Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I see 2 minor problems

Author: James Robertson

Date: 11:39:18 07/24/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 24, 1999 at 13:15:16, Harald Faber wrote:

>On July 23, 1999 at 12:57:34, James Robertson wrote:
>>On July 23, 1999 at 09:02:57, Harald Faber wrote:
>>>As far as I can see it without knowing Fernandos post, there are 2 problems
>>>1) Fernando kind of overreacted due to his message deletion.
>>>2) Bruce who strictly sticks to the charter.
>>>My personal point of view is that (1) COULD/SHOULD be no problem. When I was
>>>moderator there were also messages deleted that I had written. I had no problem
>>>with that. I was not very lucky about that but I understood and accepted that at
>>>least another moderator saw my posts as inappropriate. Where is the problem to
>>>say, OK, maybe it was wrong and shouldn't be posted here? I know that there are
>>>some guys having big problems with that, some left CCC because of such.
>>>TOLERANCE is the keyword. A bit more tolerance instead of being stubborn and
>>>feeling offended.
>>>The same for Bruce. A bit more tolerance and he wouldn't have deleted that joke.
>>>I am totally aware that this here is a computer chess club, but do we have to
>>>stick that strictly to this? Offtopics should be handled with appropriate
>>>sensitivity. Jokes with Nazis, sodomy etc. are certainly not tolerable but I
>>>don't assume Fernando having made such a joke.
>>>So PROBABLY there wouldn't have a problem risen if more T O L E R A N C E would
>>>exist. That's all I expect from everyone her. And I don't think that I expect
>>>too much.
>>>Think about it.
>>>Harald Faber, glad not to have been elected :-)
>>I will play devil's advocate: the problem with tolerance is who's definition of
>>"tolerance" do we accept? How "tolerant" should we be? Why should _your_
>>definition of "tolerance" be the one used? Why should a joke with Nazis be bad
>>but one with sexual content acceptable? Why should ANYTHING be unacceptable? Can
>>you explain the difference between a joke with Nazis, and one with sexual
>>My point is, my view that both jokes should be deleted is not everyone's. As a
>>result, we need some independent guidlines.
>Do you always need rules and guidelines? I don't. Sorry because I still don't
>have the English word, but all you need is just a bit
>Fingerspitzengef├╝hl/Feingef├╝hl. And remember, there are moderators who were
>elected because the voters think that they handle this best.
>So it is their opinion that counts. If you disagree with their decisions just
>don't vote for them again.
>Easy, isn't it?

Moderators cannot act like kings, but must act like judges, who _interpret_ the
'constitition' (charter in this case). That implies they stick to it.

>>But we do have guidlines, laid out in the CCC charter. It says BOTH groups of
>>jokes are wrong, so delete them and don't look back.
>I agree that some posts could or even should have been via e-mail but why
>complain? As I once said it isn't easy because there is NO list with forbidden
>words so that you can read the messages having the keywords in mind.
>I stil see it easier than you do. Of course I wasn't insulted nor offended.
>But I still ask for more tolerance.
>I BET if someone, in this case it is me, writes like in Mel brooks Life of
>Brian, there is a scene someone asking "Who said Jehova?" and the one who
>says/said is kind of punished. Jehova was the ugly word. What was it here? Is
>there a reason to see it that strong if you aren't concerned directly?
>As I already said I don't see any. Although there are REAL tasteless jokes, like
>about handicapped people.

Refer to my earlier devil's advocate post. Why oh why must we accept your
tolerance? You think tolerance means acceptance of sexual jokes, but NOT
handicapped jokes. What if Jo Schmo thinks that tolerance means acceptance of
sexual jokes AND handicapped jokes, but thinks that blonde jokes are bad? But
what if Jane Doe likes all three, and thinks tolerance means acceptance of all
jokes? Why is YOUR opinion of tolerance BETTER? Why should we 'tolerate' your
opinions about tolerance and NOBODY ELSE'S? Be honest; being tolerant means
accepting *everything*. If you do not accept something you ARE being intolerant.

My point is we CANNOT agree on what to tolerate. We _must_ have an independent
guidline, right or wrong, that we agree to and will _not_ break. It is the ONLY
way to have peace.


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.