Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:31:36 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 16:26:37, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On June 08, 1999 at 14:21:12, KarinsDad wrote:
>
>>On June 08, 1999 at 14:03:58, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Well, let's step out of the hypothetical, and give a concrete example, though
>>>I'm sure the "hypothetical" example above has reminded you of it already. Bruce
>>>Moreland restored a post by Michael Cummings that had asked the moderators to
>>>resign after (I think) Will Singleton had deleted it. Will was being consistent
>>>with his moderation standards by deleting it, Bruce was being consistent with
>>>his philosophy by restoring it, and I was surprised that Bruce's post didn't get
>>>deleted, even though I did think that the original deletion wasn't justified.
>>>
>>>Now let's return to the hypothetical, but in a similar situation. What would
>>>you do if you found a post to be worthy of deletion and did so, but someone who
>>>is _not_ a moderator restored the post to the web board?
>>>
>>>Dave
>>
>>I would delete the second post as well. What good is moderating the board,
>>making a decision, and then having some third party person restore what was
>>moderated? It makes no sense. I do not care the standing of the individual (with
>>the exception of Steve and he would not do this) within our community in regard
>>to this.
>>
>>Posting a message talking about a deletion is fine. Re-posting the message (even
>>in an attempt to prove your point) is thumbing your nose at the moderators and
>>should not be tolerated. If there is a large controversy over it, Steve and the
>>moderators will decide whether a mistake was made and whether the message should
>>be re-posted.
>
>In the case I brought up, Bruce restored the message, not the original poster
>who made it, and said that if it was deleted again that he would repost it
>again. Yes, he was thumbing his nose at the moderation. Assume that you email
>him personally, and he is unwilling to relent. What will you do?
> a) ban him
> b) let the restored post survive
> c) continue deleting it as many times as necessary
> d) other?
You guys are getting somewhat confused. The post you are talking about is
*mine*. I wrote a post. It contained no offensive content. It was deleted. I
put it back and I threatened to put it back again.
I vaguely remember putting someone else's post back, in the sense that I quoted
it to show that there was nothing offensive in it, but I can't find this post,
and I looked for it. It is possible that this post didn't exist, but I doubt
it. In retrospect I should have gotten permission to put it back.
If anyone out there really thinks that either of these posts *should* have been
deleted, please let me know.
Reading the group at that point was like listening to a radio station that was
breaking up. You heard every other word, because things were being deleted as
fast as they were being written. It was a terrible time, I think, and I was not
the only one who was extremely upset about how things were being conducted.
>Back to the hypothetical, let's say that somebody thumbs their nose at you next
>time? ("Some person who refuses to even tell me who they _are_ decided that my
>message was unworthy and deleted it. I see nothing wrong with it, and I'm
>reposting it, and will continue to do so if it disappears again.") You can
>choose from the same options as above.
If the moderators start hashing people, and these people complain, and the
complaints are deleted, then what are we *supposed* to do here? How do we
discuss this kind of thing if the discussion keeps disappearing? Form some
underground email discussion group on the subject of moderators? Is that
*really* what people expect to happen when things get out of control?
>AFAIK, neither Will nor Bruce have any dislike for each other. Moderation is a
>tough job, but when it's all said and done neither of them are going to hold any
>grudges about it.
I think that Will thinks that I dislike him. As far as I am concerned Will is
two different people. He is the guy who posts those *excellent* u2600 posts,
which I always make it a point to read. And he's the guy who is very quick on
the delete button. As of 1-Jul this second one goes away, and I don't have any
interest in remembering this stuff beyond then. It would be different,
possibly, if we had met in person, but communication here is so one-dimensional
that it is hard to form any lasting opinion about people.
Moderation is a terrible job.
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.