Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 20:07:44 06/08/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 18:31:36, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>
>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.
Sorry, I messed it up then. There was your own post, and there was the post you
restored of Michael Cummings. You had made the threat to put the former back
again if it disappeared, not the latter.
>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.
I didn't, but I wasn't the moderator. :-)
>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
Dave
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.