zone, and
>>stick by it.
>
>But one CAN argue about whether or not the umpire in question sticks to the
>defined strike zone. That calls for particulars. In this dispute, people are
>debating both the particulars of specific decisions and the overall policy. So
>deleting threads on the particulars had the effect of killing threads on the
>policy, at least in some peoples eyes. (I did not see the deleted threads, and
>so can't comment on those, only on peoples reactions.) My point was and is that
>perhaps the present moderators should re-think their policy on deleting threads
>that have to do with criticizing moderator decisions.
We elected moderators, and having been a moderator I think that I understand how
nasty that job can be, and I am absolutely willing to give them a lot of leeway,
room to learn about the job, etc.
What has happened though is that they view their election as a mandate to do
whatever they want, including bending the charter such that it allows for some
very strange interpretations. This is where I disagree with them. I believe
that people have reason to expect that the charter will be interpreted in a
reasonable fashion, and won't be interpreted so narrowly as to exclude posts
that a rational reader of this group might consider to be perfectly acceptable.
The specific problem involves interpretation of the charter's enumeration of
what kinds of posts are allowed here. New posts are allowed if they:
1.Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2.Are not abusive in nature
3.Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4.Are not flagrant commercial exhortations
5.Are not of questionable legal status.
As one of the people who approved this charter when it was written, I never
dreamed that it would be used as a means of controlling discussion about this
place.
Read the post of mine that was deleted and reposted by me:
http://www.icdchess.com/ccc/message.html?50890
I have some opinions about the moderation of this place and I expressed them.
Is it possible to say that what I said is a personal attack? I don't think so,
because if what I said is a personal attack, then it is impossible to be
critical of anything having to do with moderation decisions. Any criticism
becomes a personal attack and this place turns into Tele-Tubby Land.
Is it possible that my post is off topic? If it is off topic, then anything
having to do with the moderation of this group is off topic. The moderators are
then free to take whatever action they wish against posts and posters, and it is
impossible to conveniently question these decisions.
You've got to wonder then why my post was deleted. I can think of no defensible
reason.
OK, so there's that. But this is just one example, there have been many posts
deleted, resulting in much complaint from many people, but the moderators
stubbornly continue to press that delete button in order to squelch criticism.
Clearly, they should get the message that some people get extremely angry when
perfectly acceptable posts are deleted. I didn't even get any email that my
post was deleted, it just disappeared, and I had to trust my memory that I even
wrote the thing, it was totally Orwellian. This is a completely crazy
situation.
For me it's not even about this whole thing with Bob, personally I couldn't care
less about that. I sent my email to Bob long ago, and I followed up on it, and
he can decide for himself whether to be present or absent.
What has me in a later this time is the notion that the moderators feel that it
is within the bounds of acceptable behavior to interpret the charter in such a
fashion that they can simply whack any post that brings up issues that they
don't want to address, *particularly* when the issues relate to their own
conduct.
That is why I'm pissed off, and that is why I am through contributing here until
those guys go away. I don't need to worry about making a copy of everything I
post, in order to verify that the stuff hasn't been randomly whacked.
bruce
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.