Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 01:02:26 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Posted by Steven Schwartz on May 06, 1999 at 23:37:59: > >I witnessed what was happening here on CCC for the last few days, >but I have been too busy to sit down and compose my thoughts until >now, so here goes… > >It is safe to say that if I had any idea of the aggravation that >creating the CCC would cause, I could have spent the 1000 man hours >that have gone into this project doing something productive for >my business. > >But it was my decision, and I have no one to blame but myself. > >Along the way, I have learned a few lessons: > >I have learned that when it comes to dealing with people in >computer chess, there are more differing viewpoints than there >are potential moves in chess. > >I have learned that if you throw an idea on the table, 50% will >vehemently favor it and 50% will vehemently oppose it. > >I have learned that there is more politics in computer chess >than there is in all of Washington, DC (and perhaps more screwing >of people as well). > >I have learned that compromise is not a virtue in our field, but >it is more important that one have the last say, no matter how long >the argument has to last. > >I have learned that people who are not happy with what goes on in >CCC feel it necessary to resign publicly instead of simply going away. > >I have learned that no matter what a moderator does or says, he will >be criticized by SOMEONE and most likely in a public forum. > >I have learned that if a moderator is too strict, he will be accused >of censorship. > >I have learned that if a moderator is too lenient, he will be accused >of allowing the CCC to turn into a personal attack forum. > >I have learned that if a moderator is right in the middle, he will be >accused of not being aggressive enough AND not being lenient enough. > >I have learned that no matter how hard moderators try to do the right >thing, it is impossible to do the right thing. > >I have learned that people can post what they believe to be an on-topic >post, and they can be deleted along with the rest of a thread that may >not be in topic > >I have learned that just about every Founder of CCC has left - some >because moderation was too strict and some because it was too lenient. > >I have learned that CCC can and does flourish without the "big" names, >but it is nice to have them here. > >I have learned that there is not necessarily a correlation between people >who sign up with pseudonyms and people who cause trouble. Karin's Dad >is a fine example. > >I have learned that people who become moderators really do spend a good >deal of time trying to do the best job they can. > >I have learned that I often disagree with moderator's decisions, but I >respect the time and energy and thought that usually goes into making >those decisions. > >I have learned that I should have deleted that first anti-Hyatt post >(even though I was not authorized to do so) as soon as I saw it as >opposed to trying to reach the moderators (as I was supposed to do) >whom I did not know were not available. > >I have learned that few, if any, decisions made by moderators are >politically based. > >I have learned that ICD can live without the CCC very nicely. > >I have learned that I no longer care, as I once did, if anyone leaves >or threatens to leave CCC. > >I have learned that a CC (just plain Chess Club) message board might >best serve the interests of ICD, but I am willing to continue to work >on and support the CCC as long as interested people are willing to come >here and discuss computer chess. > >That's pretty much it. I am one who believes in getting along and giving >in when necessary. I like peace (must be something wrong with me). If you >read the posts here in CCC in the last few days, you will be able to see >others who share my views. This is, by no means, a hopeless situation. > >I take this opportunity to invite everyone who cares about peace and >computer chess to come back to the board, and talk about computer chess. >I am confident that moderators and members alike agree that is >our goal. > >I challenge those who have left us recently or in the past to come >back and help allow the CCC to reach its full potential. >- Steve (ICD/Your Move) Wise words Steve and I will take the bite, challenge accepted. Just leaving without saying why (although I have given my views in the past) was an incomplete thing to do looking at the number of follow-up's two short postings apparently can create. Moderation apparently is a hot topic, this includes me as well. Let me first say that CCC is a great place for computer chess and I have no single regret I was involved in creating CCC which I still consider as a honor to have been a part of it and I really hate to leave this place. I left because I have a deep-rooted disagreement with the moderation on CCC, this goes back to moderation since day one although my disagreement was not at the start of CCC but came after 6-8 months of observations and then I started to change my opinion which I will explain below as my personal opinion (nothing more, nothing less and not meant as an offense to anybody). I left because the Bob-case was another example and proof that moderation on CCC does not work and the Bob-case was simply the last drop for me. Since the start of CCC there have been 3 groups of moderators. All 3 have been under heavy pressure dealing with all kind of problems eating hours/days/weeks of their time in endless discussions in private email, in public, and in group email as well and as far as I know in all cases I haven't seen a positive result as a matter of fact in most cases things only got worse, a signal something is missing or wrong in the *system*. I have seen the 3 groups of moderators doing their utmost, they all have given their best shot but no matter what they do (right or wrong) they always get the blame. Surely some bad mistakes are made but the intention to keep CCC a healthy place was there which was their *first* goal. Still it failed so there must be another reason which I call the *system*. I suggest to change the *system*. I mean this: when CCC was created this was done to escape from RGCC and the heavy personal stuff many people suffered from. If things hadn't been so bad in RGCC than CCC was *never* created. If I look back at RGCC at that time then I conclude that RGCC wasn't such a bad place at all *if* you skip the postings of a *few* posters. I would like CCC to become such a place. Free speech RGCC alike but *no* place for the *few* posters who apparently have the power to ruin a good place to talk. For that purpose moderation should remain. My plea is for free speech. I mean this: I have seen many so called flames between people and they all (99%) have one thing in common: After a 3-4-5 round, the flame E N D S.......... The flame ends by itself, no moderation is needed. Most people are of good will. Sometimes they are upset and express that, facts of life. But it ends in 99% OF CASES..... Now of course in some cases flames do not end, here moderators can give a signal, "hey guys, both of you have one more round and then stop", or whatever words in that spirit. Then in the cases of stalking or deliberate provocations (we all know when we see them) moderation should be fast and without mercy because it is easy to see the goal to create chaos and undermine CCC in itself. I think such a form of moderation would really work. CCC then is protected to become a similar place as RGCC. CCC then would have a high tolerated free speech level and no more tiptoe walking as currently happens. Also the job of the moderators would become a lot easier as in case they have to act (as described above) a case would be crystal clear in most cases. Less discussions about moderation, less people who feel offended, imagine.... End of my plea for more free speech on CCC. It isn't a 100% solution, but is there? The disadvantage of more free speech is more flames but aren't they unavoidable anyway? With all respect to CCC charter and its strive to "no flames allowed" in my opinion is an utopia in itself not granted for human beings. If only we could create a system that tolerates our weaknesses we occasionally have to some extend. Ed Schroder
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.