Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:49:26 05/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 07, 1999 at 13:35:52, KarinsDad wrote: >On May 06, 1999 at 22:48:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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? > >Well, I would say that you posted something extremely similar to this in your >previous message. I quote it here, but anyone can go to the top of this post and >read it there: I don't need to re-read... I wrote... and I quoted this bit of text below. My point was not "elections are bad". but "elections in the present system are bad" because of the ability to stuff the ballot box, which I explained... > >"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'..." > >Will more or less quoted you. You said "perhaps", he took it as "You say". > >> And >>after you can't, perhaps you might figure out why I get so disgusted here? > >This is the exact point. One person says A, person two says why did you say A, >person one says I did not say A, etc. Robert, you must be able to see that this >is all one big misunderstanding. You did not even see here how Will could >respond almost verbatim to a statement you made. Your point was that elections >could have inherent problems here. He asks you for an alternative to elections >and you say you didn't say that and that maybe he might then figure out why you >get disgusted here. And then you talk about how elections might be corrupt here. > >You ask him if he reads what gets deleted, but you yourself do not read your own >writing. You are losing credibility here. That isn't a real issue any longer, is it? hard to have credibility where I don't post? I jumped into the middle of this because I didn't like a comment made, and I _still_ don't like that comment. >There have been at least 50 moderation >posts here in the last few days and only a handful deleted. However, your claim >(c) above states "refusing to allow any discussion about moderation policy". Can >you understand how these types of statements (and ones such as "how about your >pointing _exactly_ where _I_ said that") appear to conflict with what is >obviously in front of us? Nope. You are 'out of sync'. In the original thread, posts were getting deleted as they were written. _after_ a lot of outcry and complaints about this, the deletions stopped. At least 3 of mine got deleted. More than that for some others. _that_ was the problem. They deleted something. I asked why. _that_ got deleted. Ditto for others. And _that_ I consider unacceptable under any type of circumstance. Because _no_ discussion is possible when that happens. > >Don't you get it? This is a misunderstanding and it is being escalated for no >real good reason that most people here can see (there are some people like Bruce >who feel that there are good reasons and are annoyed at this). > Bruce wasn't annoyed by anything that I can see, other than the fact that posts were getting deleted as fast as they could be written for a while. Which made any sort of CCC discussion impossible. >There is absolutely no reason for this to go on. We all make mistakes. We all >have misunderstandings (I pointed out 2 that you had in this sequence of posts). >Do not let nit picking influence your thinking. Take a deep breath (now take a >second one and a third one), look at it rationally and wonder: Is the comment >"He won't come back unless the moderators get down on their knees and beg him" >REALLY that offensive? Or have I blown it out of proportion? It's an opinion. It's an opinion _not_ supported by any fact, any suggestion, any email from me, any comments made by me here, any implication by me, anything that could even be misinterpreted in such a way and written by me. So yes... paraphrased: "this prima-donna won't come back unless the moderators get on their knees and beg him to, because he wants to _win_." With nothing to support any statement that can be interpreted as above, wouldn't it simply be best to _not_ say anything? I hadn't posted anything here in at least a month. Is there therefore any reason to make such a statement? I wouldn't have seen it if not for three different CCC members that emailed me the post, also thinking it was offensive. So I am _not_ the only person that took it as insulting to some degree or another... and I simply responded to it as I have already quoted from the original post earlier. No name-calling. No venomous rebuttal. Just a statement that "this is nonsense". And it was deleted quickly. As was my second post and then my asking 'why'. >Who cares if it comes from a moderator? They are human too. Are you telling me >that you haven't posted MORE offensive comments for no good reason in your day? > Not 'out of the blue'.... no. If someone wants to trade insults, I can handle that. But I wasn't trading _anything_ here. Even the couple of emails between myself and the moderators were _not_ heated or acrimonious in any way. So this 'bolt from the blue' seems (to me, IMHO) inappropriate. Nothing more, nothing less. And when discussion about a comment made by a moderator gets deleted, _that_ is far more than a simple misunderstanding. It smells like an abuse of power. It looks like an abuse of power. ergo... >Oops. Got to go to a meeting. > >Breathe in. Breathe out. > >KarinsDad :) > > been breathing deeply for a month or so and have immensely enjoyed it. It takes a reminder like this to illustrate just how enjoyable the last month or so has been. :(
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.