Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: I see 2 minor problems

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
>>>>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.

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.