Author: walter irvin
Date: 13:24:36 07/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 24, 1999 at 14:39:18, James Robertson wrote: >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 >>>>here. >>>> >>>>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 >>>content? >>> >>>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 >>Fingerspitzengefühl/Feingefühl. 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. >>>James >> >>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 s.th. 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. > >James people need to relax sound so uptight, so some one got deleted , big deal no blood no broken bones , i've seen less fuss over someone getting punched in the mouth .i mean if the moderators are strict its just like a football game ,you see what they are calling close and you dont do that . i really dont think there is a moderator who would delete a legitament computer chess thread .
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.