Author: Harald Faber
Date: 02:15:27 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1999 at 04:02:26, Ed Schröder wrote: > >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.... I still see people feeling offended as their non-insulting-post gets deleted or so. (At least they think they are not insulting) >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 I always like new ideas but in my eyes they all keep the problem of evaluating what is insult/offtopic and what isn't. E.g. I call you a fool and you feel offended. Others don't. And it becomes a problem when you are the only one saying this was an insult, you want that to be deleted and quit when we don't do it. It is a thin line one can only handle with "Fingerspitzengefühl" but this is also hard to do because here are many extremes. You won't satisfy everryone.
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.