Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Topicality and the might of moderators...

Author: Fernando Villegas

Date: 12:47:10 07/24/99

Go up one level in this thread

On July 23, 1999 at 18:57:15, Dann Corbit wrote:

>On July 23, 1999 at 18:20:56, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>On July 23, 1999 at 12:07:15, KarinsDad wrote:
>>>On July 23, 1999 at 03:25:12, James Robertson wrote:
>>>>There has been much discussion about how Bruce should have asked a second
>>>>opinion before deleting. I say Fernando should have asked a second opinion
>>>>before posting.
>>>This is about the most rational statement made on this subject that I have read.
>>>KarinsDad :)
>>Rational? My God. So rationality consist in a child being afraid that his daddy
>>will see him reading a joke about a couple of old guys consulting a rabbi. Well,
>>that's really funny.
>I happen to agree with James and I'm 41.
>Why don't we give it a rest?
>So far, we have this:
>1.  A post was deleted.  It contained a joke that a large fraction of the
>reading audience would not find offensive and a large fraction which would find
>it offensive.  Perhaps we Americans do have our buns in a knott.  None-the-less,
>there it is.
>2.  Is a moderator immune to the rules of the group?  I say no.  A post made by
>a moderator is _in no way_ superior to a post made by anyone else.
>3.  Two out of three moderators (Bruce/KarinsDad) clearly *are* in agreement
>that it should have been deleted.  So the argument does not hold that it should
>4.  All of this hoo-hah has lead to something good -- a discussion of
>topicality.  This is always healthy for any newsgroup.  Also, a discussion of
>moderation policies.   This also is a good thing.
>5.  We can clearly see that you feel upset, slighted, and in the right.  In a
>case like this, why not behave the way that _anyone else_ who gets a post cut
>should behave?  Swallow the bitter pill and take it like a man.

It seems we disagree, also, about what it is behaving like a man. For me it is
not just taking the bitter pills other guy coerce us to swallow. It is, on the
contrary, to debate the issue as has been done.

Clearly, the
>world is full of opinions.  I have a viewpoint and you have a viewpoint.  Now, a
>viewpoint is our personal feeling.  There is no such thing as an inferior
>viewpoint or a superior viewpoint.  It is simply how we feel about something.  I
>am making a personal plea to you (for the good of the group) to simply give it
>up, even if you feel you are in the right.

I have no problems with that, I said in my very first post I was going to stay
here, but when some guy insist in depict my behaviour as someting dirty, a trick
to create problems, etc. then you cannot just cross your arms. Anyway, thanks
for yor love. I need it. :-)

>6.  If we must keep discussing topicality (and who am I to say we should stop --
>really?) then why not try to refrain from personal angles.  It seems that we all
>want to point fingers in our messages and decide who was the one with the
>'right' view.  But to discuss things like this, must we try to point out the
>flaws in someone else?  If we stick to the topic and stop aiming our daggers at
>each other, then maybe we can all be nice about it and smile.
>I love Fernando, and I love Bruce and KarinsDad and all the rest.  All nice
>people who like to play chess.  All are valuable and enhance the value of CCC.
>Civilization starts with 'civil' so let's try to behave according to the root

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.