Author: Paulo Soares
Date: 01:16:56 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1999 at 04:02:26, Ed Schröder wrote: >>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 Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Paulo Soares, From Brazil
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.