Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I'm not convinced, Bruce.

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 02:34:20 07/23/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 05:14:22, Roger D Davis wrote:

>On July 23, 1999 at 04:28:50, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>On July 23, 1999 at 02:42:34, hgkjhg wrote:
>>>you said Fernando's post was offensive, but even Bruce said it wasn't.  He just
>>>didn't find it interesting; so he decided it took too much space here.  Fernando
>>>also referred that if someone posted a stupid message, than everyone should just
>>>ignore it, that would be a proof that his message is really inappropriate.  And
>>>i don't see anything wrong with Fernando's message at all.  Bruce said that
>>>messages with subjects like fuck u should be deleted right away, but this
>>>message had nothing similar to that.  I find it more offensive to just erase a
>>>message in your face.  And you can't always talk about mtd and other stuff like
>>>that here - many people here don't even know how to play chess.
>>>There must be really something wrong with u if u find it cool to just sit all
>>>night long here and delete someone's messages.  You would've probably deleted
>>>his message if he wrote how much he regretted JFK's death.  When i stay up on
>>>the internet all night, i find it more amusing to visit adult sites, than bug
>>>someone.  I wanted to say so much more, but it's so late that i forgot what to
>>I'm not sure where you got these ideas.
>>When I saw Fernando's post it was immediately obvious that if I left it, the
>>next morning there would be at least one email from a member complaining about
>>the post.  The complaint would suggest that that kind of post didn't belong in
>>the group.  It would ask that the post be deleted.  It would express confusion
>>as to why anyone would think that such a post belonged here.  And this person
>>might reply to the post, expressing similar sentiments in the group, etc.
>>I don't think that it is too strict to say that CCC shouldn't become the dirty
>>joke forum, is it?
>I think perhaps people can disagree intelligently about deleting Fernando's post
>without agreeing that CCC should become a dirty joke forum.
>As I noted in a reply to KarinsDad, the issue is how it was done, not the post
>If it was obvious that there would have been complaints, then IMHO, you should
>have left it. Then you could have argued that the post needed to be brought to
>the attention of the CCC forum at large, since people are complaining, and
>because CCC has heretofore lacked a mechanism whereby moderators moderate each

This is a ridiculous assertion.  If it was obvious that complaints would occur,
the best thing to do is get rid of the damn thing before they occur.  It's a
moderator's fiduciary duty to delete such a post ASAP.

There's a perfectly good mechanism whereby moderators moderate each other, and
Bruce used it.  That Fernando got all bent out of shape about it is tough luck.

>If you had asked what the group wanted to do, the group would have come to some
>consensus, and that consensus might well have reigned in the rogue moderator, or
>not. Fernando might still have resighed. Either way, the result would not have
>been your action and not your responsibility, but that of the group. You would
>have been applauded for your democratic principles, and there would have been no
>appearance of presumptuousness.

We voted for representatives so that we could be a direct democracy anyway?

>My position is that the content of Fernando's post is irrelevant, since CCC
>lacked (and still lacks) an explicit mechanism whereby the moderators can
>moderate themselves in a principled way in which personal popularity can never
>play a role (with this last sentence, I'm trying to make an abstract point,
>here, not point a finger, by the way).

I disagree with the first sentence, see above.

>Now, however, it appears that we have two moderators instead of three, and you
>and KarinsDad have more work to do, and we still need an explicit mechanism
>whereby the moderators can moderate themselves without any appearance of an
>abuse of power.


This page took 0.01 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.